A lesson learned

[SimonFa]

I have found myself playing weak NT (12-4) with a new partner. I know the pro's and con's have been thrashed out elsewhere so this thread isn't meant to be a reworking of them more a chance to learn from my recent experience.

 

Teams, RvR - opps are the strongest teams in the room.

 

♠KJ3

♥852

♦5432

♣1096

 

1NT (X) ?

 

We play Exit Transfers so my options were:

 

Pass - We have 16-18 pts, could we scramble 7 tricks with that? If partner had opened strong NT (15-17) I would have left it in with a Yarborough (mainly because very few pairs have an agreement with something like this), so why not now?

 

Transfer to ♦ - Its quite easy to envisage partner with 2 small diamonds and we have handed control to opps and see partner's good suit, say she holds ♠AQxxx, getting ruffed.

 

What would my team mates do here? I don't know we were an ad hoc team put together at the last minute for a weekly club night so I can't second guess their table.

Result and answer to question in spoiler

 

 

I passed and partner went -3. One other table went to 2♣ (I know not why) for -5, most other tables ended with RHO in 2♥ and from asking around mainly because RHO bid 2♥ rather than double.

 

The lesson I learned....

 

On thinking about it a bit more, I reckon there is a lower risk in transferring to diamonds, although this is gut feel. My thinking being that unless we hit opps' strongest suit they are going to think that I have a more distributional hand and more likely to scramble home, or at least enough tricks to look like a good sacrifice against their presumed game.

 

As it happens partner had ♦AQ106

 

 

EDIT: fixed spades

 

 

[mike777]

I really dont understand what you ask.

 

I assume playing wk nt you have a runout structure to cover this hand type so i bid it. If not get one.

 

As a beginner I dont care what other table does.

 

---

 

 

 

If we need to learn a better runout style so be it.....we learn.

[gwnn]

It's best to pass here. Partner can still bid a 5-card suit and going to diamonds is a pure gamble. By the way, sometimes LHO bids a suit and we're off the hook.

 

I assume we have 3-3-4-3 and not 0-3-4-6.

[nigel_k]

I think it's nearly always best to run. It's hard to see 1NTX being good and if LHO has the kind of hand that will pull the double then they probably aren't getting us in any case. I don't know your methods but if my choices are between showing diamonds and showing diamonds and a major, I will do the latter.

[mich-b]

If I wanted to run with this hand , I would run to ♣s , not to ♦s.

Maybe they can't double us there? And if they do double , you can decide between running to 2♦ , or offering other options by a XX.

[mycroft]

Opposite 12-14, the death hand isn't the yarborough, it's the flat 4. You are going -300 or -500 into a partscore, pretty much guaranteed. I would get into clubs if I could at the 2 level, just like mich-b - but it sounds like you can't do that (unless XX is a transfer to clubs). I would redouble if 2C gets doubled, and hope that I didn't just take us out of our only 8-card fit.

I still expect to go very minus on this hand, and am hoping that we'll get it back on the next weak NT hand.

 

I play in a world of 15-17, so I don't expect much field protection. But I'm hoping for it anyway.

[ArtK78]

What do you do? Don't play weak NTs vulnerable. :)

 

Seriously, many players who play weak NTs only play them nonvulnerable. It is just too costly to go for a number on hands like this one. At matchpoints, you can stand the occuasional zero if you get enough good results. At IMPs, you cannot afford to go for 800 on a part score hand.

[SimonFa]

Thanks all.

 

To answer a few points - we play Exit Transfers as stated in the OP and XX is a transfer to clubs. I would prefer Houdini as this gives a fighting chance of finding a fit but that's for another time.

 

I didn't want this to be rehash of weak Vs strong NT but I do prefer the latter, especially vulnerable.

[MrAce]

I would have never consider running with this hand. Lets face it, everything we play in order to gain advantage over opponents has a price now and then that we have to deal with. I think instead of making rules such as running with this hand to 2 level, which by the way has gives no guarantee of a fit, is bad idea imo. Especially running to 2 minor, playing 2 minor doubled is the dream of every defender at imps when they think they have a good shot at beating it and kinda risk free.

 

Having played weak NT long years, i have learnt one thing that the best way to run with 4333 4432 hands is not to run at all. But if you really want to run, run to a major suit. You will be doubled much less frequently than 2 of a minor. It is common psychology about 2 major DBLs. I guarantee you even if you play KJx vs Axx ♠ you will get away without a DBL most of the time.

[Zelandakh]

Exit transfers are highly popular with intermediate players but nonetheless a poor runout scheme. There are many options available and David Stevenson has a reasonably complete list on his bridge pages. I personally prefer Spelvic (fairly complicated) but if you want a very simple tweak you could just play natural runouts and XX with a hand that wants to run without a 5 card suit; just bid 4 card suits up the line until you find a 7 card fit. With your actual hand and methods the XX twice approach is quite sensible.

[han]

Generally pass with 4333.

[the hog]

Pass. This is clear on this hand as there is no guarantee that anything is likely to be better.

[Phil]

Pass. Partner can scramble with some shape.

[VM1973]

Your partner could easily be 5-3-3-2 in which case he has an easy escape that you fit. I see no reason to disrupt that process. I pass.

[Zelandakh]

I do not understand alot of this thread. You hold a perfectly normal weak NT with 3=3=5=2 shape and partner passes a double, which presumably means they think 1NTX is a good contract for us. Why on earth would I let the opps off the hook by taking out into diamonds opposite a possible stiff when partner is much better placed than me to decide if 1NTX is likely to make. Having played alot in the Acol rooms I can promise you that Simon's partner would not be taking the double out with this hand. In fact pretty much no hand except an animal NT will take out the double here in normal intermediate level UK bridge. On the other hand, if we XX twice we will force partner to bid their suit. It may be that against experts simply passing will work out best, I do not know; but I am very confident that at an intermediate table the other approach will be more successful.

[han]

It doesn't seem right to me to pass with most 3352 hands. Usually when it goes 1NT - Dbl - pass - pass, we are in trouble and if I have a decent 5-card suit then it seems a good idea to run to it.

 

Of course, if it is your agreement that responder should always run with a very weak hand then you should always pass when partner passes, but that seems a very poor agreement. In fact, change opener's shape to a 3-3-2-5 and simonfa would have to play a 4-2 diamond fit instead of a 5-3 club fit. That doesn't look good!

[VM1973]

Duplicate. See below.

[VM1973]

How do you XX twice?

 

Anyway I don't know much about escape systems over weak 1NT because I've never played weak. The only thing I've seen is http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46135-playing-the-weak-nt/ which suggests that 2NT transfers to diamonds. I am not about to commit my side to playing 3♦ because I have a weak hand and a 4-bagger.

 

Pass should force XX by opener, over which you can try to escape.

[MickyB]

When it gets passed round to opener, he should redouble with a five-card suit, not bid directly. This gives partner the chance to pass 1NT XX.

[Zelandakh]

How do you XX twice?

<snip>

Pass should force XX by opener, over which you can try to escape.

You XX first rouynd to show clubs. Then if they double you in 2C you XX again to say "anything except clubs". If partner has 5 clubs intermediate opps pretty much never double you in your 8 card fit so you get to escape, either in clubs or in partner's 4/5 card non-club suit.

 

Pass forcing XX is common in many popular 1NTX escape mechanisms including Spelvic which I mentioned above. Unfortunately these schemes are sometimes a little complicated for B/I players.

 

When it gets passed round to opener, he should redouble with a five-card suit, not bid directly. This gives partner the chance to pass 1NT XX.

This makes sense to me, giving Responder the option when they have more information about the hands than Opener.

[MrAce]

Simon here is what we play to run out of weak NT, or when our strong NT overcall is doubled. Very simple and easy to remember and imho it is very effective too.

 

Pass- i either wanna play 1 NT dbled or i think this is the place where we will be owned least. Can be strong, we can not REDBL opponents.

 

RDBL = 1 suiter, pd bids 2♣ and u pass or correct.

 

2 ♣ = Just like DONT, ♣+any 2 suiter, if it is ♣+major ♣ is longer, with 5 card majors+4♣ it is almost always better to show it as 1 suiter and play 2M for various reasons.

 

2♦ = Just like DONT, ♦+M, same shape requirements as above.

 

2♥ = Majors

 

You can also discuss with pd about 2 ♠, 2NT, 3m and 3M bids for your choice of picture bid hands which are not good/suitable for letting 1 NT doubled but can be as good as game in case there is a fit (wild hands that are not too weak or strong enough to commit to game by themselves, 5-5 6-4 7-4 6-5 hands)

[SimonFa]

Simon here is what we play to run out of weak NT, or when our strong NT overcall is doubled. Very simple and easy to remember and imho it is very effective too.

 

Pass- i either wanna play 1 NT dbled or i think this is the place where we will be owned least. Can be strong, we can not REDBL opponents.

 

RDBL = 1 suiter, pd bids 2♣ and u pass or correct.

 

2 ♣ = Just like DONT, ♣+any 2 suiter, if it is ♣+major ♣ is longer, with 5 card majors+4♣ it is almost always better to show it as 1 suiter and play 2M for various reasons.

 

2♦ = Just like DONT, ♦+M, same shape requirements as above.

 

2♥ = Majors

 

You can also discuss with pd about 2 ♠, 2NT, 3m and 3M bids for your choice of picture bid hands which are not good/suitable for letting 1 NT doubled but can be as good as game in case there is a fit (wild hands that are not too weak or strong enough to commit to game by themselves, 5-5 6-4 7-4 6-5 hands)

Some interesting ideas, thanks.

 

Having given it a lot more thought I think Houdini is a better system, but in the end a downside of weak NT is you are always exposed to going for a big number but given so many play it the upside pre-emptive advantage probably out weighs it.

[Cyberyeti]

As other posters have said, forced redouble is very common, the variant I play:

 

Redouble = single suited

2♣/♦/♥ that suit and the one immediately above

pass forces redouble

 

over openers redouble

 

pass to play

2♣ = ♣+M

2♦ = ♦/♠

 

2♠ and 2N whether used before or after the XX are inv/GF 5-5+s with enough points to sit the double but the wrong shape.

[MrAce]

Forced rdbl is something i played...a long time infact.

 

The fact is the frequency of hands where your safest heaven is to play 1NT doubled is way too much to play a convention that disables you to do so. But that maybe my own coinsidential experience.