Defence to a 1NT opening bid

[32519]

I came across this list of defences to a 1NT opening bid. If you know of other methods not listed here, then kindly add them. Then rank this list from 1-20 in order of effectiveness the methods that you have at some time played on a scale of 1-10. You can differentiate between what is effective against a weak NT and against a strong NT. Once input to the thread has ceased, I will end the thread off with a final post on how the forum posters ranked these methods. It could possibly lead to some interesting further discussion.

 

Thank you all in advance.

 

Defensive Method/Convention

1. Aspro Convention

2. Asptro/Middlesex Astro (added, see post below)

3. Astro Convention

4. Astro Cue Bid (deleted, see post below)

5. Becker Convention

6. Bergen Over No Trump

7. Brozel Convention

8. Brozel Rescue Bids

9. Cansino Convention

10. Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage (all the same convention, see post below)

11. Crash Over One No Trump

12. D.O.N.T.

13. French (added, see post below)

14. Hamilton Convention (same as 10, see post below)

15. HELLO (added, see post below)

16. Landy Convention

17. Lionel (added, see post below)

18. Meckwell (added, see post below)

19. Meyerson (added, see post below)

20. Modified Astro

21. Natural 2-level Interference (not conventional)

22. MONK (added, see post below)

23. Multi Landy

24. Optional Double

25. Pinpoint Astro

26. Psycho Suction (added, see post below)

27. Randy (added, see post below)

28. Ripstra Convention

29. Suction Convention

30. TONT (added, see post below)

31. Vertigo (added, see post below)

32. VROOM (added, see post below)

33. Woolsey (added, see post below)

34. Zebulon (added, see post below)

 

It is not good enough to just have an agreement on overcalling the opponents 1NT opening bid. You also need agreements on how to cope with interference. Check out the link added on page 7 of this thread (post nr 129).

 

[This thread has been edited].

[S2000magic]

#3. Astro Cue Bid isn't a defense against a 1NT opener; it's a 2-suited overcall of a one-of-a-suit opener showing the lower, unbid major and the lower, unbid minor, with the minor longer than the major (usually 5-4 or 6-4, but 6-5 is possible). Thus,

 

1♣ - 2♣ shows 5 or 6 diamonds and 4 hearts

1♦ - 2♦ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 hearts

1♥ - 2♥ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 spades

1♠ - 2♠ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 hearts

[bluecalm]

It's difficult to rank that many conventions without experience of playing them unless they are completely silly (like Capp).

What is worthwhile to add is multi-landy with double showing 5m-4M which I believe is called Woolsey sometimes.

[blackshoe]

1. Hello.

[Statto]

There are a couple more Astro variants: Asptro and Astpro (but maybe Modified Astro is one of these). http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm provides info on about 96 possible defences.

 

The defences which give up a penalty double, such as DONT, I think are only suitable against a strong NT; I wouldn't like to give up a penalty double against a weak NT.

 

If you want people to rate them, perhaps better to ask for a score of 0-10 for those they've played, when the 1NT range is suitable.

[gwnn]

Two premises:

 

2♣ for majors is really good.

2M natural is really good too.

 

If you agree with these two, the following are good to great defences (in no particular order of my preference):

 

-Meyerson: X shows a 4+ card major and a 4+ card minor, 2D is natural

-(I don't know a name for this): 2♦ shows a weak 2M overcall

-Landy: keep it simple. 2D is natural, X is strong

-"Randy": 2♦ shows ♦+M

-technically this does not respect the criteria above but you can also play 2♣=majors, 2♦=♥, 2♥=♠. This way you put opener on lead and you can bid 2red on very strong hands too.

[Cthulhu D]

It seems like there are a billion NT defences so asking for any list is completely futile. Plus it's not really relevant, I'd rank inverse psycho suction above suction, and hello the best but how does that help you when someone else says DONT, Multi Landy, Cap? Those lists are not even comparable, and you have no idea what's informing it.

 

So anyway, a better question is what makes for a good 1NT defence. I reckon it's the following:

 

• Penalty double yes/no - if you regularly encounter the weak NT, having a penalty double is desirable to minimise memory strain. You can just learn a second defense though so this isn't critical.
  
• 2C or 2H dedicated to show the majors (2C is better, 2H is second best and 2D is has all of the disadvantages of both with none of the advantages of either, as does anything else where 'both majors' is included with another hand-type in 2C like suction)
  
• How many hand types can I show?
  
• How fast can I show them (alternatively, how much preemption is baked in).
  

 

So Suction is bad because while it has most of the hand types available and has a penalty double, it's slow arrival and awkward majors or diamonds 2C make it a loser, while Multi Landy and HELLO both do much better.

 

-(I don't know a name for this): 2♦ shows a weak 2M overcall

-Landy: keep it simple. 2D is natural, X is strong

-"Randy": 2♦ shows ♦+M

-technically this does not respect the criteria above but you can also play 2♣=majors, 2♦=♥, 2♥=♠. This way you put opener on lead and you can bid 2red on very strong hands too.

 

It's called Auby on Blakjack's site, but who knows. Makes a lot of sense though, then 2M direct is a real opening hand. You could then use 2S as a transfer to clubs and 3C as both majors weak if you wanted to as well.

[gwnn]

I prefer to stick to 2♦=weak only, then partner can sometimes pass it. Of course passing such a bid has less payoff than passing a multi opener, since the partner of 1NT opener already is in a very good position. So that would be 'modified Auby'.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 A question to answer is, they open NT, do you give up on constructive bidding of game,

which may be on for your side?

 

The asnwer to this may mean, that you may you need to differentiate between weak /

strong NT.

 

#2 Another question is, how much do you need a penalty double?

 

I play in fields, where a 1NT gets rarely psyched, but if you encounter psych strong 1NT

openings a lot, you may think, that having a penalty double available is worth the cost.

 

For whats it worth - we play Lionel, and are fairly happy.

 

Our answers to #1 and #2

 

#1 we only need this, in case of a weak NT.

#2 we dont need a pure penalty against a weak NT, but we the value showing aspect of the

X against a weak NT, makes passing / converting the double still a valid option.

 

The only problem - we cant show both majors at once.

The advantage all suit bids, show the suit, so can be passed, which increases the pressure

on the direct seat, he has to act immediate.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cthulhu D]

I prefer to stick to 2♦=weak only, then partner can sometimes pass it. Of course passing such a bid has less payoff than passing a multi opener, since the partner of 1NT opener already is in a very good position. So that would be 'modified Auby'.

 

So what does (1NT) - 2H show? I presume it's a opening hand with hearts?

[RunemPard]

Just bid directly to 7NT. I would like to see them try to get a NT contract after that preempt.

 

Honestly I just prefer natural 2s over a NT opening, but might work on reading over conventions for 1NT defense at another time...so thanks for the post.

[gwnn]

So what does (1NT) - 2H show? I presume it's a opening hand with hearts?

Yes. However, on strong hands with hearts I prefer to X first and not 2♦ as on the website description.

[Zelandakh]

You have missed one of the most common methods in WeakNTland, Asptro and another of my favourites, French. Note that conventions such as Asptro prove that it is not necessary to limit yourself to either 2♣ or 2♥ as the majors; other options are available. Of all of the Astro family my favourite is actually the Asptro equivalent of Middlesex Astro, that is:-

 

2♣ = hearts or hearts + either a longer side suit or both minors

2♦ = spade or spade + either a longer side suit or both minors

2♥ = 5 hearts, 4+ minor

2♠ = 5 spades, 4+ minor

2NT = minors

 

This reduces the number of hand types bundled into the 2m overcalls making the follow-ups simpler. Most people would prefer standard Asptro for the natural 2M bids though.

 

One part of your list that made me laugh was "9. Cappelletti Convention" and "12. Hamilton Convention". Cappeletti, Hamilton and Pottage are all the same convention. It is trivial to show that Multi-Landy is better though. The main reason Capp and co are more popular is simply because of the ACBL regulations. This is an area where I think the ACBL have got it wrong.

 

David Stevenson's site (link already given) is probably the best resource on the web for 1NT defences and I always refer to it if some random on BBO insists on some NT defence I have never heard of or forgotten because it was so bad. It has yet to let me down although not everything is there. For example, the following mix of Asptro, Multi-Landy and French, playable over a strong NT, is not listed:-

 

X = 4+ hearts; either a longer side suit or both minors

2♣ = 4+ spades; either a longer side suit or both red suits

2♦ = hearts or spades

2♥ = 5 hearts, 4+ minor

2♠ = 5 spades, 4+ minor

2NT = minors

 

I am not going to rate all of the possibilities, only to say that if I had to choose a defence without discussion it would be Multi-Landy which I think is playable "out of the box". Against a strong NT I would add to that the X = 4M and 5+m option with pass/correct responses. Again, I think this is simple enough to play without alot of discussion.

[Vampyr]

The main reason Capp and co are more popular is simply because of the ACBL regulations. This is an area where I think the ACBL have got it wrong.

 

Is Multi-Landy not allowed in the ACBL? What other good defenses are not allowed?

 

Here is another, I do not know whether it has a name:

 

x = majors or minors or diamonds

2♣ = ♣ and a major

2♦ = ♦ and a major

 

But you probably need separate lists for weak and strong NT; I would not use a defense that didn't include a penalty double against a weak NT.

[kenrexford]

Well, since you asked, the best defenses to a 1NT opening are clearly any of the many new methods that I suggest in my new book, Overcalling Opponent's 1NT. These include:

 

GOOD-BAD FOR ONE OR BOTH MAJORS OVER NOTRUMP

BACKWARDS CAPPELLETTI

BACKWARDS CAPPELLETTI PLUS POWER 2♦ FOR STRONG MAJORS

BACKWARDS CAPPELLETTI PLUS FLANNERY

BACKWARDS CAPPELLETTI PLUS REVERSE FLANNERY

BACKWARDS CAPPELLETTI WITH IMPURE REVERSE FLANNERY AND CANAPÉ SPADES

SPECIFIC MINOR CAPPELLETTI (Crunched Cappelletti Plus 2♦ for Diamonds-Major or Crunched Cappelletti Plus 2♦ as Multi)

CRUNCHED CAPPELLETTI, MULTI 2♦, AND DOUBLE CANAPÉ

MAJORS AND MINORS VIA TWO-UNDER, PLUS TRANSFERS

MAJORS AND MINORS VIA TWO-UNDER, PLUS MULTI

CRUNCHED CAPPELLETTI PLUS TWO-UNDER MINOR(S) AND RIPSTRA

 

Plus, any of the above augmented by INCORPORATING AN ARTIFICIAL DOUBLE.

 

Ebook

 

B&N Paperback

 

Amazon PB

[campboy]

Is Multi-Landy not allowed in the ACBL?

It's not allowed at GCC. The GCC rule is that any meaning is permitted for double and 2♣, but that higher bids must have an anchor suit.

 

I agree with gwnn's two premises. One defence that I've played and like which fits with them but which he doesn't mention is David Collier's "half-astro": 2♣=majors, 2♦=spades+minor.

[kenrexford]

It's not allowed at GCC. The GCC rule is that any meaning is permitted for double and 2♣, but that higher bids must have an anchor suit.

 

I agree with gwnn's two principles. One defence that I've played and like which fits with them but which he doesn't mention is David Collier's "half-astro": 2♣=majors, 2♦=spades+minor.

 

The Multi-Landy convention runs into a problem because 2♦ is used to show either major. It is sort of like Cappelletti, but with the 2♣ and 2♦ calls switched as to meaning.

 

Woolsey does basically the same thing.

 

The idea seems to be to have the ability to distinguish the length of the majors via a 2♦ advance that asks which is better. A solution is to self-announce as Overcaller which is longer, which can be done several ways using the GCC.

 

One way is to announce "equal or longer hearts," with "longer spades" being the other option. With longer spades, you overcall 2♦ as Reverse Flannery (4♥ and 5-6 spades) or a sloppy version (might not have four hearts but just be long spades, in which case 1NT-2♠ shows 4♠ and longer minor). With equal or longer hearts, overcall 2♣ as "one or both majors" with equal or longer hearts. If Advancer prefers spades, he bids 2♦, which can be converted to 2♥ if just hearts. If Advancer prefers hearts, he bids 2♥, which can be converted to 2♠ with just spades (or with 5♠/minor if sloppy RF).

 

The alternative is to announce longer hearts as one option through a 2♦ Flannery overcall (4♠/5-6♥) and then 2♣ is one or both majors but if both equal or longer spades, with the same essential unwind.

 

If Advancer knows that one major is "equal or longer," the Multi-Landy and Woolsey goals are met, but these ways with GCC compliance.

[benlessard]

Bidding 2M natural with a 6 card suit is just so much better than 2M with M+m/ and needing a delayed way to show the long M that I strongly believe that 2M has to be natural by an unpassed hand.

 

If you accept this than your options are

 

2D= D+M (knowing wich is longer or not)/ Diamonds/ both M/ a single M but weaker or stronger tahn the direct 2M. I believe D+M is the way to go for frequency reasons.

 

2C= D or both M/ C+M (knowing wich one is longer or not)/ Both M (it will allow you to know wich one is longer) others.

 

X= many options.

 

I believe knowing wich suit is longer is important. Being able to show both M is also a must. Im willing to give up one 1 suiter minors at the 2 level.

 

so in the end I play the reverse of Vertigo,

 

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt31.htm

 

2C = 5C+4M or 5C+4/5D

2D = 5/6D+4M

2M natural.

 

X show a 5M + another suit. This is superior to Vertigo since my bids are slightly more preemptive and less vulnerable to preemption.

[Siegmund]

Of the ones I have played:

 

CRASH (or modified to be GCC legal: X=color, 2C=shape, 2D=majors, 2NT=minors)

BROOSS from Kleinman's book (X=one suit with clubs or two suits without clubs, 2C=C+M, 2D natural)

DONT

Sahara (X=H+another, 2C=S+another...what I played before discovering crash)

Capp

Transfer overcalls (uuuugh)

 

I would like to try, but havent, some of the modern methods where X=maj-min. Preferably with 2M natural. I am not quite as enamored of 2C=majors as some people here are; it's nice but at least in GCC world it's realllly expensive to devote 2C to only one shape.

[Zelandakh]

I believe knowing wich suit is longer is important. Being able to show both M is also a must.

I found these 2 sentences ironic given the choice of defence. Is the main disadvantage of this method not that you cannot show which major is longer?

 

Otherwise I agreed with most of what you said. 2M is better as natural but it is also more complicated to play multiple 2-suiters in a multi bid than 2 1-suiters. This is a trade-off one has to make between having 2 effective bids and 1 or 2 bad (overloaded) bids or having 3 or 4 good but not great bids. I think it depends on what you are including in the X and 2m hands whether 2M = natural makes the overall defence better or not.

[benlessard]

I found these 2 sentences ironic given the choice of defence. Is the main disadvantage of this method not that you cannot show which major is longer?

 

When C+H/C+S

D+H/D+S i can show wich suit is longer. When both m or both M i cannot. Using 2C for MM allow you to know wich one is longer, but its 1 case vs 4 cases.

 

Edit also note that with 33 and even 22 in the MM I can bid 2M over the X to suggest playing in the long M.

 

(1Nt)--X--p--??

 

2245 since i know partner going to have both M fairly frequently i can bid 2H and he will pass with 5H and bid 2S with 54??

 

So its not totally true that i cannot know witch is longer.

[Vampyr]

I have long been considering switching to Multi-Landy in most of my partnerships. Does anyone have opinions on the significance of having neither single-suit minors at the 2-level nor 2-suiters with minor at any level?

[Phil]

I play Woolsey and I generally like it.

 

2♣ for the majors is pretty nice, since you will always play the in your best strain major.

2♦ as one major tends to mess up even the good pairs in the room. This is more beneficial than showing a natural 2M, and is nearly as preemptive.

2M as M + m is fine.

 

Its the Woolsey Double that tends to be a bother. It is not preemptive at all and there is less benefit to competing at the two level when we have a long minor + a major. It seems there is a fair chance the opponents are about to play in your major, and you give them more tools to compete to their best partial. Sometimes just passing the hand out is best.

 

Many like penalty doubles over 1N, and that might be better, but I'm thinking there is a better use for the double and I don't want to plunk down $11.99 for Rexford's book.

[bluecalm]

I have long been considering switching to Multi-Landy in most of my partnerships. Does anyone have opinions on the significance of having neither single-suit minors at the 2-level nor 2-suiters with minor at any level?

 

I play "Woolsey" with mose people and multi-landy with the other part. I love it.

I am undecided as to penalty double, I tend to like it and playing is as 15+ with at least 3-3 majors or some very strong one suited hand.

You could also put strong two suiters 5M-5m to 2D if you don't want your 2M bid to be passed.

 

I know several very good players want to have 2M natural after 1NT but I don't get why. It makes you play from the wrong hand 100% of the time (while 2D gives you a chance right side as well as pass 2D sometimes) and make it impossible to effectively compete with 5M-4+m two suiter.

What I don't like about Meckwell and BZ defense is that you don't have one bid to show majors which imo is the most important tool in the box against 1nt.

 

It's real shame if ACBL doesn't allow multi-landy/Woolsey defenses as they're the most popular defenses to 1NT in top-level bridge as well as standard among amateur players in some parts of the world (like Poland).

[kenrexford]

1. For those who want to be able to bid 2M as natural and immediately, using 2♣ as any two suits except not both minors allows this, what I call "Crunched Cappelletti."

 

2. For those who want to preserve a double as penalty, you can do that while also being able to describe all two-suited hands, both one-suited majors, and sometimes which of the major or minor in a major-minor two-suiter is longer, all at an efficient level.

 

The key to all of this, IMO, is the 2♣ overcall being one or both majors, and understanding the fairly simple unwind to this. And, by "one major," using the "Crunched Cappelletti" version where a "one-suiter with spades" actually means a spade-minor two-suiter (only one major, but a two-suiter hand), and the same for hearts as "one major" with a minor.

 

Consider this at its most basic level. Yoy and partner decide to play simple "Backwards Cappelletti." So:

 

2♣ = one or both majors (if one, with a minor)

2♦ = diamonds

2♥ = hearts

2♠ = spades

3♣ = clubs

 

So, partner bids 2♣. The simplest option for Advancer is 2♦ for spade preference or 2♥ for heart preference. If Overcaller's 2♣ was bid with both majors, Overcaller now knows which major to bid. If Overcaller's 2♣ was based on one major (and a minor) and Advancer prefers the "right major," then Overcaller plays there. If Overcaller's 2♣ was based upon one major (and a minor) but Advancer picks the "wrong major," then Overcaller will always bid his own major instead (after 2♦ for spade preference will bid 2♥; after 2♥ for heart preference will bid 2♠), after which the auction is identical to Cappelletti, just one round later. E.g.,

 

(1NT)-2♣!-(P)-2♦(prefers spades to hearts)

(P)-2♥(hearts and a minor)

 

This is functionally identical to:

 

(1NT)-2♥(hearts and a minor)

 

There is just a round of silliness in the middle.