2/1 Weak NT Advantages

[relknes]

I have been wondering, recently, if a weak NT opening might solve some of the problems after a forcing NT response to 1M. Here is my reaoning...

The most frustrating thing to me about the forcing 1NT is that opener sometimes has to bid a 2 or 3 card suit, or rebid a bad 5 card major with a minimum opener. The problems seem to occur with 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, hands with 5 diamonds and a 4 card major, or hands with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds or hearts.

However, if you open a weak NT and include in it your 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 2-4-5-2, 2-4-2-5, and 2-2-4-5 distributions, then most of these problems seem to go away.

For instance, sequences like 1H-1NT(F1)-2m now shows 4+ in that minor, or else 3 and a side singleton, a significant improvement over showing a 2+ minor. Also, after 1M-1NT(F1), 2NT can be bid to show 15-17 and a 5332 distribution.

By using 1NT-2C as either Stayman or a takeout of clubs (the so-called "Garbage Stayman") you will miss few 5-3 major fits, and those you do miss should be acceptable on the same grounds as missing a 4-4 major fit over a stricter weak NT, gaining preemption at the cost of precision.

The last benefit that this would seem to contribute is that it strengthens opener's minimum 1 bids, so that responder can be more comfortable making a 2/1 response in borderline cases. Knowing that opener is 12+ unbalanced or 15+ balanced seems a lot more comfortable than a straight 12+.

I get the feeling that I must be overlooking something gross. The extra clarification and the extra preemption seem like they are well worth the ambiguity introduced into 1NT, but if that were true than more people would be using it with 2/1. It isn't like this NT is unheard of. In fact, it is more restrictive than a Fanturnes 1NT, which includes all of these hands and more. So what am I missing?

[nigel_k]

I really like weak NT but mostly not for the reasons you suggest.

 

I would not raise 1NT to 2NT with 15, and some 14s with a five card major will be too good for a weak NT as well. 16 HCP is a bare minimum to raise 1NT if balanced and even that isn't very attractive. Conversely, playing a strong 1NT opening you can play a semi-forcing 1NT response so opener can pass with up to a bad 13 and 4522 or any 5332. And a good 14 can be upgraded to a 1NT opening so the range of problem hands is reduced.

 

Also, I just don't think rebidding a three card minor is that much of a problem anyway, though 4522 is pretty ugly.

 

I do agree that taking weak balanced hands out of the 1♣ and 1♦ openings is an advantage in competitive auctions. But there are lots of other advantages and disadvantages as well that need to be weighed up.

[babalu1997]

 

Also, I just don't think rebidding a three card minor is that much of a problem anyway, though 4522 is pretty ugly.

 

 

play flannery (hold the tomatos)

 

there is a nice discussion in tne book by danny kleimann, the no trump zone concerning these issues.

[Vampyr]

I think that forcing NT with a weak NT works quite well. Opener holding a weak NT doesn't have to make an awkward rebid after a 1NT response; also, if I am not mistaken most 2/1 players require extra values for a 2NT rebid after 2/1, so even if 1NT is not the response, the opener with the weak NT is not out of the woods yet.

 

When opener has a weak notrump 1NT will often be the right place to play, but this contract cannot be reached after a forcing NT response. Better to be in it in the first place.

 

I also believe, for reasons I will not go into here, that 5-card majors and strong NT is a bad match, as is 4-card majors and weak NT. I much prefer the other two combinations.

[Vampyr]

Conversely, playing a strong 1NT opening you can play a semi-forcing 1NT response so opener can pass with up to a bad 13 and 4522 or any 5332.

This will work out poorly, though, when responder has a single-suited hand not worth a game-force. Also, many 2/1 players show a 3-card limit raise by starting with 1NT (or at least they did when I lived in the US, which, admittedly, was many years ago).

[Free]

This will work out poorly, though, when responder has a single-suited hand not worth a game-force. Also, many 2/1 players show a 3-card limit raise by starting with 1NT (or at least they did when I lived in the US, which, admittedly, was many years ago).

That's probably the main reason why these hands have been taken out of the 1NT response by a lot of players.

- For some 1M-3m is INV with a good suit, others play 2/1 "GF except rebid" which means 1M-2m-...-3m shows the INV.

- INV with a 3 card support isn't that big of a deal actually. You'll play 1NT with 23-24HCP and 2 balanced hands, while others will play 3M. In MP it might make a big difference, but in imps I guess you won't lose too much and gain whenever 3M doesn't make.

[Gerben42]

The main reason for a NT range is the minor suit openings. For the major suit openings, it doesn't matter a lot what NT range you open. In a standard bidding context, I prefer either a weak NT (i.e. opening 1m shows extras or an unbalanced hand), or 14 - 16 (i.e. 1m - 1NT can be wide range and inverted minors followed by 2NT is drop dead (12 - 13). The classical 15 - 17 range makes things complicated with the current style of opening all 12-counts and most 11s.

[chasetb]

The classical 15 - 17 range makes things complicated with the current style of opening all 12-counts and most 11s.

You are off your rocker on that sentence. Opening 1 of a minor on 12 to 14 is easy to deal with, and 11+ to 14 is no problem, since those people play 14+ to 17. The main reason 12 - 14 and 13-15 aren't used in opening 1NT is mainly because of matchpoints. Many times you can't find a major suit fit with 1NT that you could find by opening 1m, so you go +90 or -50 (NV) instead of +110 or +140. This is also why 99% of Precision players do NOT use 12-14 or 13-15, they use 14-16 or a different range. The less important reason is that unless you open all 10 counts for 13-15 NT, the ranges get screwed up. 11-12 makes little sense, and 11 makes NO sense.

[mycroft]

Heh, when I play Precision, the 14-16 NT range is there mostly because describing flat 16s suck in Precision, so I'm willing to plan my NT range around not having to. There are two problems with it:

- playing in a strong NT world, you basically have to either turn on invites, and make them "go on any 15 that isn't really a 14" (and give the opponents more information and hope than 1NT-3NT); or just bid as responder as if partner opened a 15-17 NT (and accept that instead of missing games the field is in, that make more often than not, you're going to get to some games the field is not in, that don't make more often than not)

- You still get 14s that go 1m-1M; 2M-p in "standard" that go 1NT-p; and you're right, the anti-field nature of those is "all-or-nothing".

I'm actually happy (even though I don't do this) playing Precision with a 15-17 NT (in a world full of strong NT players). Flat 17s + random 8 GF isn't brilliant either, and I still gain from the limiting when I don't open 1C or 1NT. But to do that you pretty much have to pass the "flat 1D" hands that standard has to pass, that you could open with a different NT range.

 

- minor note - 11-13 works almost identically to 14-16, and also means that after 1D-1M; 1NT, you're more comfortable playing the "described 1NT".

 

On the other hand, having played K/S for too many years, the 12-14, yes, does anti-field a lot of contracts that the opponents are playing in 2M; you get some of that back when you anti-field your way into 2M with the 15-17, though (happens less often, yeah). You get a lot back when it goes 1NT-AP, and standard is going 1C-p-1H-x; 2H-2S or 1C-x-1H-1S; 2H-p-p-2S (and you don't give as much back in the converse auctions because they're fewer, and more comfortable to compete with). You also, of course, get a lot back when 1NT gets doubled and you scramble to your potential -300, and they can't tell whether to punish you or go for their +400/420, and when 1NT gets overcalled and they're wrong (which they will be, guaranteed, sometime, unless they're willing to let us steal them blind).

 

The big problem with 12-14 is what Fred (said his mentor) pointed out - 1C-1S-x-2S, or any other similar auction. With the flat hands broken up, you can pass the weaker and bid the stronger; with a 15-19 range (along with the "real 1m openers") your auction just isn't comfortable.

[Gerben42]

You are off your rocker on that sentence. Opening 1 of a minor on 12 to 14 is easy to deal with, and 11+ to 14 is no problem, since those people play 14+ to 17.

 

Your main concern is the sequence 1♦ - 2♣. If you can have a balanced hand with 11+ to 14, what is your strategy on:

 

A. [hv=pc=n&n=sat93hqj7dkjt3c82]133|100[/hv]

 

Well, you say, I can bid 2NT on that.

 

B. [hv=pc=n&n=sa953haq7dkj73c82]133|100[/hv]

 

Then this should be worth 3NT.

 

C. [hv=pc=n&n=sat93hqj7dak53ca2]133|100[/hv]

 

Err... now what?

 

I play some non-GCC responsed to 1♦ so that 1♦ - 2♣ can be 100% GF, that helps, but otherwise... you have to improvise on one of these three.

[awm]

To Gerben...

 

(1) 2♦, showing any minimum or some hands with long diamonds, planning to pass 2NT or 3♣ from partner

(2) 2♦, showing any minimum or some hands with long diamonds, planning to raise 2NT to 3NT or bid 3NT over 3♣ from partner

(3) 2NT, game forcing balanced hand, showing real extras

 

This treatment is very simple and is arguably even part of SAYC (since opener's 2NT rebid is forcing one round in SAYC, as 2/1 promises a rebid by responder). Anyway, I don't think these hands are some huge problem, and would be much more concerned about what happens in competition (as in mycroft's post).

[nigel_k]

There's also a method where you rebid diamonds with five and a 'reverse' is 4-4.

 

So on A you would rebid 2♠ and pass partner's 2NT. On B you would rebid 2♠ and raise partner's 2NT. On C you would rebid 2NT.

[helene_t]

This will work out poorly, though, when responder has a single-suited hand not worth a game-force. Also, many 2/1 players show a 3-card limit raise by starting with 1NT (or at least they did when I lived in the US, which, admittedly, was many years ago).

If you play a semi-forcing 1NT you would have to take the invitational single-suiters out of the 1NT response. Those hand make a jump shift.

 

As for the 3-card limit raise I don't think it's so bad to pass 1NT if you were not going to accept the invite anyway. Obviously a hand that would raise a 3-card limit raise does not pass 1NT.

 

To the opening post: Opener does not repeat a bad 5-card major after a forcing 1NT response. I suppose with 4522 and a good 5-card hearts it is an option to rebid 2♥ rather than 2♣, but otherwise 2M promises six.

[mike777]

you can leave single suited inv hands in semiforcing nt. That just leaves you no way to bid weak single suited hands on some auctions.

 

 

One needs to decide if they can live with that system hole in the hope you gain on other types of hands.

[Gerben42]

So in SAYC or 2/1 American style with a minimum and 4♠ 4♥ 3♦ 2♣ you open 1♦ and over 2♣, you rebid 2♦? And I thought that it was a natural system. Well, I just need to know.

Sounds like this is a place where Europe has a completely different bidding philosophy.

 

But I agree that competitive sequences are tough when holding a strong NT in a weak NT system. Still, a weak NT is in general not a loser in a 2/1 context. You do make your variance higher, which is, unless you play as well as Fred, a good thing. You just have to take that yearly 40% session with a smile because you know you are a long-term winner.

[Vampyr]

So in SAYC or 2/1 American style with a minimum and 4♠ 4♥ 3♦ 2♣ you open 1♦ and over 2♣, you rebid 2♦? And I thought that it was a natural system. Well, I just need to know.

 

Yes, it seems that a lot of problem hands would be eliminated if opener could simply rebid a natural (NF in Standard American) 2NT. I do not understand why this is not so, and what advantages are claimed from having no sensible way to handle a weak NT.

[mike777]

Perhaps I am misreading the issue here but rebidding 2nt(GF) with 4=4=3=2 after 1d=2c(gf) is standard if playing strong nt.

 

With an invitational hand after 1d I am sort of stuck and would bid 2nt I guess. I cannot show a weak hand with long clubs unless the opp bid which they often do. This is the kind of system hole concerning the minors you can live with or not. :)

 

there is a toy you can play after 1M=2c playing wk nt or strong nt.

[whereagles]

To me the a weak NT has 2 advantages:

 

1. Preemptive nature of the bid

 

2. Responder can make an inverted 1m raise on 3/4 cards only

 

Example of 2:

 

Axx

Axx

xxx

Kxxx

 

If pard opens 1♣ on a strong NT context, you either lie and make an inverted raise without a fit or bid 2NT on a hand that can find a singleton major across.

 

On a weak NT you can confidently make the inverted raise because pard either has an unbalanced hand or a 2NT rebid with 15-17, after which you have an easy raise to 3.

[helene_t]

Yes, it seems that a lot of problem hands would be eliminated if opener could simply rebid a natural (NF in Standard American) 2NT. I do not understand why this is not so, and what advantages are claimed from having no sensible way to handle a weak NT.

When responder makes a 2/1 he can't have a hand that wants to sign off opposite the weak nt, since such a hand would have responded 1NT.

 

But in some (most) SA styles, responder can have a hand that wants to invite opposite a weak nt, with 2nt being a possible end contract. Obviously opener can't rebid 2nt with all weak nt hands since responder would then not know whether his invite had been accepted or not.

 

So if 2NT is nonforcing it has to show a 12(13) hand, and you still need some artificial or semi-natural solution for the (13)14 hands. Or you can jump to 3NT with (13)14, and then adopt some semi-natural solution for the 18-19 hands.

 

Basically it is impossible to design a completely natural system with a 15-17 NT if you insist on opening so light (12 HCPs) that responder needs to be able to invite opposite the weak NT, with 2NT being a possible contract. Unless you play a 2NT response as invitational, then the 2♣ response could be GF or at least forcing to 3♣.

[Vampyr]

When responder makes a 2/1 he can't have a hand that wants to sign off opposite the weak nt, since such a hand would have responded 1NT.

That doesn't mean that it would be useless to show a weak NT rather than have to make up an inaccurate bid.

[awm]

To return to the original question, there are a lot of problems with opening 1NT with a 4522 shape, or with 5332 type hands. If partner digs up a response you will usually be okay, but when partner passes you will quite often reach the wrong partial or even miss a game. The problem is that these hands are quite powerful if partner has a major-suit fit with you, and you could easily have a nine card major suit fit on hands where partner has no five-card major. Notice that this problem is a lot worse when you play a weak notrump because partner is less likely to have the values to invite game (i.e. the stronger the notrump, the less often partner passes).

 

While I know that Fantoni and Nunes bid this way, there are a number of comments that can be made about that. First, I know of many strong pairs using weak notrump who rarely open 1NT with a five-card major (even though most pairs using strong notrump will frequently open 1NT with a five card major); this suggests that the range of the notrump is a factor in these decisions. Second, I know a number of top players who feel that Fantoni-Nunes system is not particularly sound, and this may even be part of the reason they are excluded from the recent Italian teams. Third, I don't think anyone would argue that Fantoni-Nunes are winning huge numbers of IMPs because of their 1NT openings -- they win IMPs because of great play and defense, and because their one of a suit openings are much better defined.

 

There are a number of other solutions to the "problem" mentioned in the original post, ranging from a semi-forcing 1NT response to flannery to Kaplan interchange. These solutions are probably better than opening 1NT with the patterns described. Also note that you didn't really solve the problems, since a 15-count isn't really enough to safely raise 1NT to 2NT (or reverse after 1♥-1NT)... so you will still be rebidding three-card (even two card suits!) suits fairly often.

[xxhong]

Agree. In those old 16-18 1NT days, players rebid 2NT to show 14-15 and bids something else with 12-13.

Now more and more play 14-16 1NT. One big headache is how to distinguish good 16 to bad 20.

Perhaps if one likes a natural 2 point range system, he perhaps should play strong clubs. like 12-13, 1x then 1NT. 14-15, 1NT: 16-17, 1x then 2NT. 1C: 18+.

Of course, those who play 3 point ranges never have problems, they just guess well. 12-14, 1x then 1NT, 15-17 1N. 18-20, 1x then 2NT.

When responder makes a 2/1 he can't have a hand that wants to sign off opposite the weak nt, since such a hand would have responded 1NT.

 

But in some (most) SA styles, responder can have a hand that wants to invite opposite a weak nt, with 2nt being a possible end contract. Obviously opener can't rebid 2nt with all weak nt hands since responder would then not know whether his invite had been accepted or not.

 

So if 2NT is nonforcing it has to show a 12(13) hand, and you still need some artificial or semi-natural solution for the (13)14 hands. Or you can jump to 3NT with (13)14, and then adopt some semi-natural solution for the 18-19 hands.

 

Basically it is impossible to design a completely natural system with a 15-17 NT if you insist on opening so light (12 HCPs) that responder needs to be able to invite opposite the weak NT, with 2NT being a possible contract. Unless you play a 2NT response as invitational, then the 2♣ response could be GF or at least forcing to 3♣.

[mike777]

I have been wondering, recently, if a weak NT opening might solve some of the problems after a forcing NT response to 1M. Here is my reaoning...

The most frustrating thing to me about the forcing 1NT is that opener sometimes has to bid a 2 or 3 card suit, or rebid a bad 5 card major with a minimum opener. The problems seem to occur with 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, hands with 5 diamonds and a 4 card major, or hands with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds or hearts.

However, if you open a weak NT and include in it your 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 2-4-5-2, 2-4-2-5, and 2-2-4-5 distributions, then most of these problems seem to go away.

For instance, sequences like 1H-1NT(F1)-2m now shows 4+ in that minor, or else 3 and a side singleton, a significant improvement over showing a 2+ minor. Also, after 1M-1NT(F1), 2NT can be bid to show 15-17 and a 5332 distribution.

By using 1NT-2C as either Stayman or a takeout of clubs (the so-called "Garbage Stayman") you will miss few 5-3 major fits, and those you do miss should be acceptable on the same grounds as missing a 4-4 major fit over a stricter weak NT, gaining preemption at the cost of precision.

The last benefit that this would seem to contribute is that it strengthens opener's minimum 1 bids, so that responder can be more comfortable making a 2/1 response in borderline cases. Knowing that opener is 12+ unbalanced or 15+ balanced seems a lot more comfortable than a straight 12+.

I get the feeling that I must be overlooking something gross. The extra clarification and the extra preemption seem like they are well worth the ambiguity introduced into 1NT, but if that were true than more people would be using it with 2/1. It isn't like this NT is unheard of. In fact, it is more restrictive than a Fanturnes 1NT, which includes all of these hands and more. So what am I missing?

------------------------

 

I got this response to your title question. I hope this will be of interest to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

"I guess as our resident weak NT expert (having played them regularly for over 30 years) I can address this a bit.

 

 

First, I agree with Alan that it definitely takes getting used to, particularly for auctions after a 1m opening. Thus I don't play them with partners who aren't used to them (we use strong).

 

 

Second, Alex is also correct that everything needs to fit together. That is particularly true if you NT range broadens the range of your opening bids as with 10-12. Then you need to cover more ground then before, and that will cause some problems (a bit less true with a strong club system).

 

 

Kim is correct about the frequency issue, but it should be noted that this applies most strongly in first seat. In second seat, and even more in 3rd seat, the odds on the stronger hands go up (since you now know there are some weaker hands around).

 

 

As to good/bad features for weak NT: good is opening 1N, generally a plus. Bad, on balance is opening 1m with a strong NT. Perhaps surprisingly, the worst part is losing the preemptive advantage of a strong nt which can steal the hand. Next bad thing is having the opponents come in after you open 1m and i) direct a good lead (while you might instead bid 1N-3N if a strong NT opened), ii) find a good contract, iii) preempt and make it hard for the opening side to find its best contract.

 

 

In some compensation, after opening 1m, if they do bid and you have an unbalanced opening you are better placed: partner knows you have a strong NT or shape, so can compete more vigorously (while playing strong NT, he needs to worry you have a flat 12 count).

 

 

One reason weak NT's are not as good as they used to be: back in the 60's, 70's most of the best theorists were weak NTers, so lots of good things developed that fit well with them. More recently lots of work on things that work better with strong NTS: e.g. support doubles and good-bad 2N."

[Vampyr]

Also note that you didn't really solve the problems, since a 15-count isn't really enough to safely raise 1NT to 2NT (or reverse after 1♥-1NT)... so you will still be rebidding three-card (even two card suits!) suits fairly often.

 

Maybe this is more an indictment of the forcing 1NT...

 

What do you gain by playing 2/1? When you bid 2/1, you gain a simple raise or simple rebid as forcing... but you are forced to make up bids if opener has whatever NT range you don't open 1NT. You tend to lose on auctions where 2/1 is not bid.

 

Yes, it is simple, so it is an easy system to agree when playing with an unfamiliar partner, but is it a sensible system to play with regular partners who are willing to work on system with you?

[fromageGB]

I agree with AWM.

 

While I hate the idea of opener not being able to rebid minors meaningfully, it is not too difficult to get round this. At the cost of losing a passable 2♣ you can play 2♦ as always 4, and 2♣ as either natural or balanced. A 2♦ response is an inquiry which resolves the issue : 2♥=weak balanced, 2♠=weak with 4 clubs, 2NT = strong balanced, 3♣ = strong clubs. I roll this in with Gazzilli so any 17+ will also rebid 2♣ (but then 2NT reply is any 15/16).

 

What I like about the strong NT (I play 15/16) and 5 card majors is that (as has been said) you don't lose the major fits, endemic in weak NT. I also like the ability of partner to reply on his expected strength of 8+ whereas pass is common opposite a weak NT.