[kgr]

Most of the time I play MP's, with 5 card M and 4card ♦ opening (short ♣) and 15-17NT.
To bring some changes I consider to start playing 12-14 NT opening and no 5-card M.
And open 1♣ with strong NT hands: so 1♣-1X-1NT would be 15-17 HCP.
Questions:
1. Opening 1NT and using transfer and stayman is useful to let the strong hand play. This is less usefull when playing weak NT and therefor this is an disadvantage of weak NT?
2. Looking at vue graph I see that a lot of top players play strong NT. Any idea of the % of top players that play some kind of natural system do play weak or strong NT?
3. Playing weak NT as described above what do you open with 12-14 and:
xxxx=xxxx=xxxx=x with a small ♣
Suppose you open 1♦: what do you bid after 1♦-2♣? 2NT would show 15+?
4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?
... any other suggestions/remarks welcome.

Koen

[EarlPurple]

Quote

1. Opening 1NT and using transfer and stayman is useful to let the strong hand play. This is less usefull when playing weak NT and therefor this is an disadvantage of weak NT?

Why is it a disadvantage? Many pairs who play weak NT also play transfers, not because of it placing the declaration, but because of the extra space. You can bid 2♦ over your partner's 1NT to show 5 hearts, then continue on to show your hand more descriptively, i.e. invitational and forcing hands.

Some pairs prefer to use the 2♥ and 2♠ bid as sign-off in that situation. It is slightly more difficult to compete over this as there is no "free" double of the transfer available. But the trade-off is that you have to find other ways to describe the stronger and invitational hands. Players who use this will often use both 2♣ and 2♦ as asking bids, with 2♦ being a "forcing to game" variation (known as forcing Stayman) while 2♣ is not forcing to game (and is used in sign-off sequences in minors, possibly with a 4-card major on the side).

Quote

2. Looking at vue graph I see that a lot of top players play strong NT. Any idea of the % of top players that play some kind of natural system do play weak or strong NT?

Most of the time you are watching vu-graph you are watching IMPs not MP. There is a difference, and I think weak NT works better at MP, but can be dangerous at IMPs because you are more likely to go for a big number. However many play weak NT at IMPs even vulnerable in the UK. If they had more vu-graph from the UK you'd probably see more use of weak NT.

Quote

3. Playing weak NT as described above what do you open with 12-14 and:
xxxx=xxxx=xxxx=x with a small ♣

Acol players would open 1♥, not 1♦ and the rebid would be 2♦. It is not without its dangers, as partner may give false-preference to 2♥ with a 2-card suit and you'll end up in a 4-2 fit (assuming it is non-forcing).

With 12 points you'd probably want to pass.

With 13 or 14 points, you would want to open, and might decide to open 1NT to avoid the rebid problem. Authorities are very much against opening 1NT with a singleton, but I don't see why. Who are they protecting? If I want to open 1NT with a singleton, I know the opps might run off 5 tricks in the suit, but they might do anyway even if both my partner and I have 3, even if I have Q10x.

The other alternative is to play that 1♦-2♣-2NT shows a wide-ranging hand or to play that it is weak. In that case if you have 15+ points you must either leap to 3NT (not that unreasonable, as partner will have at least 10 points for his 2 over 1 and you have 15) or invent some other bid. (I prefer the leap to 3NT).

I've heard players say that weak NT goes better with 4-card majors but I disagree. I played it for years with 5-card majors, which leads us to:

Quote

4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?
... any other suggestions/remarks welcome.

One of the features of a weak NT is that an opening bid of 1 of a suit is never a balanced 12-14. So when you open 1♣ you are either showing extra strength (at least 15 points) or extra shape.

If you simply raise 1♥ to 2♥ partner may be able to come up with an invitational game-try holding a 9-11 count, would happily pass with most 6-8 point hands, would probably go straight to game with 12+. The losing trick count should produce a good guide here. You'll see that a 3-4-1-5 12 count probably has the same number of losers as a 3-4-2-4 15-count.

[NickToll]

As an advocate of weak notrump, I appreciate not only its frequency and preemptive effect, but also (and primarily) the indirect benefits on a number of sequences starting with a suit bid: your opening suit is "real" whenever you rebid in other than notrump. Moreover, if you play 4card majors your suit is real from the moment you open: usually you have 5 or more cards, and if you have only 4 then you have extra values. Lots of advantages, well beyond the dreaded "down-a-bunch" which you could get every now and then.

About your questions:

1. Transfers are as useful as over a strong notrump. It's not that much about who plays the contract: it's about how many sequences we have when responding to 1NT. Transfers greatly increase responder's options.

2. I don't know who can say this. For a start, three out of the four best Italian pairs (Lauria-Versace, Bocchi-Duboin, Fantoni-Nunes, Buratti-Lanzarotti) use to play weak notrump, some of them returning to strong notrump at red.

3. I like a convention which allows opener to rebid 2♥ with four diamonds and a minimum (rebid 2♦ with five) OR as a reverse into hearts: partner relays with 2♠ to find out, and opener clears up with:
- 2NT: minimum, 4.4.4.1, singleton club;
- 3♣: minimum, 4.4.4.1, four clubs (a minor 2suiter with 5 bad diamonds is fine);
- 3♦ and more: reverse into hearts.

4. Playing 5card majors, I would open 1♦ with all minor 2suiters and use diamonds rebids for better definition:
- 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT: 15-17, balanced, less than four hearts;
- 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦: 15-17, balanced, four hearts (2H would be 11-14 unbalanced, with real clubs);
- 1♣ - 1♥ - 2NT: 18-19, balanced, less than four hearts;
- 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♦: 18-19, balanced, four hearts.
- 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT: rebid in clubs, longer diamonds;
- 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣: rebid in clubs, canapè;
- 1♦ - 1♥ - 2NT: jump-shift in clubs, longer diamonds;
- 1♦ - 1♥ - 3♣: jump-shift in clubs, canapè.
Playing 4card majors, all this science is not necessary: open 15+ balanced in your 4card major, if you have one. You find quickly your major fit when you have a balanced hand, and your partner can raise with 3card support as if you had promised a 5card suit. If you are minimum, you have it. If you have not, you have extra values and are able to suggest notrump.

[hotShot]

Quote

Most of the time I play MP's, with 5 card M and 4card ♦ opening (short ♣) and 15-17NT.
To bring some changes I consider to start playing 12-14 NT opening and no 5-card M.
And open 1♣ with strong NT hands: so 1♣-1X-1NT would be 15-17 HCP.
Questions:

There is no need to give up 5card M's just because playing weak NT, you can open NT with a 4card major any time.

Quote

1. Opening 1NT and using transfer and stayman is useful to let the strong hand play. This is less usefull when playing weak NT and therefor this is an disadvantage of weak NT?

It is usefull, because your p is still more likely not be stronger than you are. You need to adapt point ranges for stayman to make it game forcing e.g. 11+ hcp will do.
Since transfer forces p to bid, you can bid on the next round when you are strong. You need to decide if the second suit bid ist is a long or a short suit.
You need to define a clear range when to pass the bid. And you need well defines escape sequences to avoid playing 1NTX if neccesary.

You have to know what 1NT-X-(pass)- pass means. So that you can redbl if you are 4333 minimum and leave partner the choice of play.

Quote

2. Looking at vue graph I see that a lot of top players play strong NT. Any idea of the % of top players that play some kind of natural system do play weak or strong NT?

Can't help you there.

Quote

3. Playing weak NT as described above what do you open with 12-14 and:
xxxx=xxxx=xxxx=x with a small ♣
Suppose you open 1♦: what do you bid after 1♦-2♣? 2NT would show 15+?

You could play Walsh meaning that p has to show a 4 card M first.
In that case 2♣ means your p does not have a 4 card M so you don't have a fit there.
Or you can define it so strong that you have a game with maximum, so there is no problem.

Quote

4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?
... any other suggestions/remarks welcome.

You bid 1NT. Now you play you NT rebid weak, if you NT is weak, your rebid is strong. THere is still time to show yout support.

[luke warm]

Quote

1. Opening 1NT and using transfer and stayman is useful to let the strong hand play. This is less usefull when playing weak NT and therefor this is an disadvantage of weak NT?

i prefer 2M as a signoff, mainly for the reasons earl mentioned... i prefer 2c as invitational puppet/garbage (meaning i'll pass whatever pard responds if the garbage variety) and 2d as game forcing stayman

Quote

2. Looking at vue graph I see that a lot of top players play strong NT. Any idea of the % of top players that play some kind of natural system do play weak or strong NT?

i'm not even sure of the number of top players that play some sort of 'natural' system (however that's defined)... imo, from my kibbing, it sure seems that many hands opened 1m, that fall within the 12-15 balanced range, would seem to have been better served by an immediate 1nt bid

Quote

3. Playing weak NT as described above what do you open with 12-14 and:
xxxx=xxxx=xxxx=x with a small ♣
Suppose you open 1♦: what do you bid after 1♦-2♣? 2NT would show 15+?

this is a system thing... if you don't have a bid to show the roman hand, and if you play 5M, 1d has to be your bid (or pass, which might be better)... after 1d/2c, i guess it depends on what 2c means... if it's game forcing, i'd bid out my shape

Quote

4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?

playing weak nt here, i'd bid 2h.. partner either has a bust or an invitational type hand (forget the game forcing hand, he knows what to do)... with the bust, he'll pass... imagine you rebid 1nt... he'd still pass, right? with the invitational hand, he'll probably make some move toward game, in which case it'd be difficult for him to believe you have 4 card support (if you bid 1nt now)

[keylime]

In my eyes, 12-14 NT is superior than 15-17 NT for SAYC (and starting to think 2/1 as well).

It comes with a higher percentage of use, it gets your hand across, and 3rd seat is sitting nice.

I like double-barrel Stayman myself.

[Free]

If you like 12-14, then just play 11-14, it's even better

[fred]

I learned to play bridge in Canada and Eric Kokish (a dedicated weak notrumper) has serious influence on expert thinking in that country (rightly so - he is both a brilliant theorist and an absolutely great player). As a result, after I had spent a few years playing a very simple (strong notrump based) bidding system and focusing most of my efforts on becoming a good card player, I started to play a weak notrump system with most of my regular partners. I spent about 10 years doing this and I was 100% convinced that the weak notrump was the way to go.

The 2nd top player who I formed a regular partnerhsip with was George Mittelman (the first was Joey Silver). George is perhaps the only other active Canadian player besides Eric who would be considered "truly world class" these days. He, like me, had spent much of his bridge career playing weak notrumps as well. As such, I was surprised when George insisted that we use a strong notrump system.

When I asked him why he said something like "it's easier and you will find that by playing a strong notrump you will have more energy available for the things that really matter (like judgment and card play)".

It did not take me long to decide that George was right - I found that I had far fewer bidding problems (especially in competitive auctions) playing strong notrump than I had when I played weak notrump. I also found that I was playing better and making far fewer stupid errors. Not sure if the switch in notrump ranges was 100% responsible for this (the fact that George tends to have a temper tantrum and throw his cards at his partner when he does something stupid likely also contributed), but I clearly recall that playing strong notrump felt very liberating. It was like a tremendous weight had been lifted from my shoulders.

In real life there is a big difference between playing the best possible system and the best system possible. Kokish could likely make a convincing theoretical argument as to why weak notrump was a necessary component of the best possible system, but in my opinion, the baggage that necessarily goes along with playing such a system means that it cannot be the best possible system (for me at least).

In my opinion, unless your system is completely ridiculous, it doesn't matter very much what methods you use. Every bridge match I have ever played in has been decided by judgment, luck, and the number of errors made by each team. System sometimes matters, but usually it is for random reasons. FAR more important is being able to play the best you can play and that is largely a function of comfort and energy level. For me strong notrump is comfortable and weak notrump is not.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

I also dislike the 12-14 NT. Now, the 9-11 on the other hand...

[EricK]

fred, on Feb 6 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

It did not take me long to decide that George was right - I found that I had far fewer bidding problems (especially in competitive auctions) playing strong notrump than I had when I played weak notrump.

This is interesting.

I would have thought that wondering whether partner had a distributional hand or a weak NT hand for his 1 level opening would have made competitive bidding much harder. Playing a weak NT you at least know that if partner is balanced he will extra HCP.

Eric

[luke warm]

to each his own... nt range is just another treatment/convention that isn't right or wrong, good or bad, per se... i do try to kib a lot of good players, usually with an aim of seeing how such and such a bid would fare against another

[fred]

EricK, on Feb 6 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 6 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

It did not take me long to decide that George was right - I found that I had far fewer bidding problems (especially in competitive auctions) playing strong notrump than I had when I played weak notrump.

This is interesting.

I would have thought that wondering whether partner had a distributional hand or a weak NT hand for his 1 level opening would have made competitive bidding much harder. Playing a weak NT you at least know that if partner is balanced he will extra HCP.

Eric

Here is an example of why weak notrump systems are hard to play:

Playing a weak notrump system you open 1C and LHO makes a weak jump overcall of 2S. Your partner has a relatively balanced 9-count that doesn't contain 4 hearts. How do you suggest the bidding goes from here?

Most weak notrump players who have not thought about this issue seriously think that responder has to Pass because a negative double would "promise" at least 4 hearts.

That doesn't work very well. When 2S is passed around to opener he is then under a lot of pressure. Bidding 2NT in the balancing position with a 16-count is an overbid (and he has to do the same thing with 18-19 point hands so responder won't know what to do over 2NT if he has a 7-count). Reopening with a double on offshape hands is a bad idea to begin with - especially when responder will have no idea what opener's hand looks like and won't know what to do. Passing out 2S will seem like the best option on a lot of hands, but it is not exactly a good thing to defend 2S undoubled when you have a totally normal 3NT your way.

The best solution is to play the negative double to mean "I have interest in game if you have a strong notrump" (as opposed to promising values and 4 cards in hearts as is "standard"). Furthermore, if opener does have a strong notrump he should always rebid 2NT and you should then have methods over that to investigate possible 4-4 and 5-3 heart fits and to find out about stoppers (since opener may have 4 hearts and may not have a stopper).

This approach works remarkably well when opener has a strong notrump, but it works remarkably badly when he has an unbalanced minimum. Suppose he has something like a 3415 12-count for example. Does he bid 3C over his partner's negative double and risk missing a heart fit or does he bid 3H instead and risk playing in a non-fit at a high level when his partner lacks 4 hearts? Don't bother answering this question - there is no good answer.

Despite problems like this one, I did become convinced that it was best to play most 1 and 2-level doubles by responder to say "I have game interest if you have a strong notrump" and to play most such doubles (and redoubles) by opener to say "I have a strong notrump". If you buy this and if you have become attached to support doubles, you had better get used to not playing them when you use a weak notrump system - you can't have it both ways.

Competitive auctions that take place at the 1 and 2-level are often managable (if not effectively managable) if you play this way. 3-level competitive auctions are another story.

Suppose you open 1C, LHO passes, partner bids 1H, and RHO jumps to 3S.

If you as opener have a strong notrump, it is quite dangerous to either double (to show a strong notrump or 18-19 of course - how is partner supposed to know?) or to just shoot out 3NT yourself. Your partner might have a minimum response and, in this case, you really do not want to be involved in the bidding at this level. So you pretty much have to pass if you have a strong notrump.

Now 3S is passed around to your partner who has that balanced 9-count again and, believe me, he is going to be feeling SERIOUS pressure. He knows that at most other tables (where people play strong notrumps) the bidding will go 1NT-3NT and the opening leader won't know to lead a spade. If he passes he risks missing an easy 3NT and, if he bids or doubles, he risks getting to a VERY silly contract when his partner has the minimum unbalanced hand.

Playing strong notrumps these sorts of auctions are not difficult - you don't mind passing out the opponents in 2S or 3S when you have a 9-count because your partner likely has a weak notrump, you are most unlikely to have a game, and you have a good chance to go plus on defense.

Another bad auction for weak notrump systems occurs when you open 1 of a minor and they overcall 1NT. This is also a horrible auction for the "Swedish club" type systems (in fact I suggest you overcall 1NT as often as possible when you play against either a weak notrump or a Swedish club pair). Also you have probably figured out that, if you opps play a weak notrump system, you will do well to compete agressively after their 1 of a minor opening bids.

Hope this helps explain why I feel the way I do about this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

It all depends on the system you're playing. In most strong ♣ systems, weak NT works out better than strong. However, in natural you might have problems. As always a treatment has both advantages and disadvantages. You'll win a lot on hands where you can open your weak NT, where you might lose a lot on hands where you have your strong NT hand. Imo, if the changes gain more than you lose, then your new system is better than the previous one...

[fred]

luke warm, on Feb 6 2005, 09:07 PM, said:

to each his own... nt range is just another treatment/convention that isn't right or wrong, good or bad, per se... i do try to kib a lot of good players, usually with an aim of seeing how such and such a bid would fare against another

I agree with this 100% and I think it's great that, despite it being obvious from your posts that you are a strong player already, that you realize there are still things to learn by watching others play and thinking about the hands. Lots of strong (and not so strong) players would benefit from having your kind of attitude.

I suspect you have also figured out that the learning process never ends- the more I learn about this game the more I realize how little I (and everyone else) really knows!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cowology]

fred, on Feb 6 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

I suspect you have also figured out that the learning process never ends- the more I learn about this game the more I realize how little I (and everyone else) really knows!

co-signs

[luke warm]

well luckily on bbo there are more than enough really good players who are willing to talk as long as i want any time i want... i could name them all here, but it would take too long... they know who they are... if anything though, sometimes i see a tad too much dogmaticism... reminds me of the chess master who, upon being told by the patzer, "you are a God" said, "yes it's true, but what a responsibility"...

and i agree with free that playing a strong club system and a weak nt works out very well, especially if the 1 bids guarantee unbalanced (2 suited), limited, hands... back when i was working on incorporating weak nt into 2/1, it only 'worked' if 1H could be 4+ and not 5+... i don't think that's such a bad thing, btw

[Patapon]

fred, on Feb 6 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

In my opinion, unless your system is completely ridiculous, it doesn't matter very much what methods you use. Every bridge match I have ever played in has been decided by judgment, luck, and the number of errors made by each team. System sometimes matters, but usually it is for random reasons. FAR more important is being able to play the best you can play and that is largely a function of comfort and energy level. For me strong notrump is comfortable and weak notrump is not.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I agree with you Fred when you say it doesn’t matter very much what methods you use.
Nevertheless I think the system you use should depend of the type of event you play in and of the skill level of your opponents.

-In ‘weak’ pairs tournaments people are not familiar with the weak notrump-at least in Europe-
Then playing the weak notrump destabilises them and they make more mistakes than usual. Even if you feel less comfortable with weak notrump , your opponents who are not used to this system are more uncomfortable than you are!
In a strong field, playing a system you feel comfortable with is surely better for your ‘energy level’.

-In a teams match, I think you should evaluate the skill level of your opponents before deciding what system you play.
When you play exactly the same system as your opponents and if your team is better than theirs then most of the time you’ll win the match. The same contracts from the same hand will be reached and the best team will win 95% of the time.

If you assess that your opponents are much stronger than you are then maybe your best chance is not to play the same system. Playing weak NT while they play strong NT will often change the course of the auction, the declarer and then the lead

The problem-so you tell me- is that you can’t change your system in the middle of an event.
This is true, but sometimes you have the choice of your opponents. In most of the international teams’ event the winner of the round-robin can pick up a team between the four last qualified teams.
Then if you hesitate between two teams, I think you should better choose the team who play the same system than yours, or if one pair in the opponent’s team play the week notrump then seat your ‘weak notrumps’ pair’ in the same orientation.

Benedicte

[cherdano]

Hi Benedict,

to me it seems you are missing Fred's main point: the most important aspect is that you use methods that you are comfortable with. Maybe you are a genius and have no problems switching from one system to another for every match. Most other players from beginners to true world class don't seem to have this ability...

And anyway, if I am playing vs a stronger team, I would rather try to become better and beat them by making less mistakes than them, rather than trying to randomize the results by all means. At least as long as my pay-check doesn't depend on how many bridge team matches I win...

Arend

[Deanrover]

You don't need to be a genius to switch from Weak NT to Strong NT.

And playing the opposite system of your (superior opponent) makes plenty of sense.

Say your team has an Expected Loss (EL) of 1 IMP/board to your opponents. The Standard Deviation (SD) per board is 4 IMPs if you both play the same NT. You play a 16 board knockout match. I may return to do the calculations, but lets says changing the NT you play to the opposite increases the SD to 5, your chances of winning should go up considerably, and you would even be willing to accept a small increase in EL for this extra SD.

[Patapon]

cherdano, on Feb 7 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

Maybe you are a genius and have no problems switching from one system to another for every match.
Arend

I am not a genius i am afraid :(
Because I don't understand a word of Dean's last post! :)

Bene