weak NT responses

[enidr]

if i remember rightly (yes i tried a search), good players on here tend to favour weakness take-outs in the majors and 2D/2C as GF and weak stayman.

 

firstly, is this so or have i made it up?

 

we play 11-13 or 13-15 depending on position. is 13-15 too strong to warrant giving up the normal slam orientated response structure.

[nigel_k]

I doubt the NT range has much effect on which response structure is best and I definitely prefer transfers over weak NT to the method you described. No idea what others think though.

 

As I see it, the main difference in responding to a weak NT is that it is less attractive to switch to something like Heeman and lose the ability to bid Stayman on bad balanced hands.

[nige1]

I doubt the NT range has much effect on which response structure is best and I definitely prefer transfers over weak NT to the method you described. No idea what others think though. As I see it, the main difference in responding to a weak NT is that it is less attractive to switch to something like Heeman and lose the ability to bid Stayman on bad balanced hands.

The case for fast arrival grows stronger and the case for transfers grows weaker as your notrump becomes weaker and less disciplined. For example, if you adopt a 10-12 notrump then natural responses seem just as effective as transfers.

[nigel_k]

The case for fast arrival grows stronger and the case for transfers grows weaker as your notrump becomes weaker and less disciplined.

I agree with this but I think the effect is quite small because the main benefit of transfers is all the extra auctions that are unlocked and the upside of having two ways to bid Stayman or getting to two of a major a bit faster is not that great anyway. So transfers are always better, just by not as much.

[Zelandakh]

There are good alternatives to transfers for a weak or mini NT range but the majority of them are too complicated to be worth it. For an example of what is possible read the ETM weak NT structure which gives up transfers and Stayman without giving up on the extra bidding sequences they create. Personally I think this is just not worth it though and play transfers over a (11)12-14 NT anyway.

[farrnbach]

The advantages of the transfers with weak nt are minimal to the disadvatages, e.g. o can show the other M at no cost

 

I play with 11-14/10-12 nt (depending on p)

2c stayman up to game max 4-4 in M

2d stayman with slam interest or 5 card M

2h/2s to play (5+)

[Free]

The range definitely does something to the effectiveness of your response structure. The lower your NT range, the more your bidding should be optimized for part scores and games. Optimizing for partscores in this case means fast arrival, so not using transfers. The higher your NT range, the more your bidding should be optimized for games and slams. Optimizing for slams here means you need forcing bids to describe your hand, so transfers give you that possibility. Games are pretty easy to handle in either case, so I don't think I need to go into detail on that. But it's the rest that shapes your response structure.

 

Imo playing 11+ range (11-13, 11-14, 12-14,...), transfers are still useful. When playing weaker NT ranges there's something to say about playing 2M natural and NF, because it puts pressure on opps and when you get to play 2M you can have a huge point range (anything from 0 to 12 HCP) which makes it hard for opps to defend.

 

If you swap between 11-13 and 13-15 according to seat and/or vulnerability, I'd suggest to use the same structure over both openings (and 1NT overcalls). You won't gain much by using 2 types of response structures, it's a lot easier to remember 1 structure, it won't cause disasters if you're confused and think you're playing another NT range than your partner,...

[Mbodell]

I disagree pretty strongly with OP (or at least with what OP claims to remember about strong players).

 

I think the advantages of transfers with weak nt are still there (the multiple auctions). If you are used to strong nt you may believe the primary win of transfers is strong hand declaring, but IMHO the primary win is many more auction types.

 

I quite like Klinger's Keri system over a weak nt, and one of the benefits of that is the ability to play 2♦ (not infrequent in practice).

 

So a system where 2♣ and 2♦ are both a form of stayman seems a waste.

 

Now, if the weak or mini nt is a 3rd or 4th seat opening (so partner is a passed hand), now I can see a radically different response structure being preferred (we switched to one where all 2 level bids show either both majors except 2S which is just spades - basically because we know we are in a ~20 opposite 20 situation). But when the nt opener is 1st or 2nd seat I think a "standard" strong nt structure is better than forcing and non-forcing stayman (and I think Keri is better than either of them). And I think the majority of expert opinion agrees with me (at least about the standard structure versus the 2-way stayman).

 

As for the "weakness take-outs in the majors", if by that you mean negative doubles when they overcall 2M, then I think the good players do tend to prefer that. I personally prefer penalty doubles at the 2 level, but that is partially because in North America, where weak/mini nt is less common, most fields are terrible at judgement in competing and compete on all sorts of terrible hands and deserve to get penalized. I've played negative doubles as well, and it may just be that I don't understand it as well, but I haven't liked it as much. But I do know that this is out of step with the majority of expert opinion.

[Vampyr]

As for the "weakness take-outs in the majors", if by that you mean negative doubles when they overcall 2M, then I think the good players do tend to prefer that.

 

I do not see how these are in any way connected. Whether you play weak takeouts has no bearing on how you play doubles when the opponents have overcalled.

[gwnn]

I remember mikeh preferring 2-way stayman and natural 2M, and Gerben42 created a whole system where 2♣ and 2♦ are artificial (2♣ stayman, 2♦ asking for doubleton major (if you play this you can't have 2-2 in the majors)) and 2M is natural. I don't remember other strong players here advocating these systems. So I would say there is a slight preference for stayman or transfers here, even for weak NT players, but I might be wrong about this. I would definitely not think there was any majority preference here for 2-way stayman.

[Gerben42]

Brink - Drijver (Dutch Bermuda Bowl pair) play a mini NT sometimes and use 2-way Stayman.

Also in Viking Precision they don't use transfers after a weak NT.

 

Surely there are many more...

 

You lose some precision, sure, but 4th seat opponent doesn't get a 2nd shot when 2M is to play. Also (but you didn't read that here) you can psyche the 2M bid :)

[Mbodell]

I do not see how these are in any way connected. Whether you play weak takeouts has no bearing on how you play doubles when the opponents have overcalled.

 

They may well not be. But I was having trouble parsing "weakness take-outs in the majors", I guess maybe it meant 2M as natural and to play? I wasn't sure as I wouldn't have phrased that as weakness take-outs in the majors.

[JLOGIC]

I disagree pretty strongly with OP (or at least with what OP claims to remember about strong players).

 

I think the advantages of transfers with weak nt are still there (the multiple auctions). If you are used to strong nt you may believe the primary win of transfers is strong hand declaring, but IMHO the primary win is many more auction types.

 

I agree, but the downside of transfers is that they let the opponents have more ways to get in. For instance, over a 10-12 NT pass 2D transfer, most good opps will play double as showing values. Now they can double then overcall 2S with their 17 count. Or they could overcall with a cuebid to show a michaels hand. Or they could pass because their hand isn't that good, but balance with 2S with their 6 spades and a 7 count or w/e. Or they could just overcall normally. Or they could double to show values, then their partner could make a responsive double and they could just sit. If I had not transfered and just bid my suit, LHO woulda been screwed with a strong hand and some length in my suit.

 

Strong NTers do not think about this downside nor care, and why should they, the opps don't often have a game over a strong NT and thus play X is just a lead director. But playing weak NT you absolutely love to have the auction go 1N p 2M, they have to act on a wide range of hands to get shut out, but the level is also high enough to make them guess, and they will often guess wrong even if they are very good, similar to the effects of a weak 2 bid.

 

So personally I play 2 way stayman knowing that it will be a little bit worse for my constructive bidding (though not that much) in order to create a lot more problems for them. It is the same reason I like to play weak NT when NV in 1/2 seat, sacrificing a small constructive bidding edge in order to give them headaches.

[rhm]

I disagree pretty strongly with OP (or at least with what OP claims to remember about strong players).

 

I think the advantages of transfers with weak nt are still there (the multiple auctions). If you are used to strong nt you may believe the primary win of transfers is strong hand declaring, but IMHO the primary win is many more auction types.

This is often claimed, but I see no basis, unless you compare transfers with playing 2♦ as a weak sign off in diamonds, which almost nobody does any more.

Certain hand types can be described better with transfers, for example game forcing two-suiter, where one suit is a major;

a 4-4 or 5-3 or 5-4 fit in a minor might easier be found with two way Stayman. Neither method is very good in detecting duplication opposite responder's shortage.

I don't know what is best over weak notrump, but over mini notrump I definitely prefer two way Stayman to transfers.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

by the way Gerben did you ever consider including 2245/2254 hands in your weak NT structure?

[Flameous]

I totally agree with Justin here. (Surprise!)

 

Playing really weak (could say destructive) no trump range is about pressuring opps, and with transfers you are putting part of the pressure off.

 

I have to admit that I have always used transfers for simplicity. Especially in strong club, we might have 4 different ranges shown at 1NT and if I had to try to always figure out which system was on now, I'd go mad.

 

Also one point about the two-way stayman over weak NT. I'm assuming this stayman is actually just a relay trigger and is supposed to resolve whole NT opener shape. Now it's easy(er) to also relay for all honors as the hand is weaker while with strong NT this kind of approach would be absolutely stupid. (I hope I don't have to go the reasons in that)

[Gerben42]

by the way Gerben did you ever consider including 2245/2254 hands in your weak NT structure?

 

Not really, no, since we open 2♣ / 2♦ on that anyway... Besides, if you are short in BOTH majors, you miss the inference that shortness in one major shows length in the other :(

[gnasher]

I agree, but the downside of transfers is that they let the opponents have more ways to get in. For instance, over a 10-12 NT pass 2D transfer, most good opps will play double as showing values. Now they can double then overcall 2S with their 17 count. Or they could overcall with a cuebid to show a michaels hand. Or they could pass because their hand isn't that good, but balance with 2S with their 6 spades and a 7 count or w/e. Or they could just overcall normally. Or they could double to show values, then their partner could make a responsive double and they could just sit. If I had not transfered and just bid my suit, LHO woulda been screwed with a strong hand and some length in my suit.

I don't think that's the whole story. When you play 1NT-2M as natural, both opponents get a chance to bid when they know that responder has a sign-off. If you're playing transfers, fourth hand gets an extra bite at the cherry, but second hand's only chance to act is when the auction is still live. It's much riskier to act after

1NT-pass-2

♦

-pass

2

♥

than after

1NT-pass-2

♥

-pass

pass

[mycroft]

Ah, but it's easier to defend with 13 opposite 11 than 16 opposite 8 as well as to declare. My best weak NT results are when they came in over our "signoff", only to find it was a mistake. And, as Justin says, they will - they can't but do it, at least occasionally, unless they want to pick up scads of +100s and +150s into their game. And when it goes 1NT-p-2H- fourth knows it's his only chance. When it goes 1NT-p-2H-p; p, second knows only that fourth couldn't act. Could he not act because he doesn't quite have enough, responder has 5-hearts-and-out and they have a great partscore, even game? Could he not act because responder doesn't quite have enough, and fourth hand has 5-spades-and-out and they are going for 500 into 140 (hey, even 170)? Is it somewhere in the middle?

 

It may almost be *harder* to come in in passout-6th seat than in "potentially live" 6th seat; the time when it's bad is when they have an invite. If they have game, you're probably in good shape overcalling, even if it does then go X-AP.

[whereagles]

You should keep your NT structure over weak NT. Any advantage a fine-tuned system might have will be overly compensated by the loss having to memorize it all.

 

Unless you're a professional player, I'd say stick to you regular system. It's probably a good enough one and definitely much easier on your nerves.

[jdeegan]

:P In the early 1990's I played the dreaded Kamikaze NT - 10 to 13- HCP. Marshall Miles came up with the best system for it. It was sort of two way puppet stayman. Transfers make no sense since with them usually the weak hand gets hidden, whereas the other hand is the real mystery.

Getting out of 1NT doubled was lotsa fun. I recall one GNT qualifier team game in Jackson, Mississippi where the comparison was +1280 (1NT doubled and redoubled making two), push. Now I wasn't a party to this, but I know what I saw. One method of getting out of the trap was known as the "Moscow Escapes". You really needed agreements.

With ACOL-type weak no trumps, I think transfers are marginal since hiding the "big" hand is not so much an issue. I never played transfers with Kaplan-Sheinwold, and it worked just fine. My advice is to play a simple system and try to play it well up to the point where you are competitive against the very top players in your community and really feel the need to work with a regular partner and upgrade.

[Zelandakh]

Moscow is simply an agreement for System on, XX forces 2C with a minor or both majors, and Pass forces XX to bid 4 card suits up the line. I played it as a junior and it is OK but not as good as methods that show more specific 2-suiters.

[helene_t]

Here in England "everybody" plays weak NT and transfers. I only remember once that opps' use of transfers enabled us to bid a good game contract we would not have bid otherwise, and that was after I doubled 1NT and opps played system on. If you play 10-12 I am sure it is different but playing 12-14 I would not worry too much about it. Just make sure that system is off in contested auctions.

 

Obviously the stronger opps are, the better they will be to take advantage of your transfers, and the stronger the argument for playing weak take outs.

[ArtK78]

Moscow is simply an agreement for System on, XX forces 2C with a minor or both majors, and Pass forces XX to bid 4 card suits up the line. I played it as a junior and it is OK but not as good as methods that show more specific 2-suiters.

As I know it (and play it), Moscow Escapes are:

 

2♣, 2♦, and 2♥ same as DONT

Pass - desire to play 1NTx (or nothing to say)

xx - One suited hand (relay to 2♣)