Response structures over weak NT

[cjames]

Hey, I am looking for the best (if there is such a thing) or good structure over 10-12 NT's, anybody have any tips? Also, how good/bad is 5c Majors in a 10-12 NT if you play 1♥/♠ openings as 5+ 10-15 HCP?

[mikeh]

2♣: non-forcing stayman. Used with weak hands (garbage), and with most invitational hands regardless of major suit length. See below

 

2♦: artificial game-force, ostensibly stayman. While simple structures are possible, see below for transfer based responses by opener, to maximize the concealed, stronger hand being on play

 

2♥/♠ to play

 

2N: both minors, weak or invitational plus, or weak in diamonds. If opener bids 3♣, 3♦ is to play. Otherwise, responder passes the minor or bids major shortness with invitational plus

 

3♣ is to play

 

3♦ is invitational to 3N

 

3♥/♠ are invitational to a major suit game, opener is NOT permitted to bid 3N

 

3N: is to play

 

4♣: is gerber

 

4♦: both majors, no slam interest

 

4♥/♠ to play

 

 

After 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ shows both majors and is pass or correct

 

After 2♣ 2♦, 2♠ is invitational with 5 spades

 

After 2♣ 2♦ 2N is invitational, but may include 5♥s: opener checks back with 3 hearts and acceptance values

 

After 2♣ 2♦, 3Major is invitational, 6+ suit and involves 3N (immediate 3M excludes 3N as a destination)

 

And so on.

 

The 2♦ forcing structure:

 

2♥ denies 4♥ or a 5 card minor. 2♠ by responder asks.

 

Now 2N by opener denies 4♠. 3♣ continues to ask: 3♦ = 3=3=4=3, 3♥ = 2=3=4=4, 3♠ = 3=2=4=4, and 3N = 3=3=3=4

 

If opener has 4♠, then over 2♠: 3♣ = 4♦s, 3♦s = 4♣. 3♥ = 5 card spades, 3♠ = 4=3=3=3 max, and 3N = 4=3=3=3 min.

 

Over 2♦, 2♠ promises 4♥, denies 4♠s. 2N asks further shape:

 

3♣ = 4♦s, 3♦ = 4♣s, 3♥ is not permitted. 3♠ = 5♥s, 3N = 3=4=3=3

 

Over 2♦, 2N = 5+♣s, 3♣ = 5+♦s, and 3♦ = 4=4 in the majors.

 

note that responder doesn't have to relay over opener's response to 2♦: he can just start bidding suits. And with a major 2-suiter, we can see that a sequence involving 3♠ then 4♥ is slammish, since with no slam interest, responder bids 4♦ over 1N.

 

While some of this may seem complex, it is fairly easy to play. As for 5 card majors, we do not open 1N with a hand with which we would (playing stronger 1N openings) we would usually open 1Major.

 

So with AJ9xx Kxx Kx xx, we'd open 1♠, but with Qxxxx AJx Kxx xx, we'd open 1N. With your constraints, you might choose to include fewer 5 card majors within 1N, and my advice would be to limit 1N with a 5 card major to 5332 shape (which I would always advise anyway) and use it to deny a decent suit: so maybe the best suit would be K9xxx or Q10xxx, etc.

[awm]

A few points:

 

(1) I highly recommend playing south-african transfers. This is 4♣=hearts and 4♦=spades. By combining this with 4♥/4♠ to play, you get the advantages of transfers (you can get partner to declare when that's right, you can set the suit and then bid keycard) without any of the disadvantages (you can still play 4M yourself by bidding it if you prefer, you don't have to give opponents the chance to double anything for the lead or to show values since you can bid 4M direct if this is a concern). This is much more useful than gerber, which will almost never come up opposite a weak notrump (heck it almost never comes up opposite a strong notrump if you don't abuse it).

 

(2) Transfers over 1NT are not as bad as some people make them out to be. Transfers are not really about "right-siding" (which is obviously silly opposite the 10-12 range). Starting with a transfer allows responder to control the auction, which is very frequently key to a good auction. If you're looking for a good structure with transfers I suggest Ron Klinger's Keri methods as a place to start.

 

(3) If you really don't like transfers (and there are some disadvantages, in particular it gives opener's RHO two chances to bid) then I'd consider a slightly different approach than what Mikeh recommended. In particular I like:

 

2♣ = either weak or slam-try stayman. Opener rebids normally. Over 2♦ by opener, 2M is non-forcing (weak with both majors), and responder can also pass any response by opener. If responder doesn't pass, then all continuations are natural and game forcing including 2NT.

 

2♦ = either invitational or GF (but not slammish) stayman. Followups:

 

----> 2♥ = 4♥, not 4♠, minimum

---------> Pass = invite only, happy to play 2♥ (3-4♥ for responder)

---------> 2♠ = 5♠ invite, not forcing

---------> 2N = to play, invite only, responder has 4♠

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3♥ = re-invite, probably 5♥

---------> 3♠ = GF five spades choice of games

---------> 3NT = to play, implies 4♠

----> 2♠ = 4♠, not 4♥, minimum

---------> Pass = invite only, 3-4♠

---------> 2N = to play, invite only, 4-5♥

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3♥ = GF five hearts

---------> 3♠ = re-invite, probably 5♠

---------> 3NT = to play, implies 4♥

----> 2N = minimum, no 4M

---------> Pass = invite only

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3M = GF five card major

---------> 3N = GF no major fit

----> 3♣ = maximum not 4-4 majors

---------> 3♦ = ask four-card major

---------> 3M = five-card major

----> 3♦ = 4-4 in the majors minimum

---------> 3M = to play

---------> 4♣/4♦ = south african, for ♥/♠ respectively

---------> 4M = to play

----> 3M = five-card major, maximum

----> 3N = 4-4 majors, maximum

---------> 4♣/4♦ = south african

---------> 4M = to play

 

There are several advantages to this structure. In particular, you can play 2M on a declined invite. You also conceal from opponents the nature of responder's hand when you are playing in a game contract (i.e. responder could have an invite or a solid GF) which makes it hard for opponents to decide how to lead (passive is better against a thin game, aggressive against a game with extras) and whether to speculatively double (bad idea against a 28-30 hcp game). On the 2♣ auctions, you gain the use of 2NT as a relay after 1nt-2♣-2♦ (whereas 2♦ GF requires opener to bid 2NT and/or possibly disclose info to the opponents by bidding above 2NT when responder only wanted to check major fits and sign off in game).

 

For other responses:

 

2M = to play

2N = natural inv

3m = to play

3M = shortage in other major

3N = to play

4m = south african

4M = to play

[Gerben42]

Haven't we been through this before? :P

 

Anyway, I think it's a waste to have 2♣ and 2♦ both asking for a 4-card major.

 

Condensed Transfers

 

2♣: Asks for 4-card major

2♦: Asks for 2-card major

2M: To play

2N, 3♣: Transfer

3♦: Asks for 5-card major

3♥, ♠: "5431"

4♣, ♦: SA Texas

[cjames]

Thanks all, I will take a look at this later today :P

[MickyB]

Agree with awm, particularly on still using xfers over a weak no-trump. While xfers may make it easier for your LHO to bid, weak take-outs make it easier for your RHO to get involved.

[jmc]

awm, I was wondering where you found this structure or if you or partner created / adapted it.

 

How valuable is it to show the GF minor suit hands? Could these be better used for invitational minor hands? Currently we use double barrel Stayman and can invite with a minor via 1NT-2C-2DHS-3m. What do you think?

 

You define the auction 1NT-2D-3M as showing a 5 card major. We only open a weak NT with a 5 card major with 10 points. Our range is 10-13. Have a better idea of what we might use these for?

 

In the auction 1NT-2D-2NT might it make sense to play 4c/4d as still South African? Responder could have a 6-4 game forcing major hand.

 

This post is old. Anything anyone would like to comment on about the structure?

 

A few points:

2♦ = either invitational or GF (but not slammish) stayman. Followups:

----> 2♥ = 4♥, not 4♠, minimum

---------> Pass = invite only, happy to play 2♥ (3-4♥ for responder)

---------> 2♠ = 5♠ invite, not forcing

---------> 2N = to play, invite only, responder has 4♠

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3♥ = re-invite, probably 5♥

---------> 3♠ = GF five spades choice of games

---------> 3NT = to play, implies 4♠

----> 2♠ = 4♠, not 4♥, minimum

---------> Pass = invite only, 3-4♠

---------> 2N = to play, invite only, 4-5♥

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3♥ = GF five hearts

---------> 3♠ = re-invite, probably 5♠

---------> 3NT = to play, implies 4♥

----> 2N = minimum, no 4M

---------> Pass = invite only

---------> 3m = GF short other minor

---------> 3M = GF five card major

---------> 3N = GF no major fit

----> 3♣ = maximum not 4-4 majors

---------> 3♦ = ask four-card major

---------> 3M = five-card major

----> 3♦ = 4-4 in the majors minimum

---------> 3M = to play

---------> 4♣/4♦ = south african, for ♥/♠ respectively

---------> 4M = to play

----> 3M = five-card major, maximum

----> 3N = 4-4 majors, maximum

---------> 4♣/4♦ = south african

---------> 4M = to play

For other responses:

2M = to play

2N = natural inv

3m = to play

3M = shortage in other major

3N = to play

4m = south african

4M = to play

[inquiry]

You may want to take a look at www.bridgematters.com where there is a large group of very well thought out response methods to weak notrump openings (pick the one that is most suited to your taste).

[Gerben42]

(2) Transfers over 1NT are not as bad as some people make them out to be. Transfers are not really about "right-siding" (which is obviously silly opposite the 10-12 range). Starting with a transfer allows responder to control the auction, which is very frequently key to a good auction. If you're looking for a good structure with transfers I suggest Ron Klinger's Keri methods as a place to start.

 

I agree that transfers are not about right-siding, but people just step over the big hole that I discussed in my 12/2007 Bridge World article: Transfers don't tell you if you have a fit and leaves responder in control in a situation where he doesn't want any.

 

Facing 12 - 14 NT you have a pedestrian hand like:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skjxxxhxdaxxxcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1NT, you bid 2♥ transfer, partner bids 2♠ as he is supposed to and you? 2-way Stayman does not address this problem and forces responder to enter the 3-level without a known 5 - 3 fit.

 

Another thing is transfers to the minors. As long as they are "weak or strong", this approach is much better than using 2NT as invitational and 3m as "to play".

[gnasher]

Another thing is transfers to the minors. As long as they are "weak or strong", this approach is much better than using 2NT as invitational and 3m as "to play".

Is it? It may well be better when you have a minor, but it's a decided disadvantage to have to bid a balanced invitation via Stayman, gratuitously telling the opponents about major suits that you weren't interested in. An alternative is to never bother inviting with such hands - either pass or bid game - but that has problems of its own.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing 10-12 NTs for some time. One of the first things one must realize when playing 10-12 NTs is that if you are going to get to game you want responder to declare if at all possible, as responder will have the "strong" hand.

 

My regular partner and I have adopted the structure that Paul Soloway and Bobby Goldman use. Here is the structure:

 

The 10-12 Notrump

Paul Soloway and Bobby Goldman played 10-12

1NT openings in first and second seats nonvul.

1NT ?

2 C = nonforcing Stayman

2 D = forcing Stayman

2 H = to play

2 S = to play

2 NT = transfer to clubs, many types

3 C = slightly invitational

3 D = slightly invitational

3 H = preemptive

3 S = preemptive

 

 

1NT 2 D (game force)

?

2 H = spades

2 S = hearts

(2NT asks for second suit; 3C = diamonds,

3 D = clubs)

2 NT = five-card minor

(3C asks; 3 D = diamonds, 3 H = clubs)

3 C = both majors

3 D = both minors

3 H = 2-2-4-5

3 S = 2-2-5-4

3 NT = 3-3-3(4)-4(3)

(4 C asks; 4 D = diamonds, 4 H = clubs)

 

 

1NT 2 NT = transfer to 3C

3 C ?

pass = clubs

3 D = signoff in diamonds

3 H = 5-5 majors, inv.

3 S = short spades

3NT = short hearts

 

Soloway said: “The 10-12 notrump is another attacking

convention which certainly can disrupt your

opps. The stuff over 2 D I got from Mike Passell.”

[ArtK78]

I don't quite understand your second question. I play 10-12 NTs in the context of a standard structure in which we open light in 1st and 2nd seats nonvul. 1NT is 10-12. All other openings are 10+. So, we open 5 card majors on 10 HCP. One of a minor is ostensibly 10 or more HCP, but we open 1 of a minor on all balanced 13-16 HCP hands and rebid 1NT.

[Free]

I prefer HEEMAN after a weak 1NT (11+-14), because it works great! Haven't tested it on 10-12 however, but you may want to give it a try.

[glen]

2 NT = transfer to clubs, many types

...

1NT 2 NT = transfer to 3C

3 C ?

pass = clubs

3 D = signoff in diamonds

3 H = 5-5 majors, inv.

3 S = short spades

3NT = short hearts

If you could please do not describe 2NT as a "transfer to clubs, many types". A "puppet to 3♣, many types" would indicate better that ♣s are not promised by the 2NT response.

[ArtK78]

2 NT = transfer to clubs, many types

...

1NT 2 NT = transfer to 3C

3 C ?

pass = clubs

3 D = signoff in diamonds

3 H = 5-5 majors, inv.

3 S = short spades

3NT = short hearts

If you could please do not describe 2NT as a "transfer to clubs, many types". A "puppet to 3♣, many types" would indicate better that ♣s are not promised by the 2NT response.

The method that I set forth is quoted directly from an article by Paul Soloway.

 

If you have a complaint about the manner in which the method is set forth, please take it up with Paul.

[glen]

If you have a complaint about the manner in which the method is set forth, please take it up with Paul.

This is not nice. Please delete it and I will edit this out.

 

As to article, perhaps this pre-dates the Bridge World's excellent efforts to improve our terminology.

[TimG]

One method to consider is "two-way transfers" (perhaps better termed "puppets"):

 

1N-2H shows either a weak hand with spades or an invitational plus hand with hearts. One plus for this method is that it makes opener declarer when responder is weak and responder declarer when responder is strong.

[ArtK78]

If you have a complaint about the manner in which the method is set forth, please take it up with Paul.

This is not nice. Please delete it and I will edit this out.

 

As to article, perhaps this pre-dates the Bridge World's excellent efforts to improve our terminology.

I fail to see what is not nice about it (and I certainly have no intention of deleting my post). You criticized the manner in which I presented the method. I merely informed you of the source of the language and directed you as to where you might direct your comment.

 

Admittedly, it might be difficult at this time to do so directly.

 

Rather than criticize the terminology used in the presentation, perhaps you should concentrate on the substance. I assume that you have no real problem with the substance of Paul's structure over the 10-12 NT opening.

[glen]

I fail to see what is not nice about it (and I certainly have no intention of deleting my post).  You criticized the manner in which I presented the method. ...

I was not asking you to delete your post, just the not-nice line (and sorry if I'm the only that finds it this way). I was not criticizing the manner you presented the method, but recommending ("If you could please...") you describe it better.