Jump to content

Unethical Defense to 1NT


Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a link to a defense to 1NT based on bad ethics that goes something like:

 

Pass

Think then Pass

Ask Range then Pass

Double

Think then Double

Ask then Double

 

etc all showing different ranges.

 

I have seen something before but I haven't found it in a search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to a defense to 1NT based on bad ethics that goes something like:

 

Pass

Think then Pass

Ask Range then Pass

Double

Think then Double

Ask then Double

 

etc all showing different ranges.

 

I have seen something before but I haven't found it in a search.

I too can't find a link to it anywhere but I'm quite sure that I've played against this defence before and it's quite hard to come up with a sensible counter-defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't quite it, because over 1NT, there are, as the OP mentioned, more options involving asking the range, at least in jurisdictions where the range is not announceable.

 

In this country the convention is known as the "French Defense".

 

Indeed I have heard many countries insulted with the naming rights of this defense.

 

What I recall seeing but now cannot find is something like:

 

Pass 0-2

Slow Pass 3-5

Ask then Pass 6-8

Ask then Slow Pass 9-11

Double 12-14

Slow Double 15-17

Ask then Double 18-20

Ask then Slow Double 21-23

 

I guess you could add in Slow Ask to get even more precision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too can't find a link to it anywhere but I'm quite sure that I've played against this defence before and it's quite hard to come up with a sensible counter-defence.

 

A sensible defense is easy to come up with.

 

If asked the range of the NT, replying instantly shows 15, clearing your throat and replying shows 16, saying "um" before replying shows 17, clearing your throat then "um" shows 15 with 4 spades, etc.

 

If not asked, responder can hesitate for a few seconds to show 0-5 HCP, can think for a while before passing to show 6-7, can examine the opponents convention card before passing to show a GF, etc.

 

Bridge is easy.

 

Edit, assuming the opener is asked his range. Switch stuff around if asking partner. You know what I mean.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that all of these defence variants, and counter-defences, are alertable?

 

Unfortunately, I think that these would be difficult to play effectively with screens...altho the throat-clearing, sniffing, coughing adjuncts might still work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that all of these defence variants, and counter-defences, are alertable?

 

Unfortunately, I think that these would be difficult to play effectively with screens...altho the throat-clearing, sniffing, coughing adjuncts might still work.

You are forgetting the possibilities from foot-tapping Mike...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sensible defense is easy to come up with.

 

If asked the range of the NT, replying instantly shows 15, clearing your throat and replying shows 16, saying "um" before replying shows 17, clearing your throat then "um" shows 15 with 4 spades, etc.

 

If not asked, responder can hesitate for a few seconds to show 0-5 HCP, can think for a while before passing to show 6-7, can examine the opponents convention card before passing to show a GF, etc.

 

Bridge is easy.

 

Edit, assuming the opener is asked his range. Switch stuff around if asking partner. You know what I mean.

These tactics can also be used in areas where NT ranges are announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to a defense to 1NT based on bad ethics that goes something like:

 

Pass

Think then Pass

Ask Range then Pass

Double

Think then Double

Ask then Double

 

etc all showing different ranges.

 

I have seen something before but I haven't found it in a search.

 

Look up "Weasel". It also works well over a Precision Club.

(1C) thinks....Does that show Clubs? So it doesn't show Cs? ok 2C

 

There is also encrypted Weasel, similar to encrypted signals, but I am not sure if that is ACBL legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one that seems to be peculiar to the weak NT around here is:

1NT

(LHO reaches for the box)

"12-14"

(LHO pauses with her hand on the box)

...

 

still haven't figured out what it actually *means*.

 

Still like the Modified French Defence (the Quebec defence?): when they open 1NT, wait for the announcement. If it doesn't come, ask. Then start thinking about what I'm going to do. Not as effective as the original version, but gets the point across, and doesn't cause the above error.

 

Edit: And Cascade, you have the passes right, but the doubles are backwards. The immediate Double shows the nuts, the various stages of asking and delay show lower strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one that seems to be peculiar to the weak NT around here is:

1NT

(LHO reaches for the box)

"12-14"

(LHO pauses with her hand on the box)

...

 

still haven't figured out what it actually *means*.

The meaning is clear, on this one ---and relatively common if there was any delay in the range announcement. They have different defenses (or ranges of calls) vs. weak/strong; I sympathize with this one, but there is still UI if the action after the pause is from a different part of the box.

 

People still assume a 1NT bid has the common range for their turf in the absense of an announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: And Cascade, you have the passes right, but the doubles are backwards. The immediate Double shows the nuts, the various stages of asking and delay show lower strength.

 

Do you have a source? That is what I was really after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a source? That is what I was really after.

 

I don't. I'll support it as logical, though. A fast action means what you're doing is clearly right on your hand and a slow action means it's less clear. Also, ask then slow pass and ask then slow double should be right next to each other in strength for those cases when you really want to decide between them. You don't even need to discuss it with your partner, and you probably already do it (to some extent)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a source? That is what I was really after.
Just the many opponents who played this against me, especially before the Announcements came in (and, of course, after the Announcements came in, but only for non-15-18 1NTs - it works just as well against "strong" NT). But I'm sure if you check my history for "WeaSeL over NT", you'll see several versions of me explaining it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the many opponents who played this against me, especially before the Announcements came in (and, of course, after the Announcements came in, but only for non-15-18 1NTs - it works just as well against "strong" NT). But I'm sure if you check my history for "WeaSeL over NT", you'll see several versions of me explaining it.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...