weak versus strong NT

[mamo2500]

Weak (12-14) or strong (15-17) NT, which do you prefer?

I have the impression that weak NT mostly is played with Acol, but will it work as well with a 5 card major system?

 

Regards

 

Marianne

[helene_t]

Oops, some have very strong opinion about this:

- Robson/Segal write that playing strong notrump with 4-card majors is rarely seen by tournament players (they reason it's because of the vagueness of the major suit openings which become vulnerable to interference), but that 5-card majors with either weak or strong notrump is fine, as is weak notrump with 4-card majors.

- Danny Kleinman writes that the optimal notrump range is 15+-18, but that weak notrump has more merit in some contexts than others, for example if you play 5-card majors with a forcing 1NT response.

- Ed Hoogekamp writes that 5-card majors should be played with a weak notrump in order to make the minor suit openings more informative.

- Roy Hughes writes that 4-card majors and weak notrump are both fine for their preemptive effect, but that combing the two results in diminishing returns.

 

I have very little experience with weak notrump. I play 13-15 (which is actually strong in a Precision context) in some partnerships and that's generally what I prefer. It does mean that we pass some 12-pointers in 1st/2nd seat that most of the field do open, but that's not so bad because the field will open a nebulous 1♣ which is barely more helpful than a pass.

 

If I were to play 12-14 in 1st/2nd I would play 14-16 in 3rd/4th. The idea is that you don't open 1NT if you can't count 25 opposite the maximum p can have. Then you either pass or open your most convenient 4-card (I like to do that in 3rd/4th even when playing 5-card majors, but that requires discussion of course).

[vang]

of course it will work (weak NT with 5 card majors). see for example the kaplan sheinwold system or what the top italian pairs play.

[Finch]

Any combination of NT range and major ranges works.

It's just that all the inferences available in subsequent auctions change, and you need to have thought these through properly to play the system well.

[ArtK78]

I play a light initial action system when nonvulnerable. In 1st and 2nd seats, our 1NT opening is 10-12 HCP, and one of a suit is 10+.

 

Otherwise, 1NT is 15-17.

 

This is all in the context of a 5-card major system.

 

This works fine, and often produces spectacular results (one way or the other).

[Robert]

Hi eveyone

 

Roth Stone playing 5 card majors with a 16-18 NT swept the American bridge scene when it first appeared. Kaplan Sheinwold with 12-14 NT also did the same thing. Tiger bridge made two visiting English players Life Masters in something like six weeks while they played a 12-14 NT opening. Currently, FN(one of the top Italian pairs) plays a 12-14 NT with fairly wide ranging shape requirements.

 

The Blue Team from several decades ago played four card majors with a

13-17HCP 1NT range and dominated the rest of the world for many years. They once rolled up a big lead and arrived for the next day by saying that they would be playing Standard American bidding for the rest of the contest.

 

Bidding methods are largely a manner of taste. I played a lot of 12-14 1NT while playing Kaplan Sheinwold(5 card majors) and Acol(4 card majors) in the 70s/80s period. I have also played ranges from 8-10 up to 17-20(Roman) and even played a 1NT forcing opening with Romex.

 

Whatever you like to play is fine. The test of bidding methods is the results produced. When you adopt a new method, go over the follow up bidding so that your scores do not suffer 'when' something new does pop up. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[Echognome]

Seems like there's a weak vs strong NT thread every couple of months. Tons on it in the archives.

 

How about a mini vs kamikaze NT debate?

[whereagles]

One of the great advantages of weak NTs is that minor suit openers are much more likely to be done FIVE card suits. That allows responder to raise on 3 cards and 7 hcp, which is quite nice on competitive situations.

 

If opener turns out to have only 3-4 cards on the minor, then he'll have 15-17 and is strong enough for a 2NT rebid.

[MickyB]

I have enough to say about this to fill a book, or at least a few chapters. Maybe I'll get around to it one day. For now, I'll just answer your questions -

 

Weak no-trump and five-card majors fit together better than weak no-trump and four-card majors.

 

I prefer strong no-trump, because if you open one-of-a-suit on a balanced 16 point hand it can be difficult to show that extra strength in competition (see David Collier's blog on bidding theory).

 

As Frances says, any combination works, but there are a lot of subtle inferences attached to each method. Play what you are comfortable with, and I wouldn't recommend playing a variable no-trump unless you already have a lot of experience with both ranges.

[MickyB]

Seems like there's a weak vs strong NT thread every couple of months. Tons on it in the archives.

 

How about a mini vs kamikaze NT debate?

10-12 NT throughout or Romex?

[lowerline]

Weak (12-14) or strong (15-17) NT, which do you prefer?

I have the impression that weak NT mostly is played with Acol, but will it work as well with a 5 card major system?

 

Regards

 

Marianne

An EHAA-kind-of system, like Fantunes, requires a weak or mini NT. Strong club systems with symmetric relays require a weak NT most of the time (e.g. Moscito). Polish Club has a strong NT (with a weak NT it wouldn't be PC). Precision is usually played with varying NT ranges (mini, weak and strong) depending on seat and vulnerability.

Natural 4- and 5crd major systems can be played with a weak or a strong NT (they are not suitable for a mini NT). Theoretically, weak NT combines best with 5crd majors and strong NT with 4crd majors. This is completely the opposite what most people are used too: 5crd majors with strong NT (e.g. Standard American) or 4crd majors with weak NT (e.g. Acol).

 

Steven

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

 

http://www.omahabridge.org/MHemPubs/Weak_Notrumps.pdf

(By the author of the "MayHem" column in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin)

 

 

http://home.cogeco.ca/~allan/mini_notrump.html

A pretty thoughtful treatment of this topic.

 

Works fine with 5 card majors. Google on "weak notrump" or "weak no trump" and find a large amount of web material (uneven quality of course).

 

We play 11-14 NT when Nonvul. You should have an escape procedure defined in advance in case you get doubled for penalties, but surprisingly, bad results don't happen as much in this regard as you would think. The opps have to guess what is best and while you may get a bad result in competitive auctions playing the weak NT, it's usually not because you went for a number.

 

You also get to open 1NT a lot more often, defining captaincy immediately and that's a great benefit. 1NT is a great opening bid and the more you get to use it, IMHO, the better. :)

 

NB - We also play Moscow Escapes as described in the MayHem article but with one twist: If responder wishes to initiate a "DONT"-like sequence as described by Hemenway, instead of bidding his lowest 4 card suit, responder passes, forcing NT opener to redouble. Then on the next turn, responder can commence his DONT-like sequence. IMHO this is better because it gives the opps more chances to intervene and rescue you themselves! This sounds a bit screwy but it does in my experience work .. player #4 will often pull the double after being informed that responder's pass (which is of course alertable) requires the opener to redouble.

[mycroft]

Please note that the 10-12 has more in common with 15-17 than 12-14.

 

the "weak NT" in a standard context (somewhere in 11+-15-) is a wonderful tool, and except in one or two situations really solidifies your 1m bidding (playing 5-card majors). Of course, in those one or two situations, you are totally hosed.

When all the "opening" hands have to be bid 1m anyway (in the 10-12 NT world), you're back with all the problems of the strong NT, and, of course, you have to figure out how to show a strong NT.

 

10-12 in a limited opener system is easier - you've already got a system for the strong NT.

 

Having said all of that, I have played 10-12 a lot; sometimes in an EHAA context (where a lot of the problems it gives the rest of your system go away because of 4-card majors and SOUND one-level openers), sometimes in a Strong club context (see above), sometimes in a 1m "natural or some-range NT" context, and sometimes in a "we'll live with the problems" context.

 

All ranges work - including the 18-19 I played in a Club Club system, you tended not to get overcalled when they were red with that one - but your opening NT range and your "big bid" dictate the rest of your system.

 

Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

10-12 with 5 card majors in 2/1 was my fave for years. I even had some fun with 10-12 overcalls.....Often 1 mi on your right (11-14) and your 10-12 gave LHO a problem with his random 7 count. When LHO had the weak hand, you got all the mp and when he had the strong hand, your pard could sac or run depending on the situation.

[mikeh]

I don't have a lot to add to what others have written, but since I have played every range of 1N that has been at all popular over the past 30 years, maybe I have a better perspective than most. (10-12, 11-13, 11-14, 12-14, 13-15, 14-16 and 15-17).

 

I will leave out 10-12, since that has problems, and advantages, unique to itself, especially in the context of a 2/1 GF 5 card major or Std American structure.

 

11-14 or 11-13 or 12-14 (or even 13-15, which to me makes little sense in a non-big club context):

 

1) you will miss a lot of 4=4 major suit partscores, when the strong notrumperes open 1minor and raise partner's 4-10 count 1major response to 2M, while our responders pass 1N.

 

2) you will preempt the opps a great deal

 

3) you can (and in my view should) play different methods responding to weak notrumps than to strong. If game exists, responder will usually be as strong or stronger than opener, and if slam exists, responder will be much stronger. A well-designed method, often based on two-way stayman, maximizes right-siding contracts while concealing responder's hand. Strong notrump methods usually entail transfers, getting opener to declare most contracts.

 

4) you get to use the auction 1m 1M 2M to show a hand with 4 card support, either distributional (no weak 1N) or a balanced strong NT, and you can now play gadgets off this, next step = relay, and this can be a powerful slam mechanism. In addition, when responder is weak, we get to stop at 2Major, when in standard we are playing 1N... kind of the flip side of #1

 

5) if opener rebids 1N after a minor opening, you are a step ahead of the strong notrumpers, because you have already exchanged some distributional information, and a well-designed method (2 way new minor, for example) makes for easy game/slam bidding: probably easier than when opener opens a strong NT.

 

6) You go for the occasional number, especially against good players. Most who claim that they don't go for numbers are probably not playing against strong opps on a regular basis: I do not claim that I do... I don't... but I am sure that good opps will extract more penalties than the average player, who is often afraid to double a low-level contract (and don't defend that well either). So you need a rescue system.. there are lots out there to find.

 

I think that virtually any range works (except 13-15) in a standard approach IF you think it through... not just the auctions that start 1N (they are easy) but the auctions that start 1minor instead. Just sitting down and saying let's play 11-14, and no other changes is not going to work well.

 

There are other issues as well: most good opps will use different conventions over weak nt than over strong, so you need to agree how you bid over their bids... and when you change ranges, you will often encounter conventions you haven't played against much.

 

And competition after 1minor on a strong NT hand has different implications as well.

 

I think every really interested player should experiment with ranges: not only may you find something that works for you, but you will also have a better understanding of what the opps are up to when they play a non-standard range: you will know the strengths and weaknesses, and may be able to do better against them than if you had never tried that range yourself.

[mycroft]

Ralph - you do, of course, tell the oppnents when they ask, that the pass means "either wants to play 1NTxx, or has a two-suited runout", rather than "forces me to redouble", right?

 

Fourth hand will still pull a lot (and more than they should - it should be a constructive call, with high ODR). But "forces me to redouble" is wrong for several reasons:

 

- it is misleading, implying strength when 80+% of the time, responder is running;

- it is a description of your bidding, which you should not do;

- it doesn't explain the meaning of the bid - what hands partner will pass-forcing-redouble on.

 

People do it all the time. I hate explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because of the many potential hands, including one that will mean that my LHO will get one chance to call, so, I will tend to say "forcing, artificial, could be a wide range of hands. I can enumerate them if you wish".

 

(Note: As I am one of the strong exponents of "pass-forces-redouble is bad", I want to stamp out this "get out of jail free" card :-)

 

Michael.

[helene_t]

In the Scandian system, 1NT=14-16 and 4-card majors open only below that range. What I thought (but this is theory, I never played 4-card majors myself) is that if you play 13-15 and open the (10)11-12 balanced only if you have a fourcard major, the minor suit openings become very clean.

[mycroft]

Re: "numbers". MikeH has much more experience with top-class defenders than I, but I have had many more bad "numbers" (at least in a MP context) playing strong NT than when I played weak NT (and given the 3 years of about 5000 hands/year with one weak NT partner, I've probably played more weak NT than strong NT). I have extracted more 500s into partscores and 800s vs a strong NT than a weak NT (of course, living in north america, I've had a lot more chances against a strong NT).

 

Of course, without a runout system, that number would be much higher - his conclusion is bang on. It's interesting, however, to see the number of players starting to play a runout system opposite a strong NT now.

 

What people don't tend to mention when talking weak NT and "numbers" is the numbers the weak NTers get when, as will inevitably happen (unless they are willing to let the weak NT steal them blind), LHO comes into the sandwich. This is the big reason why I don't like ambiguous runout systems; anything which hampers your ability to say "partner, they have made a mistake" is going to cost you a few "numbers", even as it saves you from a few "numbers".

 

He and Hemenway are right, though; in ACBL competition, the biggest downside to playing weak NT is 1NT vs 1m-1M; 2M, both either making or +1. And while that cuts both ways, a) weak NT gets opened about twice as often as strong NT (that's one of it's advantages, but here it's a downside), and b) more of the hands opposite a strong NT are invite+ strength and can afford to look for the 4-4 fit.

 

MIchael.

[ralph23]

Ralph - you do, of course, tell the oppnents when they ask, that the pass means "either wants to play 1NTxx, or has a two-suited runout", rather than "forces me to redouble", right? 

 

Fourth hand will still pull a lot (and more than they should - it should be a constructive call, with high ODR).  But "forces me to redouble" is wrong for several reasons:

 

- it is misleading, implying strength when 80+% of the time, responder is running;

- it is a description of your bidding, which you should not do;

- it doesn't explain the meaning of the bid - what hands partner will pass-forcing-redouble on.

 

People do it all the time.  I hate explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because of the many potential hands, including one that will mean that my LHO will get one chance to call, so, I will tend to say "forcing, artificial, could be a wide range of hands.  I can enumerate them if you wish".

 

(Note: As I am one of the strong exponents of "pass-forces-redouble is bad", I want to stamp out this "get out of jail free" card :-)

 

Michael.

LOL, yes, and interestingly, 90% of the time, the 4th seat opp asks, before the NT opener even gets through his full explanation of what "Pass" meant anyhow and why it was alertable, "Well, what is he going to do after you redouble?"

 

"Well, I don't know what he's going to do, but under the system we play, he could either yada yada or yoda yoda etc."

 

Maybe folks around here are just more curious about the unusual alert on "Pass" and therefore preemptively ask questions than in your neck of the woods, don't know....

 

NB - Also the method we play is more efficient than the one Hemenway describes, at least IMHO, because we can still play Systems On after the double ... not possible if you play in the way she describes.

 

Thus some subtle inferences: If responder bids 2♦ as a transfer after the double, this must be competitive rather than a true rescue attempt, b/c to really escape to ♥ with a real stinker, responder would instead redouble and let opener complete the relay to ♣, and then just park it in 2♥. So transfer bids by responder imply some value and opener is allowed to super-accept.

 

NB2- As a technical matter, I don't know that partner's actual subjective intent when he passed was EITHER to sit for 1NTxx OR to start a two-suited runout. I am surely HOPING that this was indeed his subjective intent, but partner has been known to make a mistake. And I'm not a mind reader.

 

Thus an explanatory statement about "what he wants" or "what he has" is not correct.

 

All I can say is "in our system that pass requires me to redouble; and it shows a hand that either (1) or (2)". What his actual hand is, or his actual desires are, I don't know for sure and can only hope that both of those conform to our agreement, which agreement is all that I can possibly disclose to the opponents.

[jtfanclub]

3) you can (and in my view should) play different methods responding to weak notrumps than to strong. If game exists, responder will usually be as strong or stronger than opener, and if slam exists, responder will be much stronger. A well-designed method, often based on two-way stayman, maximizes right-siding contracts while concealing responder's hand. Strong notrump methods usually entail transfers, getting opener to declare most contracts.

I have never been convinced that having the strong, distributional hand be dummy while the balanced semigood hand be declarer is a bad thing. For one thing, I want the lead going through the ace around to the queen, not vice versa. For another, if they lead the distributional hand's short suit, you kind of want that to go around to the tenace, not through the tenace finishing with the singleton.

 

I know the strong hand argument, I'm just not sure I buy it when we're talking 12 across 20.

 

What is your experience with this?

[awm]

I played a KO match against a pair using 11-14 notrumps in Nashville and noticed a couple things that haven't been mentioned here. In particular:

 

(1) On several occasions, the opponents had an auction to a normal contract that started with 1m and a 1NT rebid instead of a strong 1NT opening. I found that this helped me a lot on the opening lead, and I was defending a lot of hands double-dummy where the other table was having trouble on defense. While it seems like this can cut both ways (weak notrumpers should have an advantage when they open 1NT instead of 1m) it didn't really seem like this was the case, perhaps because knowing the distribution of the much stronger hand tends to help more on opening lead.

 

(2) The weak notrump wrong-sided some notrump contracts. When you start the bidding with a natural minor suit, it's easier to decide who should declare 1NT later in the bidding. Again, in principle this might help the weak notrumpers on the strong notrump hands, but they tend to be in a hurry to rebid notrumps ASAP with these hands in order to show their strength, not to mention that it's usually right to play 3NT from the 15-18 hand anyway (not so much from the 11-14 balanced hand).

[helene_t]

I have never been convinced that having the strong, distributional hand be dummy while the balanced semigood hand be declarer is a bad thing.

Agree with this. Rightsiding is over-rated. Or more precisely, the importance of having the strong hand declare is over-rated.

 

There are other reasons why one might want to play a different structure in a weak-nt system, though. For example, with a weak hand with spades it's nice to be able to bid a preemptive 2♠ rather than a transfer that opps can double to show hearts.

[BebopKid]

I prefer the weak NT 12-14 because it happens more often. This results in the preempting of opponents, who can no longer make simple overcalls at the one level on hands you would have opened 1♣ or 1♦.

[Echognome]

I played a KO match against a pair using 11-14 notrumps in Nashville and noticed a couple things that haven't been mentioned here. In particular:

 

(1) On several occasions, the opponents had an auction to a normal contract that started with 1m and a 1NT rebid instead of a strong 1NT opening. I found that this helped me a lot on the opening lead, and I was defending a lot of hands double-dummy where the other table was having trouble on defense. While it seems like this can cut both ways (weak notrumpers should have an advantage when they open 1NT instead of 1m) it didn't really seem like this was the case, perhaps because knowing the distribution of the much stronger hand tends to help more on opening lead.

 

(2) The weak notrump wrong-sided some notrump contracts. When you start the bidding with a natural minor suit, it's easier to decide who should declare 1NT later in the bidding. Again, in principle this might help the weak notrumpers on the strong notrump hands, but they tend to be in a hurry to rebid notrumps ASAP with these hands in order to show their strength, not to mention that it's usually right to play 3NT from the 15-18 hand anyway (not so much from the 11-14 balanced hand).

My view is that these differences are minimal at best. I think this is just a case of small numbers. Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

[awm]

My feeling is that a lot of the problems don't come when you open 1NT, but when you open 1m with the "strong notrump" hand. Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit.