Defend 10-12 NT

[foo]

Once again, ArtK78 and mikeh.

 

I did not accuse any of you of doing anything inappropriate. So unless you have a guilty conscience, stop acting like I have accused you of something.

 

In addition, many less experienced players using the KNT do not realize that some of the things they are doing are unethical.

 

So both of you please calm down and stop acting like I'm kicking your puppy.

 

The simple fact is that many pairs get good results out of the KNT for exactly the reasons I stated. Either they are playing it against opponents unfamiliar with how to defend against a system using the KNT, or the users of the KNT are not fully disclosing their agreements. In either case, it gives the pair using the KNT an advantage that is not based on Bridge merit.

 

...and mikeh, you and I both know that this discussion, in the B/I forum, was not about Bridge as it is played at the highest levels.

 

...and yes, =any= time a pair opens 1N with a stiff or acts like they have undisclosed agreements the opponents had the right to know, I call either the Director or the Recorder. I've done it at all levels. Even National events.

 

In fact, since we =are= in the B/I forum, I'll give the B/I some advice.

Do not play the KNT until you are far more experienced since it rates to slow down your development into a better player.

[foo]

Often KNT pairs allow shapes to be opened 1N that would be considered unusual by most. 6322's, 7222's, 5M332's, etc.

 

So do many strong no-trumpers. Let's complain about them too.

 

This is not about bidding judgment and a player deciding to do something unexpected. This is about System and agreements.

 

If a pair has agreements to open NT with hand types the mainstream would find unusual, then they have an obligation to disclose. Regardless of the range of the NT involved.

 

If playing a standard system then yes, the KNT does mess the NT ladder. But in a strong club context, for example, it does not. a 10-12 NT can actually clean up the NT ladder, cleaning out the minimum 5M332 hands from 1M for example, making for better constructive auctions after a 1M auction. For example, 1M-2m-2NT is now 13-15; this is a much better situation than 1M-2m-2NT as 10-15 or whatever, or even if you put 5M332s in a 13-15 1NT as a 10-12 2NT rebid is horrible.

Agreed. When I've played the KNT it worked far better in a Forcing Club system than in a natural one.

 

But since no one was talking about FC systems and we are in the B/I forum, I thought I'd keep it as simple as reasonable.

 

Many KNTers who use it in a standard system play 1m then rebid 1NT as one range and 1om rebidding 1NT as the other range to fix this.

Yep. I talked about this in my first post in this thread.

[mikeh]

Foo, this thread began with a perfectly appropriate request that some experienced players post ideas about how to bid against a 10-12 1N. You have tried to hijack it with completely uncalled for rants about how 'many' pairs playing weak 1N do so because they win due to the lack of experience of their opps and/or because they are unethical.. they play treatments that are unusual and that they fail or refuse to disclose. You have alleged that, without these factors, 10-12 is a poor system, and that this is why it is not mainstream.

 

Elementary logic leads us to the conclusion that, in your view, no true expert partnership would choose to play 10-12 1N UNLESS they were either taking advantage of opponents' lack of familiarity or they were being unethical in their treatments and disclosure. No real experts would, one assumes, intentionally, and for years on end, play an inherently inferior method.

 

Well, Soloway played 10-12 against pretty good competition.. so he wasn't playing it to take advantage of ignorance. Meckwell played 9-12 for many years.. and not against B/I players.

 

So, you are smearing, without having the courage to be explicit, players of this ilk. I think even you would accept that the Soloways, the Meckwells, the Passells of the world are better than you... and that they know enough about the game that they would (quickly) drop any inherently inferior method. They didn't.. they played them for years.... so your argument has to be that they were unethical.

 

There are many reasons why one would choose to abandon the weak 1N. I have turned away from 10-12 myself in recent years, but not because I found that I needed to be unethical to play it successfully. Nor because of the NT rebid range issues you identified.. they sound like issues, but in reality rarely are.. and I never have used the Kokish scheme of linking one range to 1♣ and another to 1♦.

 

I am not going to further divert the B/I thread by going into the reasons... they are somewhat subtle.

 

My point is that you are, judged on your posts, a person with an extraordinarily high opinion of your skills/knowledge, with no evidence of entitlement to that opinion.. and, most importantly... a person who feels entitled to slur the character of 'many players' about whom you know nothing.

 

If there were a thread on the merits of 10-12 1N, then your comments, without the attribution of evil motives, might serve a purpose. But this wasn't, so your slurs were not only wrong, but uncalled-for.

 

I probably shouldn't have posted this, because I suspect that you meet Justin's definition of a troll, and that I am merely encouraging you to post another smug, erroneous comment in which you 'appear' to be responding.

[foo]

mikeh, please tone down the personal attacks and the rhetoric.

 

I did not hi-jack this thread. OTC, I've posted the most complete defense to a pair using the KNT of any response so far in this thread.

 

In addition, many less experienced players view the KNT as something to be feared to an unreasonable degree when defending against pairs using it. Since this is a teaching forum, it seems appropriate to explain that they should not be as concerned as players of that level typically are; and, more importantly, =why= they should not be so concerned and =how= they should defend themselves.

 

If you think any of that is off topic, I disagree with you.

 

I did not accuse you or any other specific player of behaving unethically. You have chosen to take my comments personally and to take offense without provocation. This implies either a= you have a guilty conscience, or b= you are looking for an excuse to "mix it up" with me. Neither sort of discussion is appropriate for a public forum.

 

However, IME many pairs using the KNT do get most of their better results due to the factors I have previously stated. Again, you may not think that is germane to a thread on defending vs the KNT. I disagree, and believe it valuable for players to know both how to defend against such issues +and+ how to play a system containing the KNT ethically should they choose to try it out.

 

If you wish to engage in further personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations, I request that you pm me rather than continue such discourse in a public forum.

[hrothgar]

Coming into this thread a bit late

 

During the GNT finals I got to play 32 boards against a 10-12 NT pair.

Partner and I spent a fair amount of time discussing defenses. We eventuually settled on the following

 

3♠ = Both minors, strong, short Spades

3♥ = Both minors, strong, short Hearts

3♦ = Diamonds and Hearts

3♣ = Both minors

2N = Transfer to Diamonds

2♠ = Transfer to Clubs

2♥ = Transfer to Spades

2♦ = Transfer to Hearts

2♣ = Both majors

X = Penalty

 

Seemed to work fairly well

[foo]

Coming into this thread a bit late

 

During the GNT finals I got to play 32 boards against a 10-12 NT pair.

Partner and I spent a fair amount of time discussing defenses. We eventuually settled on the following

 

3♠ = Both minors, strong, short Spades

3♥ = Both minors, strong, short Hearts

3♦ = Diamonds and Hearts

3♣ = Both minors

2N = Transfer to Diamonds

2♠ = Transfer to Clubs

2♥ = Transfer to Spades

2♦ = Transfer to Hearts

2♣ = Both majors

X = Penalty

 

Seemed to work fairly well

This looks interesting.

What were your strength requirements for (1N)-X and (1N)-pa-pa-X?

 

Were the transfer overcalls effective?

[awm]

There is some truth to the fact that weak notrumps do very well against people who don't know how to defend against it. Certainly I have gotten many ridiculously good results by playing a 10-12 notrump against weak pairs (and there are weak pairs even in the "big" events, especially the first day). But this is true of virtually any non-standard method (it will get ridiculously good results against people who haven't the first clue how to defend it). It doesn't make the people playing that method unethical, as long as they disclose it properly (in my experience, most pairs using a weak notrump do a very good job of disclosure).

 

And this also has no bearing on the technical merit of the 10-12 notrump. When Meckwell decide to use (or stop using) a method, it usually has little to do with its "bunny bashing" merits. They are looking for methods that work well against elite players in established partnerships, and these folks normally have a clue how to defend the 10-12 (or 9-12 or whatever). I think the jury's still out on this notrump range against good players -- there are many subtle advantages and disadvantages and there is a definite "raising the variance" effect that may be desirable or undesirable depending on the situation.

 

I am curious that several people have suggested defenses to 10-12 notrump that make extensive use of transfers. It seems like this has a substantial disadvantage, in that it gives your opponents multiple chances to double you or otherwise compete. For example, over 1NT-2♠ natural, responder can use a penalty double or a takeout double but not both (and it won't be comfortable for a 10-12 notrump to balance if 2♠ passes to him). He can show two out of a GF 3m bid, an invitational 3m bid, and a weak 3m bid (lebensohl) but not all three. But over the sequence 1NT-2♥(transfer to spades) he has a direct double and a delayed double available (likely one takeout and one penalty) as well as a 2♠ cuebid, and he can bid 3m in as many as four ways (immediate 3m, immediate lebensohl, pass then 3m, pass then lebensohl if it's on). Are there really substantial advantages to transfers to make up for this? I don't think "getting the weak notrumper on lead" is such a huge advantage in any case (he needn't have substantially more than half his side's values), so the only real win is if overcaller will frequently take another call after partner accepts the transfer. Does this really come up that much?

[hrothgar]

I am curious that several people have suggested defenses to 10-12 notrump that make extensive use of transfers. It seems like this has a substantial disadvantage, in that it gives your opponents multiple chances to double you or otherwise compete. For example, over 1NT-2♠ natural, responder can use a penalty double or a takeout double but not both (and it won't be comfortable for a 10-12 notrump to balance if 2♠ passes to him). He can show two out of a GF 3m bid, an invitational 3m bid, and a weak 3m bid (lebensohl) but not all three. But over the sequence 1NT-2♥(transfer to spades) he has a direct double and a delayed double available (likely one takeout and one penalty) as well as a 2♠ cuebid, and he can bid 3m in as many as four ways (immediate 3m, immediate lebensohl, pass then 3m, pass then lebensohl if it's on). Are there really substantial advantages to transfers to make up for this? I don't think "getting the weak notrumper on lead" is such a huge advantage in any case (he needn't have substantially more than half his side's values), so the only real win is if overcaller will frequently take another call after partner accepts the transfer. Does this really come up that much?

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if the 1NT opener is on lead...

 

Why do players use transfers after partner's strong NT opening?

Why do player adopt transfer advances of overcalls?

Why do players use Rubensohl after folinterference over their 1NT opening?

 

I'd argue that the primary reason has to do with effective use of bidding space.

 

Transfer based schemes allow the overcaller to show many more hand types that natural methods. 10-12 NTs are incredible common. We need methods that allow us to show lots of different hand types.

 

It might be possible to develop some highly convoluted completely artifical scheme that would allow us to show even more hand types. However, the transfer based scheme is farily similar to methods that (most) folks play over a 1NT opening. Its easy to remember and there isn't much chance of a real screw-up.

[mikeh]

I am a fan of transfers as part of my defence structure to 10-12, as I posted earlier.

 

I admit that the transfer and rebid hasn't come up very often: it has been quite effective when it has.

 

I agree that having the weak notrumper on lead is rarely a factor, and in my experience, it breaks even.

 

I agree that the transfer allows opps to play different meanings for double, and, in addition, it gives them the ability to bid your suit: thus, I play (when the opps transfer) that a bid of their suit shows shortness, and typically 5431 or 4441 and values to compete to the 3-level.

 

one advantage adam did not mention arises infrequently but is, in my view, sufficient to worry the opps who chose to pass and act later, is that the transfer is non-forcing. I have passed it a couple of times, and got ok results.. a weak hand short in the suit shown and long in the suit bid... an analogous sequence to a multi 2♦ (only a weak major variant) being passed by responder. This is not risk free since overcaller may have a powerful 2-suiter.

[awm]

Why do players use transfers after partner's strong NT opening?

Why do player adopt transfer advances of overcalls?

Why do players use Rubensohl after interference over their 1NT opening?

 

In all three cases, the goal is to differentiate between "bad" hands which just want to sign off in a suit and "good" hands which want to force to game. A natural bid has to either be non-forcing (so no way to bid the "good" hands) or forcing (so no way to bid the "bad" hands) whereas the transfer lets you have both.

 

When opponents open a weak notrump, I would argue that you don't really want to be bidding with terrible hands (just pass or preempt) and that really good hands can start with a double (even if you don't really want to defend, if you're sitting on a huge number of high cards opponents won't usually leave the double in and you get another chance to bid). While I am sure there are a few hands where you have so much shape that you want to force but not enough high card strength to start with double, these are few and far between. In fact as Mikeh (a fan of transfers) indicates:

 

I admit that the transfer and rebid hasn't come up very often: it has been quite effective when it has.

 

One could make a simple modification to hrothgar's structure for example, to use:

 

2♦ = good hand with a 5+ card minor

2M = natural

 

Over 2♦, partner bids a major suit if any, allowing you to find a potential 4-4 major fit when overcaller has a 4-5 or 4-6 hand. Potentially the 2♦ bid can also include freak two-suiters with a major and a minor (if both majors bid 2♣; over 2-other-major from partner bid 2NT to show this). This doesn't really seem more complicated than transfers, and it gets you the obstructive effect of a natural 2M bid.

[foo]

I've seen a few uses the term "Weak NT" in this thread about 1N= 10-12 or 10-13.

 

That is not the proper thing to call 1N= 10-12 or 10-13.

 

The "Weak NT" is 1N= 12-14 or 11-13 or 11-14 etc.

 

The proper name for any 1N opening weaker than the traditional range of a Weak NT is either "Kamikaze NT" or "mini NT".

 

1N= 10-12 is a very different beast than 1N= 12-14. Defending against the KNT is as different from defending vs the Weak NT as defending against the Weak NT is from defending vs a strong NT.

 

So it is worth not confusing our terms when discussing them.

[hrothgar]

Why do players use transfers after partner's strong NT opening?

Why do player adopt transfer advances of overcalls?

Why do players use Rubensohl after interference over their 1NT opening?

 

In all three cases, the goal is to differentiate between "bad" hands which just want to sign off in a suit and "good" hands which want to force to game. A natural bid has to either be non-forcing (so no way to bid the "good" hands) or forcing (so no way to bid the "bad" hands) whereas the transfer lets you have both.

You seem fixated on the concept that there is some kind of linkage between

 

1. Additional bidding space

2. Differentiating between good and bad hands

 

I agree that many (though not all) partnerships use the additional bidding space provided by transfers to differentiate between different strength hands. However, there are plenty of counter examples.

 

Take a look at the rebid scheme that the Scanian NT structure uses after auctions like

 

1N - 2D

2H

 

In a similar vein, when I am competing over a mini NT, auctions like

 

(1N) - 2♦ - (P) - 2♥

(P) - 3♣

 

Aren't necessarily slam invitation with 5+ Hearts and 4 Clubs. Instead, they're an attempt to determine level and strain. (I've seen a number of structures in which 3♣ is a second transfer, showing game invitational values with Hearts and Diamonds)

[TimG]

I am curious that several people have suggested defenses to 10-12 notrump that make extensive use of transfers. It seems like this has a substantial disadvantage, in that it gives your opponents multiple chances to double you or otherwise compete.

The same can be said of transfer responses to a mini (or weak) NT opening, can't it? Yet, many players choose to play transfers over these openings.

[Gerben42]

The same can be said of transfer responses to a mini (or weak) NT opening, can't it? Yet, many players choose to play transfers over these openings.

 

I'm not playing transfers after my weak NT. I've seen too many good results from this to return to transfers...

 

Transfers in defense of a weak NT makes some sense, although also slightly dangerous you can distinguish more hand types. I'm not playing them, btw. I just play my Multi Landy like usual, because I am more familiar with that kind of bid.

[TimG]

The same can be said of transfer responses to a mini (or weak) NT opening, can't it? Yet, many players choose to play transfers over these openings.

 

I'm not playing transfers after my weak NT. I've seen too many good results from this to return to transfers...

Don't you feel you are giving up some accuracy as a result? While you get some good results from not playing transfers, there must also be some instances of troubles arising from the failure to play transfers.

[ASkolnick]

As strange as it sounds, we play both (transfers and non-transfers, known as two way transfers) over our weak NT system:

 

For the most part (with one big exception) is either a transfer to drop dead in or natural and at least Inv+ values. So

 

1N-P-

2C Stayman

2D This one is overloaded. Responder bids 2H.

a) Drop dead in hearts or (Pass)

:) invitational in spades or (2S)

c) Invitational in clubs or (3C)

d) Weak or Strong with both minors (2N, bids cheapest suit and you move with big minor)

2H shows

a) Drop dead in spades

B) Hearts Invitational 5 cards(rebid 2N)

c) Hearts and another (could just be hearts and slam interest) game forcing (anything else)

2S Spades and another. Forcing

2N Shows either clubs or 6 card suit Inv

3C Forced

3X 6 card suit and Invitational

3C Shows Diamonds or Clubs and another Forcing

3D

3X This is another.

 

I have found this gets everything in. The one disadvantage is super-acceptance with 4. We have come up with ways to do it, but everyone kept forgetting so we scrapped it.

[TimG]

Two-way transfers still give the opponents that extra space. They can double or bid the transferred to suit, or wait until opener rebids and the auction gets back to them. They can't do all that if 1N-2H is natural and non-forcing.

[Trinidad]

Two-way transfers still give the opponents that extra space.  They can double or bid the transferred to suit, or wait until opener rebids and the auction gets back to them.  They can't do all that if 1N-2H is natural and non-forcing.

I take your point, but transfers have a hidden advantage. Look at these auctions:

 

NATURAL

BAL

....

LHO

....

♥ length

..

RHO

1NT

....

Pass

........

2♥

......

Pass

Pass

....

Dbl*

......

Pass

....

??

 

*Take out

 

and

 

TRANSFER

BAL

....

LHO

....

♥ length

..

RHO

1NT

....

Pass

........

2♦*

....

Pass

2♥

......

Pass**

...

Pass

....

Dbl***

Pass

.....

??

 

* Transfer

** No balancing double in a live auction

*** Takeout

 

Because of the difference in the tempo of the auctions, it is much more difficult to make a balancing takeout double with the hand in front of the heart length and a penalty pass behind the trump length when transfers are used.

 

When the transfer is completed and 2♥ is going to be passed out, one can certainly balance, but it is hard to pass for penalties when you have your trump length under their trump length. On the natural auction, it is easy to pass for penalties when you will have your trump length behind their trump length.

 

Or to put it differently:

When you are in a position where a penalty double would be profitable ("points" behind the balanced hand, trumps behind the trump hand), you will get to double easily on the natural auction whereas it is very difficult to do that on the transfer auction.

If however, you are in the position that a penalty double is less likely to succeed ("points" in front of the balanced hand, trumps in front of the trump hand) then it is easier to double for penalties on the transfer auction. But then you don't want to double.

 

Thus, it is easier to get into 2♥ doubled when you play natural sign-offs than when you play transfers.

 

On top of that, the most common meaning of a double of a transfer is: "Partner, please lead this suit." I haven't seen anyone yet that plays it as "I want to penalize them in their suit.". Neither have I seen anyone yet that plays 1NT-P-2♦-P; 2♥-P-P-Dbl as penalty (even if that would certainly be playable).

 

So, the drawback of transfers is that you give opponents a better opportunity to show a lead or come into the bidding. But you are not giving them a better opportunity of doubling 2♥ for penalties. (Instead you are reducing that possibility.)

 

Rik

[jdeegan]

:) Back in the early '90's I played lots of the Kamikazi NT with one of my pards after coming across Meckwell using it at a little sectional in Michigan. It was fun to play, and Marshall Miles published a good system for responding to it.

 

Imho, having played about a thousand hands using it, the best system in defense of it is to play natural overcalls - pretend it is a one spade opener - with a double showing 12+ balanced. Tell partner to pass with most 9+ HCP balanced hands. Otherwise, have him respond as if YOU opened 1NT.

 

Playing a defensive system designed to cope with a strong or intermediate range 1NT opener seems like a bad idea to me. You want to be aggressive and try to get penalties when you can.

 

You need to know what you are doing after the doubling starts, though. I once saw a +1280 in both rooms for a push at a GNT one afternoon in Jackson, Mississippi. I was not involved.