foo

I've seen styles of both Acol and KS where a 1H opening fits descriptions like this. For instance, if 1H-1S;2S or 1H-1S;1N promises 15-17 in playing strength. If you have such an agreement, then hands with 4+H that evaluate to 14- in playing strength must either be opened a Weak NT or have 6+H or be shapely with 5+H & 4+m or not be opened

1= Assuming We play 5cM, We have at least a 9 card fit in ♥'s. Also, given the 4♦ preempt, We rate to have a double fit in S+H. Your shapely 10 HCP has become worth at least 15 Dummy points, and may well be worth far more, like ~20+, if We have the double Major fit. Signing off in 4♥ is too weak IMHO. Since you know We rate to have 5 level safety and you know that We may very well have a slam, the question is how best to explore for it. I may get hung for it, but 5♦ seems IMHO to clarify the situation most concisely. 2= Obviously, this auction, like any legal auction, exists. The question is what meaning to put to it. IMHO this sequence says "Opener, bid slam with good ♠'s" Side note: Those advocating that ♠QTxxx♥KJxx♦Axxx♣- is an opening bid 1st chair at MPs are not crazy. It might not be my or your cup of tea, but it is not completely bonkers. With 1 3/4 QT, 6 losers, and an easy opening and rebid, there are certainly some who play a style where this hand would be considered a systemic minimum opening. After all, in this case it certainly would have made the ensuing auction easier if the example hand had been opened :)

"1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥) p-(4♥)-4♠-All pass ♥K lead for J, 8 and T Followed by ♣5 from West for 3, A and 7 East plays ♣2 for your Q and 6 of West. You now play a small ♠, West playing the ♠J. How do you continue. " You have lost 2 tricks and can afford to lose 1 more. If the Trump suit can be played for no losers, you can afford to lose the ♦Q even if ♦'s break 3-0 Since you are missing equal cards, both the ♠Q and ♠J, this is a Restricted Choice situation. You win the ♠A and then play the ♠8, intending to run it if it is not covered. If the ♠8 holds, you next play the ♠3, intending to hook the ♠T if it is not covered. Regardless of how the play in trumps turns out, you then play ♦'s from the top in the hopes of a 2-1 break.

Ken, after the ♦ lead and return a= You have 8 tricks in the bag and only need one more b= They made a mistake by not putting one of their 7 ♥'s thru your AQxxx+x (Why?) Since you only need one more trick to make 3N, it would appear that you should play J8xx+Qxx as optimally as possible to get 1 trick before They collect 4 more? If making the contract is your goal, the proper way to play J8xx+Qxx starts with playing an x from dummy and your hand no matter what RHO plays. If you play the suit this way, your odds of getting at least 1 ♠ trick are ~7:1 in your favor. (Trying to get 2 tricks in this suit requires AK or AKx in one hand... ...and that you play correctly as to which hand it is B) ) If RHO pops the ♠K on this line and returns ♠T on this line as they did ATT on your line, they are simply helping you establish the suit. In addition, if RHO plays 2nd hand high with the ♠K, there would appear to be a good chance that LHO is long in the Pointeds while RHO is long in the Roundeds. IOW, the play so far strongly implies RHO has the ♥K. Since this is MPs and you have enough highs that you are supposed to make 10+ tricks under normal circumstances, that inference gives you another option in deciding how you want to handle this board to maximize your chances of a good MP score.

I agree with Roland, in a typical SA or 2/1 GF context this hand is not worth a reverse. There are those that play a style where control rich 6- loser hands with 16+ in playing strength are allowed to reverse. They get their inspiration from bidding systems such as some styles of Acol or KS where reversing on some 6 loser hands is systemic. I haven't played Acol in a while, but perhaps Frances or someone who does could comment on whether ♠ATx♥AJxx♦AQxxx♣x would be considered worth a reverse in that system? Anybody out there play KS enough to comment? If you decide such hands are worth a reverse, and I am NOT advocating such a thing, you are going to need "excellent brakes" in your bidding system to make sure you do not get too high too often after a reverse. This will require a great deal of very careful planning for auctions after a reverse. At the least, the floor on Responder's continuations is going to have to be increased so that We have at least 25+ between Us when Responder GF. In addition, remember that in typical SA or 2/1 GF, a minimum response is ~6 points. Since We typically need 23+ points to be safe at the 2N or 3ofasuit level, the typical reverse promises 17+ points. Reversing "light" on some hands increases the risk of Us getting too high.

In SA, this sequence shows a minimum (~6-9) with long ♣'s and neither tolerance for Opener's 1st bid suit nor support for Opener's 2nd bid suit. This is a hand type that some would argue you still need to be able to show when playing 2/1 GF. But that leaves the 2/1 GF pair with a problem describing Invitational hands of this shape. Some fix this by playing "2/1 GF except when Responder rebids their suit" to allow Responder to show this hand type. However, many would prefer their 2/1's to be absolutely forcing to at least 3N or 4ofasuit. The solution many have adopted is to use 1M-3m! as a Invitational Jump Shift showing such a hand. This alows all 2/1's to be absolutely GF while still allowing an important hand type to be shown. Some pairs put suit quality requirements in place and differentiate between Invitational hands containing a good suit or values concentrated in the suit (1M-3m!), and those of the same playing strength but containing more scattered values (1M-1N.;2foo-2N) IMHO, the method which use both sequences is better than any of the options in the survey B) The price for using 1M-3m! in this fashion is that you give up the chance to use these JS for anything else: SJS, WJS, Bergen Raises, FJS, etc.

I agree with Frances.

5S. Your hand, for all of its lack of values, has a void that rates to be working and We rate to be in an 11 card fit. Make your maximum pressure bid and get out of the auction.

I do not like the auction thus far. Call me a shape purist, but if I have a GF shapely hand, IMHO I should bid it that way. 1S-2C;2H-3D; implies 45 in the minors and warns Opener that I could very well have singleton in one of his suits. The given sequence 1= implies more tolerance for both NT and ♠'s than I have. 2= rushes to make me Declarer in NT when it is far from clear I should be if that is our best strain. If the auction then progresses 1S-2C;2H-3D;3S-?? Opener is implying that they do not like NT (and of course that they do not have 5 ♥'s). So you grit your teeth and pick your poison between your two most likely games, 3N or 4H in your Moysian.

In general, We belong in Game with 7+ controls and either 26+ playing points or 25+ playing points with a fit. This hand evaluates to 14 playing points, and all of the defending controls rate to be in the LH (1S) opener hand. That's good placement for Us. Advancer could have passed 2C. They could have raised 2C to 3C. They did not. They bid 2N because they have a maximum pass and think We might make 3N. If partner passes lot's of 12 counts in 1st seat, you should probably bid 3N. If partner is a believer in Light Initial action, you should probably pass. If partner is middle of the road, you have a difficult decision to make.

I've seen a few uses the term "Weak NT" in this thread about 1N= 10-12 or 10-13. That is not the proper thing to call 1N= 10-12 or 10-13. The "Weak NT" is 1N= 12-14 or 11-13 or 11-14 etc. The proper name for any 1N opening weaker than the traditional range of a Weak NT is either "Kamikaze NT" or "mini NT". 1N= 10-12 is a very different beast than 1N= 12-14. Defending against the KNT is as different from defending vs the Weak NT as defending against the Weak NT is from defending vs a strong NT. So it is worth not confusing our terms when discussing them.

I completely agree with The_Hog. 2S! showing an good ♦ raise by me.

This looks interesting. What were your strength requirements for (1N)-X and (1N)-pa-pa-X? Were the transfer overcalls effective?

mikeh, please tone down the personal attacks and the rhetoric. I did not hi-jack this thread. OTC, I've posted the most complete defense to a pair using the KNT of any response so far in this thread. In addition, many less experienced players view the KNT as something to be feared to an unreasonable degree when defending against pairs using it. Since this is a teaching forum, it seems appropriate to explain that they should not be as concerned as players of that level typically are; and, more importantly, =why= they should not be so concerned and =how= they should defend themselves. If you think any of that is off topic, I disagree with you. I did not accuse you or any other specific player of behaving unethically. You have chosen to take my comments personally and to take offense without provocation. This implies either a= you have a guilty conscience, or b= you are looking for an excuse to "mix it up" with me. Neither sort of discussion is appropriate for a public forum. However, IME many pairs using the KNT do get most of their better results due to the factors I have previously stated. Again, you may not think that is germane to a thread on defending vs the KNT. I disagree, and believe it valuable for players to know both how to defend against such issues +and+ how to play a system containing the KNT ethically should they choose to try it out. If you wish to engage in further personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations, I request that you pm me rather than continue such discourse in a public forum.

yep. In fact both 3N and 4H appear to be cold.

So do many strong no-trumpers. Let's complain about them too. This is not about bidding judgment and a player deciding to do something unexpected. This is about System and agreements. If a pair has agreements to open NT with hand types the mainstream would find unusual, then they have an obligation to disclose. Regardless of the range of the NT involved. Agreed. When I've played the KNT it worked far better in a Forcing Club system than in a natural one. But since no one was talking about FC systems and we are in the B/I forum, I thought I'd keep it as simple as reasonable. Yep. I talked about this in my first post in this thread.

Once again, ArtK78 and mikeh. I did not accuse any of you of doing anything inappropriate. So unless you have a guilty conscience, stop acting like I have accused you of something. In addition, many less experienced players using the KNT do not realize that some of the things they are doing are unethical. So both of you please calm down and stop acting like I'm kicking your puppy. The simple fact is that many pairs get good results out of the KNT for exactly the reasons I stated. Either they are playing it against opponents unfamiliar with how to defend against a system using the KNT, or the users of the KNT are not fully disclosing their agreements. In either case, it gives the pair using the KNT an advantage that is not based on Bridge merit. ...and mikeh, you and I both know that this discussion, in the B/I forum, was not about Bridge as it is played at the highest levels. ...and yes, =any= time a pair opens 1N with a stiff or acts like they have undisclosed agreements the opponents had the right to know, I call either the Director or the Recorder. I've done it at all levels. Even National events. In fact, since we =are= in the B/I forum, I'll give the B/I some advice. Do not play the KNT until you are far more experienced since it rates to slow down your development into a better player.

CAn we back up? what does an overcall of 1D look like? It depends on a few things. 1= Overcalls =in front= of pard are different from overcalls once pard has passed. 2= The conditions of contest matter. There are overcalls that one would make at MPs that one should never make at IMPs. State of the match considerations apply as well. 3= How much space you deny the opponents matters. (1D)-1H is a sounder overcall than (1m)-1S and a more easy going one than (1C)-1D (The latter being the soundest overcall in Bridge). For the rest of this, I will ignore the situation specific modifiers and just talk about classic up-the-middle direct overcalls of 1D. All other things being equal, when you overcall you have some combination of the following reasons for it. A= You think the board may belong to Us even though They Opened. B= You have a suit so good that even if the board does not belong to Us you feel it rates to be a safe place for Us to play or if We defend your hand says it wants pard to lead this suit in preference to any other lead. C= You want to make Their auction more difficult by taking space away from them. So a classic direct overcall is a 7- loser hand with either a= an opening bid and an acceptable suit in it or b= less than an opening bid but an exceptional suit in it. These are usually in 5+ card suits that pass the "Suit Quality" test for the level of the overcall. Suit Quality= number of cards in suit + number of honors in suit AJxxx= suit quality of 7, KTxxxx= suit quality of 8, etc Here's the main point. IF PARD IS AN UNPASSED HAND A direct overcall is a 5-7 loser hand (with 4- losers, your hand is good enough to X then bid or cuebid) If you have less than an opening bid, it is in a suit whose suit quality is at least equal to the number of tricks you are bidding (7 for a one level overcall, 8 for a two level overcall, etc). In this case, this should be your best suit and the one you want pard to lead in preference over any other based on your hand. If you have an opening bid, a direct overcall promises a suit with quality no worse than =1= less of the number of tricks you are bidding (so a SQ of no worse than 6 for a one level overcall, no less than 7 for a two level overcall, etc). If pard is a passed hand, be a bit more cautious unless you are Balancing. As usual, any call you make should be the best description of your hand feasible from the choices you have available. Do not overcall when pass or X is a better description of the hand. Do not overcall in a suit when NT is a better description of the hand. Etc.

The hands shown would be a 1H overcall for me and everyone I play with. Good HH is certainly worth a 1H bid. On the others i don't think it is reasonable to force toi the 3 level when the opps haven't a fit. Your Hx hands in Ds would be a 1NT overcall if in the 15-17 range. As I said, 4cM overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea. There is no denying that they are more risky than their more traditional 5+ card brethren. Especially in "next higher strain" AKA "+1" auctions like (1C)-1D, or (1D)-1H, or (1H)-1S We do not take any space away from the opponents, so we'd better have a darn good reason to overcall. When in addition to the above our suit is shorter than traditional, we need some serious extras in both overall values and suit texture to justify a 4cM overcall. At least two of my expert class partners would be horrified if I overcalled (1m)-1M, with a 4cM unless a= The suit was exceptionally good. hhxx is not good enough unless it is AKxx. Ahhx or Khhx is more what they are expecting. Basically, I want this suit led more than any other when pard is on lead. b= I have a hand that the whole world would open the bidding with. c= no other bid better describes my hand. As for forcing to the 3 level, when neither opponent has shown a good hand it is reasonable to play pard for at least 2 good cards. 6 losers - 2 cover cards = good chance of making a 3 level contract if We have a fit. The OP bidding makes the chance of a 62 D fit reasonably high, which means We rate to have a fit as well. I agree with you about the 1N overcall =if= D= Hx is either Ax or Kx. Call me a chicken or old fashioned or whatever, but I still think one should have a stop for a 1N overcall and Qx or worse is not it. In fact, Qxx is still less stopper than I want in a 1N overcall.

The phrase "many KNT pairs ..." does not in any way imply that =you= ... But the reality is that many KNT pairs use their 1N opening as often as possible on as many hand types as possible in an attempt to cause as much trouble as possible. If and when they do so in a manner that does not disclose their agreements so that the opponents know what to expect to the same degree they do when facing a more standard 1N opening, they are behaving unethically. That may not describe you, but it does describe many pairs using the KNT. If any pair opens 1N with a stiff often enough that Responder starts trying to field it, they have a de facto agreement to open 1N with a stiff on certain hand types and they are not only being unethical, they are bidding =illegally= in most jurisdictions. The bottom line is that the opponents have the right to know what all your bids mean. They also have the right to have time to consider defenses (or in some cases to have approved defenses provided for them) to methods unusual enough. Finally, they have the right to expect their opponents to follow the Laws and Regulations of Bridge. Many KNT pairs get their good results either a= because of unfamiliarity with defending vs a system using a KNT or b= because they use it in a manner that is unethical or illegal. Remove both those factors and a system using the KNT becomes far less likely to generate good results across many boards. In fact, it will hurt you more the help you over the longer term. That's why the KNT is not a mainstream method.

1= Neither Opener nor Responder has guaranteed much in the way of values here 1m,2m is a min with 6+m or an exceptional 5cm 1S is 6+ HCP So We could even still have the balance of power on this auction. Here's some hand types 44 in the Roundeds that I suggest are reasonable 2nd round T/O X's. Hx-HHxx-xxx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-Hx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-x-HHxxx etc all of these are 6- loser hands, that could not make a T/O on the 1st round because they are not 44 in ♠+♥ 2= 4 card overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea, and should be an exceptional suit if you do overcall with them (say hhhx). I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

Often KNT pairs allow shapes to be opened 1N that would be considered unusual by most. 6322's, 7222's, 5M332's, etc. If a KNT could by agreement contain shapes other than 5m332, 4432, and 4333, the opponents have the right to know. Ditto if the KNT pair by agreement passes some shapes in the NT opening range that would naively be expected by most to be opened 1N. (Many KNT pairs have agreements to not open many 4333's 1N for instance.) Also, many KNT pairs claim to play 1N=10-12 but fudge 13 HCP hands into the opening so often that they really should say they are playing 1N=10-13. That the KNT destroys the KNT pair's NT ladder is obvious. The pair must do something about it, and the opponents are entitled to know what that is. Regardless of what the KNT pair does to make up for the destruction of their constructive NT ladder, the opponents have opportunities available to them to take advantage of whatever they have done. If your 1N rebid shows 13-16, your 2N rebid is 16+ - 18, and your 2N opening is 19-21, you have reduced the accuracy (and strength where the 2N bids are concerned) of your NT ladder to the point that your constructive bidding with it is far more guesswork than standard. Opponents should stay out of these auctions more than they normally would and let you self destruct as often as possible. An increased use of penalty X's is also warranted to take maximum advantage of the time you end up cornered in a bad contract.

Past successful partnerships, from Reese and Schapiro onwards seem to fit the pattern described by foo. Nevertheless, IMO it is better if both partners try to emulate each other's "down the middle" judgement. Among the advantages that accrue is that, in a complex auction, when trying to construct partner's hand Rather than ponder the question "On what would partner bid like that?" :) You can instead ask yourself the simpler question "What would I hold to bid like that?" :) The problem is that no matter how "objective" or "down the middle" you are as a pair, sooner or later one of you =is= going to get a hand that is "too close to call". If you never upgrade such hands, you will get bad results. If you always upgrade such hands, you will get bad results. Some criteria must exist for deciding what to do, and an agreement needs to be in place so that only one of you upgrades such hands on any given board (since unfortunately they sometimes come in pairs).

Most that I know play that (1m)-X should promise 44 in ♠+♥ or a hand strong enough not to care what Advancer bids. ...and that means it is very possible for you to have a 7- loser hand that has only 1 4cM and therefore must pass on the 1st round. Jason gave some nice examples.

Yup. I've played in more than one partnership where we agreed that 4441's break System. Any bidding done with them was agreed to be a case of telling the least lie. I've even played in partnerships where We agreed to pass all 4441's with less than 14 HCP and a rebid problem (so we'd pass all =1444 13 counts for instance).