fancy NT-structure

[downagain]

Last weak I read about the following NT structure:

 

2♣ = stayman, 2♦/♥ = trf (at least 4-card), 2♠ min/max, etc

 

But what makes this system different, is that responder and opener are able to show a weakness in a side-suit (when GF situation):

- Responder has about 3-ways to ask/show 4-card M, showing each time a different weakness, to be able to play in 4-3 fit.

- Responder can show if his 5-card M suit is good enough to play in 5-2 fit, when opener has a weakness responder doesn't cover.

 

But I'd like to know what others think of this. Do you think it's better to just stayman/trf and blasting to 3NT, like everyone else, hoping to make? Or do you think that, overall, you will get better results with this system.

 

And does it make a difference if you were playing MP or IMPs?

[dake50]

I have long questioned partners on what follow bids SHOULD mean. Suggest unstopped/shortage to help make a good 3NT/4M even slam decision.

 

That is, xfer then bid shortage lets 1NT opener choose 4-3 when 3NT misses this stop. May even alert perfecto fit for slam.

 

The interesting question is as you suggest 'Do you steal enough 'one suit unstopped but unled' 3NT games?' to counter-balance those surely failing now on this advertised lead? My gut is these two balance nearly, but the structure to show shortage explodes the found fit slams, thus big plus.

[kfay]

My partner and I play a gadget that allows us to locate weaknesses in NT contracts. The entire NT system is a little strange (we don't even play Stayman) but the long and short of it is:

 

1NT-2NT is GF

 

3♣ asks repsonder if they have a small doubleton and you go from there.

 

We've gotten some great results with this and frankly I couldn't imagine playing any system seriously anymore without something that allows us to discover these kinds of 'misfits'

[whereagles]

downagain, the issue whether you should cater for weak side suits in NT has been studied exaustively and the result is:

 

YES if the weakness is a singleton (of responder's, of course)

NO if the weakness is a doubleton (any player)

 

This suggests playing stuff like splinters over 1NT but to discard ideas like doubleton-asking/showing bids.

[hrothgar]

This sounds a lot like the Scanian NT structure

 

I like it a lot, but this is only for committed partnerships. you need to invest a fair amount of effort into learning the structure and then use it enough that things stay fresh.

 

I always liked it best in the context of a strong club system where you get to apply the same NT module in a variety of situations

 

1NT openings

 

1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT

1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT

[scoob]

My partner and I play a gadget that allows us to locate weaknesses in NT contracts.  The entire NT system is a little strange (we don't even play Stayman) but the long and short of it is:

 

1NT-2NT is GF

 

3♣ asks repsonder if they have a small doubleton and you go from there.

 

We've gotten some great results with this and frankly I couldn't imagine playing any system seriously anymore without something that allows us to discover these kinds of 'misfits'

we play something similar:

 

over any natural and inviting 2NT, 3x shows a "trouble" suit

 

it's been far more successful than we'd originally imagined

[Codo]

I gave it up again for natural bidding. Yes sometimes we avoided 3 NT with a wide open suit, but:

1. The suit was never lead at the other table and our opps made 3 NT without any problem or

2. The suit breaked well for us our blocked or

3. We failed in our contract too. because the catched the first two tricks in that suit and afterwards the long trump hand had to trump or discard, needing all following tricks.

 

And to make it worse, both 1 and 3 sometimes happened at the same board.

 

So I returned to the less spectaculare normal approach.

[hrothgar]

I gave it up again for natural bidding. Yes sometimes we avoided 3 NT with a wide open suit, but:

1. The suit was never lead at the other table and our opps made 3 NT without any problem or

2. The suit breaked well for us our blocked or

3. We failed in our contract too. because the catched the first two tricks in that suit and afterwards the long trump hand had to trump or discard, needing all following tricks.

 

And to make it worse, both 1 and 3 sometimes happened at the same board.

 

So I returned to the less spectaculare normal approach.

The Scanian NT structure uses a 2NT response to ask for a weak doubleton.

 

The advance serves two main purposes:

 

1. Many NT structures feature a mechanism to show an invitational raise to 3N based on a 6 card minor. For example, playing 4 way transfers the auction 1N - 2N asks opener to rebid 3♣ with a Diamond honor (otherwise bid 3♦). The Scanian structure bundled many of these hands into the 2NT advance. If opener shows a weak double in your six card suit, you simply pass...

 

2. Anti-Lemming

 

Personally, I like the bid

[downagain]

I gave it up again for natural bidding. Yes sometimes we avoided 3 NT with a wide open suit, but:

1. The suit was never lead at the other table and our opps made 3 NT without any problem or

2. The suit breaked well for us our blocked or

3. We failed in our contract too. because the catched the first two tricks in that suit and afterwards the long trump hand had to trump or discard, needing all following tricks.

 

And to make it worse, both 1 and 3 sometimes happened at the same board.

 

So I returned to the less spectaculare normal approach.

This is my major concern. And I guess if you'll try to play in 4M every time you have a weak doubleton, you'll end up with too many bad boards and too few plusses.

 

But if you only try to play in 4-3/5-2 fits

- on hands where you've got extras, around 28-30 HCP

- on hands where you're 5-card M suit is really good

- etc..

you should end up with better results overall? Basically, on margin hands, you'll play in 3NT like others.

the issue whether you should cater for weak side suits in NT has been studied exaustively and the result is:

YES if the weakness is a singleton (of responder's, of course)

NO if the weakness is a doubleton (any player)

I guess the study didn’t' take the above into account?

[Codo]

But if you only try to play in 4-3/5-2 fits

- on hands where you've got extras, around 28-30 HCP

- on hands where you're 5-card M suit is really good

- etc..

you should end up with better results overall? Basically, on margin hands, you'll play in 3NT like others.

if you have 28-30 HCPs and one suit is wide open, you possess all High cards in the other three suits. These hands happen, but the frequency is not overwhelming.

 

But there is another point: To play a 5-2 fit with a wide open 3-2 side suit is much better then to play it with a 4-3 fit. (At least in my limited knowledge).

So it makes much more sense to look for the weakness when you have this "fit".

[whereagles]

But if you only try to play in 4-3/5-2 fits

- on hands where you've got extras, around 28-30 HCP

- on hands where you're 5-card M suit is really good

- etc..

you should end up with better results overall? Basically, on margin hands, you'll play in 3NT like others.

the issue whether you should cater for weak side suits in NT has been studied exaustively and the result is:

YES if the weakness is a singleton (of responder's, of course)

NO if the weakness is a doubleton (any player)

I guess the study didn’t' take the above into account?

I don't know. The study was in a textbook in french standard and it didn't mention the premises. Only the conclusions. What I do know (from experience), however, is that fine-tuned bids like the ones you're advocating come up too infrequently to make a sizeable difference.

 

And then there's the trade-off: by insisting on pin-pointing weak doubletons, you're getting marginal gains at the expense of extra memory work and loss of bids that could be used for other purposes. Personally, I believe bids should be at least a mild frequency. If a bid comes up too infrequently, you should scrap it, even if it's super-precise.