New Year, new convention?

[Al_U_Card]

Having seen numerous threads discussing methods and giving links to pages detailing the existing plethora of conventions to interfere with 1NT bids :o , how about developing the ultimate defense to 1NT ;) ? Suggestions please :D . (ie 2C should always be for the majors because....or start with transfers and then....or any bid will have multiple meanings etc. or whatever...)

[whereagles]

I have my own opinion on this, but it's WAY off mainstream ideas: it involves overcalling with rather balanced hands, as opposed to 1 and 2-suited overcalls.

[Al_U_Card]

Kiss type systems are easy on the brain pan but lose quite a bit in terms of interference. Multiple suit showing bids or complicated response scenarios definitely can be screwed up with spectacularly bad results. I was looking for more like "standardized" responses and continuations to interfering bids especially transfer or 2 suit showing bids. ie say

 

Your interference call shows the suit 2 above (C shows H etc.) Answers by responder would be systematized as:

 

The response of the suit between denies interest in the transfer suit (2 or fewer) but promises a 5 card or longer suit elsewhere.

The transfer suit bid accepts the transfer and denies a 5 card or longer suit elsewhere.

A suit bid higher than the transfer suit shows the suit and also 3+ cards in the transfer suit with decent values.

[awm]

While some defenses to notrump are just plain bad, I think for the most part they are different because of different design goals. For example:

 

(1) Are you willing to give up on finding a game after opponents open 1NT, in order to be able to intervene more frequently and reach better partscore contracts?

 

(2) If you have two fits of comparable quality, how important is it to play in the major suit?

 

(3) Is it worth occasionally playing in the wrong partscore, in order to be able to interfere more often?

 

(4) How do you weight occasionally going for a big number opposite no game, versus frequently being able to make a call other than pass?

 

(5) Do you think penalty doubles of strong notrump are a useful thing?

 

(6) How much do you like bids which show an unknown suit (i.e. multi, capp 2♣)? In other words, how do you weight the advantages (opponents don't know your suit right away) against the disadvantages (partner doesn't know your suit right away)?

 

(7) What kind of score do you expect to get when the opponents declare 1NT on a hand where each side has roughly half the values?

 

I don't think any of these have clear-cut answers. Some of them depend a lot on the form of scoring, some depend on how effective you believe your opponents bidding after their 1NT is. As long as people have different ideas about them, there will always be many defenses.

[Al_U_Card]

These are also predicated on the safety factors inherent in the playing strength of the opponent's hands. 2 suiters and long single suited hands have less exposure to penalty than do balanced type hands. While "fine-tuning" to allow for scoring or vulnerabilty or even position is desirable, it should be limited to suit quality etc. and not to method as the complications and confusions would just be too worrisome.

 

Whereagles point on the interference with balanced hands might be a go if it were a bid that elicited a response structure from partner that allowed him to express his hand's potential. The only problem is that expressing potential that you can see is much easier and safer than looking for something that may not be there (in pard's hand).

[Free]

There is no "ultimate defense against NT" since there are too many sorts of NT's... Some would be great against 16-18, but are plain ridiculous against a 10-12. Some NT's include 6322's, 5422's and/or 4441's. So perhaps it's better to look for an ultimate defense against a specific NT range.

[Al_U_Card]

There is no "ultimate defense against NT" .

Agreed. As ultimate really means "last" then perhaps I should use another term. The ultimate system would, however, be able to be "fine tuned" to accomodate the range etc. of the NT bid. In fact, it is the space stealing nature of the 1NT bid that is more onerous than it's strength or composition.

[toothbrush]

If you can find an "ultimate defence" against 1NT, people will start to think about what to do with their 1NT-opening. It would be stupid to play a normal 1NT-opening when everybody plays the "ultimate defence".

That's one of the reasons why people play artificial systems and invent new conventions: opponents don't know how to defend against it! ;)

[Winstonm]

Sorry but this has already been invented - it's called P.A.S.S. unless you have a reason to bid. ;)

 

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

If you can find an "ultimate defence" against 1NT, people will start to think about what to do with their 1NT-opening.

Right on. In much the same way that t/o doubles developed from penalty doubles, etc. etc. Bridge has always been dynamic and these types of modifications can only help.

[Al_U_Card]

Sorry but this has already been invented - it's called P.A.S.S. unless you have a reason to bid. B)

 

Winston

Hmmmn. Guess I may have picked a bad topic. I would have thought, based on the contents of many other threads, that scads of suggestions and pet theories and favorite treatments would have been proffered.

 

The idea was to "create" a new conventional treatment that was the result of the synergistic mixing of contributors ideas. Well, the year is still young... B)

[hrothgar]

Hmmmn.  Guess I may have picked a bad topic.  I would have thought, based on the contents of many other threads, that scads of suggestions and pet theories and favorite treatments would have been proffered. 

 

The idea was to "create" a new conventional treatment that was the result of the synergistic mixing of contributors ideas.  Well, the year is still young... B)

LOTS of us have ego issues

 

With this said and done, none of us seem to be so egotisitical that we claim to know what the ultimate defense would look like...

 

Personally, I think that you're biting off much more than any of us can chew. I've never seen anything close to approprimating a game theoretic solution to bridge which is what's required to solve your problem. Throw in some side issues like your own skill at declaring versus defending and the problem becomes even less tractable...

 

Like many, I'll dodge the bullet and simply suggest that personal comfort probably matters much more than theoretical purity

[MickyB]

Ok, if you want a pet theory -

 

I consider Lionel (or a slight variation of it) to be the best defence to any 1NT range down to about 11-13.

 

Double = spades+another

2C = Hearts+Clubs

2D = Hearts+Diamonds - all of these "2 suiters" are at least 4-4, 11+

2M = Natural

 

- The double is very frequent, and let's you take penalties of a weak NT almost as frequently as an outright penalty double. If the opponents run, you are much better placed to decide what to do, and the defence is often easier due to having the high cards split between the two hands, and a bit of knowledge about doubler's shape.

 

- It lets you get in on 4-4 shapes. I consider this desirable because a 4-4 fit cannot be worth more than 4 tricks against NT, but can be worth a couple more as a trump suit. It is less necessary to find a 5-3 fit - if you have an entry to the long hand you will probably cash those tricks against 1NT anyway, so competing usually only gains trump control.

 

- It focuses on the majors. If you find a fit in a minor suit, quite often the opponents will just compete over you into a major fit.

 

- It doesn't resemble any of my weak two structures, so I can use it as a passed hand without any modifications. As I consider it suitable against most NT ranges, this means there is no extra memory load remembering what overcalls and continuations mean.

 

My only reservation about the method is that I'd rather get in slightly more often with spades+another than hearts+a minor, due to the competitive advantage that spades offer; But to do so would make it harder to take penalties of 1NT. I considered a structure that used double as hearts+another and 2m bids as that suit+spades, but this wasn't all plain sailing - search for my topic on Lionel vs Pagan if you are that interested B)

[Guest Jlall]

- It lets you get in on 4-4 shapes. I consider this desirable because a 4-4 fit cannot be worth more than 4 tricks against NT, but can be worth a couple more as a trump suit.

4-4 can be worth a lot of -1100s B)

[MickyB]

That's what the IMP scale is for B)

[Al_U_Card]

With this said and done, none of us seem to be so egotisitical that we claim to know what the ultimate defense would look like...

 

Personally, I think that you're biting off much more than any of us can chew.

Your being one of my favorite posters, I will take the suggestion under advisement.... B) . That said, I love a challenge, don't you?

[Al_U_Card]

Ok, if you want a pet theory -

 

I looked at a structure that considered using the double as hearts+another and 2m bids as that suit+spades, but this wasn't all plain sailing - search for my topic on Lionel vs Pagan if you are that interested B)

Now that's more like it.....every sandwich needs some filler B)

[Al_U_Card]

From MickyB's original thread;

 

"I've been persuaded to go with double as spades and another! For anyone interested... 2♣ will be clubs and a red suit (at least 4-4 if hearts, at least 5D4C if diamonds - this will keep it easy to find our heart fits), 2N 16+minor single suiter or GF 2 suiter without spades, 3m 10-15, 3M 16+. "

 

So a dynamic shift to an "established" method.

 

btw, I liked the original post concerning the H/S dichotomy and did you get to use this method since April?

[MickyB]

Yup, I played it last week with David_C. It only came up twice in about 125 boards - but then our opponents only opened 1NT three times, and the other time they had a combined 28 count :)

[Al_U_Card]

Yup, I played it last week with David_C. It only came up twice in about 125 boards - but then our opponents only opened 1NT three times, and the other time they had a combined 28 count :)

Seems like a decent (about the same as most reasonably common treatments, be they 2/1 or NMF etc.) frequency, congrats!

 

Aside from the greater difficulty for the NT opener's side associated with dealing with "unknown" suits, do you have methods for describing advancer's hand after the intervention?

[Finch]

I have some contradictory issues with my defence to a 1NT opening.

 

i) I don't want to vary the method according to vulnerability/form of scoring/opponents, because the memory strain is too great

 

ii) Against sober citizens a penalty double of a strong NT is a bit of a waste of time

 

iii) Against many freewheeling players a penalty double of a strong NT, particularly a 3rd position strong NT, particularly a third position NV strong NT, is vital to avoid vul game swings out.

 

So I continue to play double of a strong NT as penalties, because of (i) and (iii) even though I don't think it's entirely optimal.

 

The last time I played a long set against Zia, the ONLY thing he asked about our methods before play began was how we played double of 1NT.

[MickyB]

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

 

If the opponents bid a red suit, double is takeout (AKA pass or correct); If they bid spades, 3♦ is pass or correct and I guess double has to be penalties.

 

I now longer think that there is an advantage to the opps not knowing which is overcaller's 2nd suit, indeed there is potential for misunderstanding over the sequence (1N)-2C-(2H) where 2C showed clubs+a red suit; But I like having 2N and 3C free for other purposes given that we don't have a penalty double.

[Al_U_Card]

The last time I played a long set against Zia, the ONLY thing he asked about our methods before play began was how we played double of 1NT.

Likely his desire to know how hard to push your "envelope" as well as the giveaway about your philosophy of bridge and psyching you out by only asking 1 seemingly innocuous question......he's not where he is today due to lack of guile...

[Al_U_Card]

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

 

If the opponents bid a red suit, double is takeout (AKA pass or correct); If they bid spades, 3♦ is pass or correct and I guess double has to be penalties.

 

I now longer think that there is an advantage to the opps not knowing which is overcaller's 2nd suit, indeed there is potential for misunderstanding over the sequence (1N)-2C-(2H) where 2C showed clubs+a red suit; But I like having 2N and 3C free for other purposes given that we don't have a penalty double.

Well, I was looking for insights but the lack of a penalty double (except for 10-12 NT which are 1/1000 NT bids against me) hasn't harmed me as I maybe wanted to double 1NT for penalty one time in the last 1000 occurances... :)

[Al_U_Card]

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

When you double for S + another, pard can either place the contract in spades or ask for the other suit by bidding 2C? If he has an "interesting" hand, can he describe or investigate?