weak versus strong NT

[glen]

I would like to draw attention to these two excellent articles related to the discussion:

 

Chris Ryall's Opening/defending 1NT

 

Ken Allan's Right-siding

[Ant590]

I even had some fun with 10-12 [1NT] overcalls.....

This sounds interesting... what did you play in response if responder passed? What did you do with 13+ balanced hands?

 

Ant.

[pbleighton]

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.

 

I play both weak and strong NT every weak, and have done so for about 4 years.

 

You make a good point, weak notrumpers are at a disadvantage in partscore auctions with strong NT openers. There are 2 issues: more information to the opps, and letting them in cheap with a 1 level overcall.

 

Of course, this applies twice as often to the strong notrumpers opening a weak NT hand :D

 

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."

 

You don't think "momentum" applies to the decision to play strong NT in strong NT countries?

 

Peter

[Cascade]

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.

I'd be interested to hear about these problems. My view is that there are significant advantages in opening your strong No Trump hands with a natural suit.

 

Primarily that when you have a strong No Trump you are much more likely to have a slam than when you have a weak No Trump. Bidding a suit naturally makes it much easier to get to your 4=4 and 4=5 minor suit fits than by opening 1NT where the minors often get lost.

 

Nevertheless like many arguments on system I think the argument is relatively futile. If you have good agreements for the follow up auctions then there will be swings and round-abouts which will mostly even out in the long run. This applies so long as your basic structure is reasonably sound.

[MickyB]

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."

 

You don't think "momentum" applies to the decision to play strong?

In the English trials, the five top teams consisted of nine pairs playing strong NT and one pair playing weak NT.

[MickyB]

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

[Echognome]

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

Exactly! Let me give you the contra-positive. If no world class players played a weak NT, then might we not consider that it was inferior. Let's take as an example a 17-19 NT or an 8-10 NT or even a completely artificial 1NT. How many are playing that? Why not? Can we conclude anything?

[Robert]

Hi awm

 

If the weak NT results from your match were the normal result. FN would destroy any pair that they played 'if' they simply switched from their weak NT bidding.

 

KS swept the American bridge scene when it first arrived. That Tiger bridge pair made life master in something like six weeks playing a weak NT.

 

If the other pairs were playing double dummy defense because of the bidding and the weak NT 'wrong sided' that many more contracts, how did all of the weak NT players manage to win so often?

 

Are you sure that you didn't either play against a much weaker pair or perhaps you just simply had a session where everything goes right?

 

I played with a gentleman from out of town and we won seven times in a row in our club game. One session that we won, second place was slightly above average and everyone else our way was below average. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[mikeh]

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?

My concern relates more to the overall play of the hand, not to the opening lead. Transfers have responder describe his hand, with opener usually declaring. So in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

[hrothgar]

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.

I'm not sure that you are framing the issue optimally:

 

From my perspective, most bridge players tend to follow the herd. They use the same set of methods that everyone else does. In most of the world, this means that they are using a 5 card major, strong No Trump base. There are a number of possible explanations for this tendency. I suspect that most of them boil down to network effects. (Its easier to find a partner if you play the same methods as everyone else. Its easier to find books to read if you're playing the same methods as everyone else. Yada, yada, yada). Note, these factors don't have anything to do with the efficiency or the performance of the system.

 

You also find a number of players who are quite interested in performance of their bidding systems. (I would argue that many - but not all - of the players who compete at the top levels fall in into this category). I think that a sizable number of these players graviate towards strong club type systems. In short, the the absence of world class pairs playing 5 card major / weak NT systems with a natural base has less to do with the relative merits of weak versus strong NT as it does strong club versus natural.

 

(There are (obviously) counter examples. For example, I know that Martel and Stansby have spent a lot of time thinking about their bidding methods. I think that it is safe to hypothesize that their decision to play a fairly natural system with 5 card majors and a weak NT opening represents a concious conviction that this is the "best" way to go)

 

I found the statistics about the number of top English pairs playing strong NT type methods during the teams trials interesting. Were there any strong club pairs in the mix? For what its worth, I've always thought of MOSCITO as a natural heir to Acol. Once you get past the all the window dressing, the core of the system is based on limit bids, fairly simple natural bidding, and quickly bashing to a decent spot.

[hotShot]

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

 

If you open a 4card suit in ACOL you hold a 4441, 4432 or 4333 distribution. If your point range is 12-14, you can open most of them with 1NT. This means that the full disclosure of any 1-in-a-suit bid should be:

15+HCP with 4cards or 12+HCP unbalanced 5+ cards if not 4441.

So ACOL with weak NT is somewhere in between a "Strong All.Suits" System and a "5card all suits" system. Some pairs open 4441 with 1NT too, so that they are sure, 1-in-Suit is 5cards or strong.

 

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors. (Some pairs allow bad 5card majors in their NT opening to get part of the lost benefit back.) The minors still benefit from the weak NT.

 

So if you compare 5 card Major players with weak and strong NT you will find.

Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.

Whenever the points and cards are evenly divided between the sides, your side bid 1NT first and may benefit from an uninspired lead.

 

Using weak NT the biggest benefit you have is playing in a strong NT environment, where average opps don't have an appropriate defense available and are unaware of the implication the weak NT has on the rest of your bids.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

(There are (obviously) counter examples. For example, I know that Martel and Stansby have spent a lot of time thinking about their bidding methods. I think that it is safe to hypothesize that their decision to play a fairly natural system with 5 card majors and a weak NT opening represents a concious conviction that this is the "best" way to go)

<snip>

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone

said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT,

if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of

their systems.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[MickyB]

I found the statistics about the number of top English pairs playing strong NT type methods during the teams trials interesting. Were there any strong club pairs in the mix? For what its worth, I've always thought of MOSCITO as a natural heir to Acol. Once you get past the all the window dressing, the core of the system is based on limit bids, fairly simple natural bidding, and quickly bashing to a decent spot.

I don't think there were any strong club pairs in the eight teams. Maybe there was one, I'll find out. There was one Polish Club pair.

 

Other than the trials and the Spring Fours, xfer openings weren't legal until a couple of years back, and a strong club still has to show 16+points or rule of 25, so it's not that surprising that I've only seen a couple of pairs play MOSCITO in this country. Having said that, the majority of top players here seem to think strong clubs lose out too much after opening 1♣ to be worth playing.

[MickyB]

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

 

[snip]

 

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors.

Is the second statement your justification for the first?

 

If you play five-card majors, your no-trump range has little effect on your 1M openings. This isn't an argument for saying weak+4 is better than weak+5, it is an argument that weak+4 is better than strong+4.

 

Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.

 

You are making the mistake of comparing by opening bid; instead, you should compare by hand-type.

 

When you have 12-14 balanced, you can show your hand in one bid playing weak NT; however, playing strong NT, partner will assume you have this hand until you tell him otherwise. There's no danger of not getting your hand across.

 

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points. However, strong no-trumpers gain when they open 1♣ and make a later takeout double - playing weak NT, opener's 2nd round double should usually be assigned to the strong balanced hand.

 

When you have 15-17 balanced, strong NTers get their hand across in one bid, and there is no compulsion to bid again. Those opening one-of-a-suit usually need to take a second bid on this hand, and often it is uncomfortable to do so. Say the auction starts 1♣ (3♠). How are you finding your routine game with flat 16 opposite flat 9? Even 17 opposite 10 is far from comfortable. Likewise, a two-level WJO can still cause issues.

 

Of course, that doesn't apply to strong club pairs, who are getting their values across in one bid. Likewise Nightmare or, to a lesser extent, Fantunes.

 

Btw, look at how Polish+Swedish Club systems fare on the above three hand-types. They are separated, and the responder to a 1♣ opening is able to assume pard has the weak no-trump, allowing him to make competitive (negative) freebids without fear that pard will have a misfitting minimum.

Edited August 3, 2007 by MickyB

[MickyB]

in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

[glen]

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT, if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of their systems.

The Martel interview is at:

 

Chip Martel Interview (pdf)

 

Q. ... If you established a new partnership, would you stick with the weak NT base you have now?

 

Chip Martel: The only reason I might be tempted to switch to a non-weak NT system is because more people now are playing those systems. As a result, more development of bridge theory has been geared towards strong NT-based systems ...

Also in the interview:

Fundamentally, when you have a balanced hand opposite a shapely hand, it is superior to let the shapely hand describe the shape and the balanced hand evaluate how well their honors fit, the right level and the choice of game.

[mikeh]

in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

That statement is nonsense.

 

I have played relay methods with some success, and I can assure you that most relay methods work best when the relatively balanced hand describes. An important reason for this is that relays use some order of 'asking' (often but by no means always, with shape first), and a well-crafted method assigns the cheaper step responses to the more common hand-patterns. Balanced and semi-balanced hands arise with far more frequency than do 5-5 or wilder hands, so we can get a full shape description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand at a lower level than is possible with wild hands. This in turn means that the control/specific card relay steps operate at a lower level.

 

There is always, in relay, a tension between the need to ask for additional information and the bidding space available. Speaking from experience, there are times when relayer has to break the relay because a possible response would take the partnership beyond the level of safety.. and these situations tend to arise more often when the responder, to the relayer, has had to consume space early by describing a wild hand.

 

And even in a non-relay context, having the balanced hand describe itself to the stronger unbalanced hand makes nothing but sense. Basic theory should lead you to that conclusion. Bidding space only permits the exchange of limited information, unless the hands are so strong that methods become essentially irrelevant. A hand already constrained to a narrow point count and limited shape can define itself far more quickly than can a hand unlimited both as to hcp and shape.

[MickyB]

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

That statement is nonsense.

 

I have played relay methods with some success, and I can assure you that most relay methods work best when the relatively balanced hand describes. An important reason for this is that relays use some order of 'asking' (often but by no means always, with shape first), and a well-crafted method assigns the cheaper step responses to the more common hand-patterns. Balanced and semi-balanced hands arise with far more frequency than do 5-5 or wilder hands, so we can get a full shape description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand at a lower level than is possible with wild hands. This in turn means that the control/specific card relay steps operate at a lower level.

Fair point, but I think the factors working the other way are much more significant.

 

If a hand has a singleton, it is unlikely to have a (relevant) honour in the suit. If it has a void, it is even less likely :rolleyes: This means that there are far fewer combinations of honours to show partner.

 

Most honours in the unbalanced hand will be "working". This isn't true of the balanced hand - any cards opposite shortage should be greatly devalued.

 

Bidding space only permits the exchange of limited information, unless the hands are so strong that methods become essentially irrelevant. A hand already constrained to a narrow point count and limited shape can define itself far more quickly than can a hand unlimited both as to hcp and shape.

 

Being unlimited in HCP isn't really an issue. The unbal hand shows shape, allowing the bal hand to reevaluate, then the bal hand either makes negative moves or positive ones.

[hotShot]

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

 

[snip]

 

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors.

Is the second statement your justification for the first?

 

No it's the thesis, I prove in the following lines.

 

To use your syntax:

weak+4 1M promises 4 and implies 5 or strong

weak+5 1M promises 5 no information about extra strength => no benefit

 

Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.

 

You are making the mistake of comparing by opening bid; instead, you should compare by hand-type.

 

I gave an example for the implications a weak NT has on other bids. For a comparison you need to things and I was only talking about one.

 

[snip]

 

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points.

I think thats what I said.

[MickyB]

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points.

I think thats what I said.

No, you said that you are more competitive whenever you open 1m. I am saying that your argument is an advantage for when you have clubs, but a (more significant) disadvantage when you have a strong balanced hand.

[hotShot]

Ok you are right, I was not clear enough.

 

Playing weak NT you have an advantage whenever strong NT player open 1m (♣ or ♦).

1) If your partner opened 1m too, you can expect 5+ cards or (not in this case) extra HCP .

2) Your partner opened 1NT, you reached that contract without giving distributional information to opps and you might have preempted them from entering the auction.

[JanM]

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone

said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT,

if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of

their systems.

 

Actually, what Chip has said is that he would "consider" switching to a STR NT system, not because it's inherently better, but because there has been more development of "gadgets" (for want of a better word) in the STR NT context. For instance, support doubles don't work as well with weak NTs as with STR. Ditto good/bad 2NT. I think there are some others but I have forgotten what.

 

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract. And I think usually it's better to have opened a 5 card Major 1M than 1NT with 15-17. I know that most STR NT'ers open 1NT with 5332 and a 5 card Major, but I think that's not because it's better but because opening 1M with too wide a range is worse, if that makes any sense. One of the things I like about weak NTs is that I don't have to judge whether a particular 5332 should open 1M or 1NT - I just open 1M unless it's a very awkward pattern (2533 without a strong 3 card minor).

[hrothgar]

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract.

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

 

From the sounds of things, you're using

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

 

In a similar vein

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

 

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

 

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

[cherdano]

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract.

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

 

From the sounds of things, you're using

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

 

In a similar vein

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

 

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

 

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

This has been discussed before, I think Jan has even posted the two possible defenses she suggests if opponents ask.

[Robert]

Hi MickyB

 

A top American expert Edgar Kaplan of Kaplan Seinwold bidding fame played a weak NT and sound minor openings. He did not feel that it was a disadvantage

to open 1m with 15+ balanced.

 

FN play a weak NT and they are one of the best pairs in the world. If they switched to a strong NT, you think that they would win more often? Why wouldn't they switch 'if' your theory was correct?

 

Likely the strongest U.S. team has two pairs playing a forcing club. Meckwell and a Blue Team Club offshoot.

 

If their outstanding record is any indication, your comment on players in your country avoiding big club methods because of the problems involved is just not supported by the facts. One of the best teams in the world has two out of three pairs playing and winning with big club methods. The problems from playing a big club method are vastly overrated by your comments since these two world class pairs use 1C forcing and have a proven winning track record.

 

Regards,

Robert