irdoz

I have done a lot of online directing. The situation that Michael describes where: 1. Someone is exteremely upset about a failure to alert or inadequate disclosure and is expecting some 'reward' but there was no possiblity of damage; and 2. The failure to alert or inadequate disclosure is real - but sometimes it is trivial or minor and the response to it out of proportion to the "offense". This is so familiar and common in my online directing experience. In the instance Michael describes both parties are 'in the wrong' - '2+ clubs' is inadequate disclosure - and it may be the case that the director call was inappropriate - and neither party will be happy whatever the director does - and in the pressure of an online tournament, with the emotional heat already escalated, with the pressure of time, and the lack of time to patiently explain and with communication restricted to the typed word, when english may not be anybody's first language and without all the advantages of non-verbal communication skills - the director has a very difficult task. Very often in these situations I feel like my task is facilitate the process of getting all sides to move on to the next board or next round, to communicate that there is no damage and then afterwards I will endevour to speak privately to both parties about aspects of what happened after the event is over and when hopefully a state of calm has returned. There are two common personality types in common operation a) the failure to alert and the imroper disclosure police - who feel any infraction automatically results in damage and because they identified it they should be rewarded... these people have lost the intent of alerting and disclosing... it is not so that these behaviours can be policed for reward.. and most often they do not understand that there are two sufficent and necessary essential requirements for an adjustment to occur - the failure to alert or inadequate disclosure AND actual damage... not hurt feelings or 'they did wrong so I should be rewarded or at least they should be publically chastised' by the director 'so they know I am right'. :D the person who understands the rules, can argue their case, whose grasp of english is excellent but still discloses inadequately and perhaps deliberately so his is much rarer but it does happen. Of interest to me is the primary purpose of alerting and disclosure when the opponent has not in fact encountered the convention or system before. I'm not of the school 'you should just know'. Nor do I believe the coded information on a cc is necessarily sufficient. It is genuinely the case that many people starting on BBO will have initially not encountered WJ2000 or Polish club before. Therefore what should they know about 1c in order to facilitate their defense, or do we decide thats just impossible and they will have to go and learn how to defend against variable 1c for their next tournament? For me disclosing that Polish 1 club is say... i) 11-17 clubs unbalanced (not including 11-14 hands with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major) ii) All 18+ hcp hands iii) Balanced hands of 12-14 hcp is not useful - except for the disclosure police - but for someone who has never encountered Polish 1c that is next to useless. The essential information for me is: i) it includes weak and strong hands ii) about 90% of the time it will be weak so you should use whatever methods you use over standard american 1c opens And advanced information might be iii) it is forcing - so you can pass with strong balanced hands if you are interested in a possible penalty double... It seems to me that most often the function of an alert will be inform the opps about a method they are familiar with and know how to defend against is being used - in this context disclosure has no great purpose. However, where they are unfamiliar then disclosure has a real purpose... and its not just what's on the cc in terms of the coded description of the bid - but the inferences and defense that is more important - and in my experience these things are rarely volunteered...

I agree with the other comments and I know the problem says 2nt asks for 2nd suit... I have played a method where playing Lucas twos 2nt is lebensohl and 3c is pass or correct to second suit. Using this method 3nt direct (2h-3nt) is to play but the sequence 2h-2nt-3c-3nt asks for 2nd suit at the 4 level and is slam going.

I am confused by Mike and Ben's comments. The way I read the auction is that North bid the grand slam (not south). North has no way of counting 13 tricks and from norths perpective the slam may rely on the Q of spades and discarding any club losers on the long spades (maybe I'm not seeing it right...) - but as north has not shown their king of spades before 6h i don't think 7h is too unreasonable (and the initial comment about bidding 7h over 5sp seems right to me if you were going to bid it after 6d-6h anyway and north knows the king of spades is likely to be a key card)

What started out as a discussion of cheating accusations has now turned into a discussion of actual cheating, how sad cheats are and what people would like to do to them. The problem with too much focus on actual cheating is that it may make accusations more likely. If you foster an environment of suspicion then it tends to foster i) more cheating ("everyone's doing it") and ii) more accusation. I think it's better to provide ethical leadership and reinforce that the vast bulk of bridge players do not illegally communicate or deleiberately play slowly in tournaments etc. etc. and that most bridge players do not do these things - ie state it in the positive rather than whine about the small proportion who behave in a reprhensible manner. In my experience the vast bulk of bridge players do not and would never cheat. That is not to say sadly that cheating is not way to frequent online - but it is a lot less frequent than you would imagine from these discussions. I have directed online for close to three years and have received as a director many complaints implying something irregular in relation to potential illegal communication. For about 95% of these complaints there was a perfectly rational explanation for the bidding or play. In other words most accusations are based on ignorance. Even in regards to what looks like deliberate slow play there is often an explanation such as technology or actually needing to think. But the assumption is always the worst one. In a recent event here my partner had to recount the hand on the second last trick (leading to Q10 with the AJ missing - recounting HCP locates the A based on the bidding) - there was 3 on the clock - but when she paused for 15 seconds the opps called the director and made an accusation about deliberate stalling. The amount of work involved in "proving" cheating is large. I have collected and monitored hands at the site I mostly play on and referred them to the management. For some pairs the patterns are relatively obvious. But where the behaviour is infrequent or intermittent, or the players are of average skill level, then it may be impossible to prove. I don't think there are easy answers that don't involve an immense amount of effort - there certainly isn't a technological fix.

The whole reason for self-alerts is that it avoids the problems of UI. If it is left to partner to alert he may not alert a conventional call and you have the problem of lack of alerts. If you alert and partner explains you have the problem of UI - partner knows that an alert has occurred because of the query. Self-alerting just makes more sense and is more sensible and logical. It is the technology that allows the far more sensible and logical self-alerts. The equivalent f2f technology is screens. In the case rain mentions where you haven't discussed whether you're playing rkcb 0413 or 1340 then that in essence is your problem. If it's a casual game with a pick up partner and not in a tournament then I for one am not going to object to you discussing which method you are playing openly in the room chat. It is bridge we are playing - not psychological games moderated by legalese. The intent of the laws is that all people at the table are i) aware of what bids should mean and ii) have access to the same level of information. The intent is to facilitate the playing of bridge fairly - not to use of the laws to gain some tiny advantage for the cost of bad feeling. And for me when people are playing with a pickup partner Id prefer them to let them form an agreement about a bid rather than have 3 people in the dark - that seems closer to bridge and that's why I say the context for online bridge is different - in face to face you don't usually start to play a game with a new partner with 5 seconds discussion before the bidding begins.

And I've always understood 'diamond bust' or 'club bust' slightly differently. Bust means a hand thats broke or a poor hand (no disagreement there). Rather than a diamond bust being a 1d negative I've always understood 'diamond bust' to mean a poor hand with diamonds or 'club bust' a poor hand with clubs...but it wouldn't surprise me if hog is right.

If you are playing with a partner who is more likely to know that 1x-2nt is unusual for the 2 lower suits than your opps then you have an implied agreement and 'not discussed' is a total furphy. Using this method good players who understand the most common competitive bidding agreements and methods would never discuss anything and answer 'not discussed' to most things - this is giving them an unfair advantage. This is NOT the intent of alerting and disclosure laws. The small amount you may gain from a strict (and probably wrong) application of the law versus what you potentially lose in bad feeling is simply not worth it in my opinion. Let's say an auction goes 1x-pass-pass-2nt and you know that your partner may take it as unusual even though a standard meaning of 2nt in this position is 18-19 hcp balanced which is what you have. When asked I will say '18-19 hcp balanced' because I assume that partner knows this meaning even though I know there is a high chance they will take it as unusual. In f2f the alert and explanation may clue in partner. In online bridge where you self-alert and explain on the basis of an assumed agreement then your side may be at some tiny disadvantage - but if it's your side who don't have an agreement about standard bids or have a misunderstanding then you should be at that disadvantage. People schooled in f2f will keep repeating the arguments they have learnt appropriate for that environment. Self-alerting and playing regularly with pick-up partners in an online environment totally changes the possiblities - and the unthinking application of argument learnt from a face-to-face environment with a totally different context (partner alerts and explains) I find very unconvincing.

This thread makes interesting reading. A few thoughts of my own to pollute this thread.... Computer games are not mindless. I've played many. Go to some RPG onllne sites and youll find over 50,000 people playing at any one time (mostly under 25 year olds) with thriving 'virtual communities' associated with them. Many so called mindless computer games offer significant intellectual challenges... I only say this not because I think they compare to bridge - but because unless you understand their attraction you'll never understand how to market bridge to the next generation. IMHO bridge thrived in the past because it was marketed well, there was not as many alternatives, it was a social activity that could be played by extended families and social groups (something that rarely seems to happen in my culture now anyway), and it blended well with the dominant cultural values and mores of the time. There are some places like Holland and Poland where bridge still appears to be integrated into patterns of social and family life, and in Turkey, India, China and Indonesia where bridge appears to be thriving - although some (not all) of these places have huge populations and the large numbers of online players from these countries may just reflect that or it may be something about alternatives and values in those places. While claims have been made about bridge thriving in Australia that is not my experience..I am within walking distance of three clubs and none of them seem to be doing particularly well..and there is only one night a week in one club where I am likely to find people within thirty years of my age. I learnt bridge on the Internet and started playing face to face here with someone who also learnt on the Internet. As a result we played 'americanised' bridge and 2 over 1 - and in Australia with its 'liberal system regulations' we copped a lot of grief for playing 'wierd foreign methods'. What made bridge suitable for me was the Internet. On the net a whole lot of barriers get broken down like age, nationality, class. Going out at night to be social with a bunch of people over double my age doesn't really work for me. Jumping on my computer at 5am in the morning and playing a tournament with a partner on the other side of the world and then going to work fits better with the way my life is organised. I have met dozens of people my age where playing a few sessions at odd hrs at their convenience fits into their lives whereas playing f2f at night doesnt. I see online bridge as an integal part of the future of this game - and not as part of some recruiting strategy for getting new people to play face to face - while that will happen it is also the case that many people - both old and young - prefer to play on the Internet. "Real" bridge will only ever be recognised through what happens in face to face competition because of the unsolvable cheating problems endemic in online bridge. Online bridge should be recognised as a different game, played in a different media with different rules. For example, online bridge allows self-alerting. When I am queried if I have no agreement with my partner I disclose what I think my partner should know (or what I intended the bid to mean)..so often I get the firm lecture that 'your opps are not entitled to know more than yr partner' and 'if there's no agreement say so'...I think this is an example of a lack of lateral thinking, and not in the spirit of the intent of the laws. If anything would have put me off this game it is the highly emotional contestation over alerts and disclosure and the laws in online bridge. The first tournament I played in was onlnie. I knew nothing about many aspects of the laws, and my obligations. Suddenly I found myself made to feel like a criminal because I didnt alert 2nt in an auction 1nt-2c-2d-2nt as "May not have a 4 card major'. Directors having to deal with angst about alerts, disclosure and the rules, often rushed off their feet (I went and got qualified as a director and have directed online for over 2 years now) in an environment where many people do not communicate in english and where the only mechanism of communication is typed words when 90% of communication is non-verbal cues that don't operate online is a major challenge. So often I want to say relax, relax, relax in response to lots of online bridge behaviour...and I wish I could bring my script pad when I direct. So one aspect in thinking about 'the future of bridge' might be articles about online bridge - about survival skills online, about how to communicate, about tolerance for cultural diversity and language differences, about the fact that ACBL laws, alerts and procedures aren't global, about how to find partners, about how to deal with some of the problematic personality types (the lecturing expert, the resulter, the implied accusations of cheating, the poor sport etc.) and some introductory guides to bridge online and tournament behaviour. Thats enuff pollution...

Here are three sites with lots of links to other bridge sites... http://www.boyacks.freeserve.co.uk/links.htm - malcolm's bridge links http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/ - Great Bridge Links http://www.geocities.com/aw3004/menusto1.htm - alex wagner's page There are loads of sites out there..ever growing - lots of dross and some gems..it depends what sort of articles you want. For example.. http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/ - has a great write up of different weak 2 methods http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/ - karen's bridge library - a good basic site overviewing standard american http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/ - daniel niell's system page with links to lots of different system write ups. Theres lots of sites I've found useful. Also useful when you are after a particular topic is www.google.com

I used to get annoyed by the 'vwdp' - particularly when you'd misdefended or misplayed. However. in my experience 99.99% of these vwdp's are typed by people who do not know better and who do not know it is a breach of bridge etiquette. On the zone it is very common - and there it is mostly done by weak players with the (good) intention of making their partner feel good and who actually think they are being a polite and well mannered partner. The best strategy when these 'vwdp'. 'nto' etc. acronyms appear inappropriately is to deliberately not 'see' them. Reacting to them may make you lose focus...then the thoughtless produces an undesired outcome on you. In the vast bulk of cases I do not beleive this is deliberate rudeness. And very often a vwdp will be produced by the same person when their partner has made say 10 tricks in a 4 major contract, matchpoint scoring, when they were cold for 11 tricks. Have a chuckle about it...and focus on the next hand. While I know it can be annoying, there's a lot more important things worth being annoyed about.

In the Robson-Segal book over an overcall they suggest :- 2nt as a 4 card limit+ raise with a high ODR Non-jump cue as a 3 card limit+ raise or 4 cards with a low ODR

TheHog (Ron) "With all due respect Lenze, some of the names you mention would not make my personal list of the 200 world's best ever." Inquiry "However, since Ron suggested NONE on Lenze's list would make the top 200" Hmmm.

Here's a few reasons to open 1nt sometimes with 5M... 1. It's more likely the strong hand will be declarer 2. When partner has a minimum hand (but still enough for a forcing 1nt response) it keeps the bidding a level lower as they will pass 1nt 3. After 1h-2h with a balanced 17 you will often invite game by bidding 2nt anyway... only to go off in 3h (particularly when construcive raises go through forcing 1nt). In deciding whether to open 5-3-3-2 15-17 1nt or 1M a) I tend to make a judgement based on the hand.. For example Axx Axxxx Axx Kx looks like a hand to play in a suit whereas.. QJ9 QJ10xx AQx Kx looks like a 1nt hand. ;) If the hand doesn't scream 1nt or 1M then I use the following rule of thumb.. With 17 open 1M and rebid 2nt over 1nt With (14)15-16 I open 1nt With (14)15 and hearts I open 1h and rebid 1nt over a 1s response I don't play puppet over 1nt.

Everyone has their favorite nt interference method. I have been playing WONT in the direct seat (written up on the ETM system site...http://www.bridgematters.com/overnt.htm). This is designed for weak no trump and it has a couple of features I like... 1. The double is well defined as i) 18+ ii) 14-18 with a 4M and a 4 card second suit iii) 14-18 (or less depending on club suit quality) with clubs and an outside entry This allows a penaltyish double on most 14-18 hands with easy sequences for places to play when advancer is bust. 2. The method in direct seat mostly transfers so that the advancer is more likely to be declarer. This means the weak no trump bidder is on opening lead into the strong hand.

I've played Woolsey versus weak no trump. It's advantages are the ability to scramble to find a fit on the 2-level and its constructive sequences (both important versus weak nt). The version I learnt did not include a penalty option as part of the dbl and I'd be interested to see a reference where all balanced 14hcp+(or some other hcp) hands are included in the x because this seems to undermine the whole structure. Against strong nt we played: X was 5m/4M (sometimes 6m/4M and sometimes 3-1-4-5 in balance) or a hand with long diamonds intending to pass the 2d response. We also doubled with big balanced hands (18+) and bid 2nt over the response (This was to expose comic 1nt bids which is a favorite trick of a couple of people we regularly play) Against weak no trump we took the long diamond hand out of the double and X was the 5m/4M shape and promised 14+ hcp so advancer could convert to penalties.

I tried partnership bidding with my regular partner today (weve been doing this a couple of hours a week for a while and find it really useful) and I didnt see an option to turn on competitive bidding. Is it because I don't have version 3.5.4 downloaded (and if not how do I do this). I'd be grateful if someone can point me in the right direction...

The only thing I've found is View New posts (top right) - lists those posts that are new since you last logged on - but you have to click on each one to read them My assistant (top right) - Has an option to list all of the current days posts. (I assume thats the last 24 hrs posts)

David Stevenson lists about 58 conventional defenses to 1nt beginning at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt0.htm I'm sure this is not what you want...but the reasons for choosing a particular defense (versus weak and versus strong no trump) and any differences between the immmediate and balancing seat...

I've met this problem auction for 4th suit forcing (1d-1s-2c-2h) 3 or 4 times when I've had a weak hand with 5/5 in the majors. I've done what trptrbl suggests with this sort of hand - rebid spades because 2h would be 4SF. However, twice partner has had a hand shape of 1-3-5-4 and 2h was our best spot. There's an interesting discussion of 'etm gadget' at http://www.bridgematters.com/gadget.htm which suggests a method when an auction without interference has gone: 1m-1M-2m or 2om (not a reverse), then the bid of the next cheapest bid be a relay either for a weak sign off in a major or for game forcing hands. So using this method 1d-1s-2c-2h can be a weak signoff in spades or a GF hand... but it still won't help a lot with this hand.

I've kibbitzed a few of the pre-set hands events and it makes for interesting kibbitzing - and it's certainly a great innovation. However, I don't know where the directors get their pre-set hands - ie if they make them up themselves. In one event they looked like level 2 and 3 declarer play problems from Bridgemaster (but not exact copies), together with some defense problems - and there were interesting problems in most hands I saw. What would have gone better with this sort of event would be 1 board a round with a brief synopsis of the hand problem or solution between each round OR a posted link to the hands and solutions after the event. In another event however, the hands were mostly wicked misfits and bad trump breaks - if you opened a weak 2 you could almost guarantee your LHO opp would have 6 cards in your suit sitting over you - and the person in pass out seat would always balance with a long suit in which their partner was void and in which the other opp had a stack... . The lesson of these hands seemed to be 'dont bid'. The hands were cruel. And if you knew these were the hand types you'd change your methods to play Weiss or similar over weak 2's to get good penalty doubles... . With these sort of hands I didn't really see the point in bridge terms except 'amusement value'. There's another new innovation in tournaments - which is cutting the field to the top x% after 2,4,6 etc. rounds. This 'innovation' I really don't like a lot - I know a number of times in other events with barometer scoring where I've come back from a really bad score after 2 rounds... If you organise with a friend to play an event at a certain time it seems a bit severe to be chopped after 2 rounds in a much longer event.

I really like the Keri structure. I am not going to type up the whole thing (it covers 6 pages in Klingers book).. But here's the basic framework... 2c / 2d / 2h/ 2nt are all transfers to diamonds/hearts/spades/clubs respectively and can be passed After 1nt-2c-2d then 2h = 4h GI 2s = 4s GI 2nt = artificial GF asking about openers major holdings 3c = 6+ cl GI 3d = 6+d GI 3h = 4h/5d GF 3s = 4s/5d GF 3nt = 5d-3-3-2 slam invite 4c = 6d/4c slam invite+ 4d = 6+d club void in clubs slam invite+ 4h/4s = 6+d void in bid major, slam invite+ 4nt = rkc diamonds After 1nt-2d-2h then 2s = s/h 4-4, 5-4, 5-5 GI 2nt = 5h and a 4 card minor GF+ 3c = 5h/5c GF+ 3d = 5h/5d GF+ 3h = 6+h GI 3s = 5h, 4s GF 3nt = choice of games (pass or 4h) 4c/4d = 6h, void in bid suit slam invite 4h = 6h void in spades, slam invite 4s = 5s, 5h slam invite 4nt = 6h-3-3-2 slam invite After 1nt-2h-2s then 2nt = 5s/4minor GF 3c/3d = 5spades/5m GF+ 3h = 5s/4h GF 3s = 6s GI 3nt = choice of games 4c/4d = 5s, void in bid suit, slam invite 4h = 5,5 majors pass or correct 4s = 6s, void in h, slam invite After 1nt-2nt-3c then 3d - 4/4 minors GF 3h = 5c/4h GF 3s = 5c/4s GF 3nt = 5-3-3-2 slam invite 4c = 6c, 4d slam invite 4d/4h/4s = 6cl, void in bid suit, slam invite 4nt = rkc clubs 1nt-2s is a range enquiry... 1nt-3suit are GF 3 suiters (bid the suit below the shortage, 3s = club short) There's a lot more detail to the structure than this..and Im doing it from memory (a detail might be slightly wrong) - I've lent the book to a friend - unless thehog or someone who has the book posts Ill post more detail when I get the book back.

The way I play: i) A 4nt bid by responder after a forcing spade raise is rkc for spades ii) An immediate 4nt is aces asking and specifically not rkc for spades.. A hand like x A KQJ10xxxxxx x

I incorporated a weak no trump into a 5 card major 2/1 system in the last year. It has a number of systems implications 1. Systems over weak 1nt a) Variations of the one Luis mentions are quite common. One of these is documented at http://home.san.rr.com/amelucci/1NT.html. :) One we tried was 'two-under transfers' - so 2c transfers to hearts, 2d to spades, 2h to clubs and 2s to diamonds allowing one superaccept bid at low level for majors and 2 for minors (1st one a fit and 2nd one a fit and the sort of hand with primary controls suitable for a shot at 3nt). There's a lot more to this structure. c) For consistency we wanted 1h-1s-1nt to be 15-17 as well so were including most balanced 12-14 with 5 hearts in weak no trump and using puppet stayman (a method based around http://www.stanford.edu/~qsun/bridge/puppet.htm ) d) We play a lot of matchpoints and one problem with weak no trump, particularly in a 5 card major system, is playing in 1nt when you have a 4/4 Major fit that scores better. We thought about including ekrens in our system so at least weak 1nt hands that were 4/4 in the majors would be taken out of 1nt opens...but we didn't do this. Instead 1nt-2c-2d-2h shows a weak hand with 4/4 in the majors - and most weak nt'ers in a 5 card major system who play matchpoints use this... which means you can't use the structure in a) 2. System implications a) 1minor-1nt has a wide range - 6-10... this means you can end up playing a lot of 2nts (horrible contract) with 21-22 hcps. We opened most balanced 15-17's 1c and the 1d response to 1c included balanced 6-7 and balanced 11-12 (we made the 2nt response GF)..the direct 1c-1nt is 8-10. We restricted 1d balanced hands to 5 diamonds and found this worked very well...and played 1d-1nt as semi-forcing. :) 2-way checkback works much better playing this structure than nmf c) 1c-1nt wrong sides more 3nt contracts than it right sides. That together with playing a short club led us to adopt a version of walsh transfers to right side nt contracts and to play in 1M when responder had a weak hand also short in clubs, instead of a horrible 1c.

Here's my experiences based on going through a similar learning process... 1. I learnt bridge at an online site mainly populated by North Americans so I learnt sayc and then 2/1 because it maximised my chances of getting partners. 2. Learning the basic outline of sayc and 2/1 was relatively easy - I bought standard texts or downloaded sayc guides from the net. However, I found learning these 'basic' systems in detail and all their nuances quite difficult...2/1 is actually quite complex and there is no one standard..you nned to develop a lot of indivudalised agreements. Although there are some texts which attempt to define standard basic bidding all of the ones I used I found problems with or they were incomplete - so a lot of my knowledge I picked up by hanging around online bridge lessons and by a process of osmosis and by playing with much more knowledgeable partners who I gave permission to give me lessons. As an example of nuances here's a few sayc (non-competitive) auctions that you could ask experienced sayc players the meaning of and you would get different answers about their meaning... 1h-1s-1nt-2h 1h-2c-2d-2h 1h-2c-2d-3h 1nt-2c-2d-3c/3d 3. Based on my observation of players at the site I play a number of them experience significant problems in competitive bidding... such as being able to distinguish between a preemptive raise, a mixed raise and a good raise in a competitve auction, knowing all of the nuances of negative doubles, knowing proper hands for takeout doubles and responses to takeout doubles, knowing free bids at 2 level are forcing in competitive auctions and knowing when doubles are penalty or not, knowing what bidding a new suit at the 3 levle means etc... Since many auctions are competitive a good reference on competitive bidding might be as useful as a book of conventions - the Bergen Better Bidding books (vol 1 and ii) or Marshall Miles book on competitive bidding or the robson/segal notes on competitive bidding downloadable from Daniel Niell's system page. 4. The theme of 'card play' versus 'conventions' is a constant one as reflected in this thread. I happen to enjoy systems and conventions - so I have fun with them. I don't do this because it's the most efficient way to improve my bridge skills - I study systems and conventions because I enjoy doing it. I learn card play by playing lots of hands and improving my pattern recognition. My attitude is 'do what you enjoy'...and there's different aspects of bridge to enjoy. 5. When I first learnt sayc the conventions I found really useful to add to the basic tool kit were:- i) new minor force - it helps greatly to find the safest game contract between 4M and 3nt ii) 4th suit force - also helps determine safest game contract Have fun!

I play both weak no trump and mini no trump. I play against weak no trump a bit. I also play against a lot of people who are unfamiliar with bidding against a weak no trump and see some common mistakes they make. I am not aware of any book or book chapter particularly specialising in defending against a weak no trump. I am aware of a number of people who give their conventional methods and agreements for defending against a weak no trump but not a book with a whole lot of hand examples... Here are a few observations based on my experiences of watching people who are unfamiliar with defending against a weak no trump and my own experiences... 1. Have an agreement about what HCP range double is and what point range a conventional or one-suited call in the immediate seat shows 2. Your methods should include some preemptive one-suited calls 3. Weak no trump is not an invitation to bid with weak hands in the immediate seat...one of the advantages of playing weak no trump is relatively easy penalty double decisions..there's nothing worse than turning a part score hand into a -500. 4. In standard methods a weak no trump hand is opened 1 minor and when the person in the next seat has a 4-4-3-2 hand shape with 2 in the minor thats been opened they have an easy takeout double. Against weak no trump taking action with this hand is harder. Part of your methods - particularly in MPs - should include some scrambling bid for balanced hands where you are 'scrambling' for a fit at the 2-level. Because it may be dangerous to intervene with this hand in the immediate seat, you need an agreement about some form of protective double when the auction goes pass-1nt-pass-pass-? - in these instances the objective is to get them out of 1nt 5. Whatever method you choose - be it Capp, or ASPRO or any of its cousins, or... know the constructive methods inside out (ie how to invite/force game) - against strong no trump these rarely occur...against weak no trump they can be vital - particularly in IMPs... and in my experience the wide range people use for overcalls/interventions means lots of games are missed and/or the bidding gets too high. 6. Letting weak no trump players off the hook when they start their escape sequences happens a lot I've observed... not only are some healthy penalties missed but games are missed as well because there's no agreement on what it means when the 'defenders' make a call other than pass or double. The bottom line is that weak no trump is hard to defend against...but occasionally (rarely in my experience) it can be hit for large penalties...I have a page of notes for bidding against the common escape method I play against that has been developed from experience and isnt very good - partly because like you I havent been able to locate good references.