Defence to a 1NT opening bid

[nigel_k]

My preference in order:

 

Astro (I don't know the terminology but one where you can usually play the longer major)

Landy

Multi-Landy

Lionel

DONT

 

For those, not ranked I don't know what they are or they are too bad to mention. I play against weak NT a lot. Against strong NT, the methods without a penalty double become relatively more attractive but it's still close and I'd prefer to use the same defence against both.

[Elianna]

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

 

In Meyerson, X shows a 5+/4+ Major/minor hand, either one could be longer. So what you said is not WRONG (because they both could be 4+), it's just that at least one will be 5+.

[gwnn]

In Meyerson, X shows a 5+/4+ Major/minor hand, either one could be longer. So what you said is not WRONG (because they both could be 4+), it's just that at least one will be 5+.

yes I knew that, but I wrote in GIB style, lol, sorry.

 

BTW for new people on the forum who are interested, it goes like this:

 

1NT-X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way

 

advances:

2C: pass or correct for the 5-card suit

2D: asks for the major, be it a 4 or 5 carder

2M: natural (ha! you find hearts when overcaller has spades)

2NT: strong ask (I don't know what Elianna-awm play here but we just played it as strong ask for the 5-card suit)

[Statto]

None of the artificial bids or double really allow responder to pass without some risk when they might otherwise act, as advancer can always pass if weak with 6 cards in the artificial suit, or to convert the double into a penalty.

 

Multi-Landy is better than Cappelletti because it allows for bidding with 5-4 in the majors and never playing in the worse major fit. Although Cappelletti does allow for playing in 2♦ when that is overcaller's suit, you might ask: how often in a competitive auction would we be allowed to play in 2♦?

 

5-4 is a lot more common than 5-5, and against a weak NT or non-vulnerable you'll probably want to overcall with 5-4 hands more often. Perhaps vulnerable or against a strong NT, you may want the protection of better distributional strength with a 5-5. Asptro works well with the 4(+) card suit being an anchor suit and a relay to the 5(+) card suit when there's no fit there (and since advancer with a singleton or void normally shows 3 card support for the anchor, you won't play in a 5-0 or 5-1 fit when a 4-3 fit was available).

 

I've not played Crunched Cappelletti etc, but I'm wondering whether the effectiveness of these systems is based on the assumption that opps interference will be negligible. For the opposite end of the spectrum, I like (modified) Pinpoint Astro against Strong NT with double showing a single suited hand and 2♠ showing 5+ ♠ and a 4+ (or sometimes good 3) card minor - partner is then often well placed to judge what to do when responder bids, and we get the preemptiveness of ♠ being almost natural.

 

PPA might on the surface of it seem superior to DONT. With both minors it makes sense to bid 2NT, you want to preempt a bit, but 2m showing that minor and an unspecified major doesn't make it easy for the other side to bid against. It loses out on being able to show 5-4 hands effectively, as does PPA somewhat, though you could agree that the major is 5+ and the minor 4+, perhaps depending on vulnerability (but still can't distinguish 5-4 in the majors from 4-5).

[kenrexford]

I've not played Crunched Cappelletti etc, but I'm wondering whether the effectiveness of these systems is based on the assumption that opps interference will be negligible.

 

Depends on which version. Most of the time, however, any call by Responder through 3♦ (and probably 3♠) causes no realy problems for us, and higher intervention probably means that it is their hand anyway.

 

In other versions, though, two-under is actually less intervention-susceptible.

 

Consider a simple example, playing against Weak 1NT. Your LHO opens 1NT. Playing simple Landy, partner bids 2♣ for both majors, 2♥ for hearts, or 2♠ for spades, and your RHO next bids 3♦. You are preempted by the interference and have no idea what partner's strength is.

 

Playing the simplest version (suitable and perhaps idea for weak nt overcalls), however, partner will have instead bid:

 

2♣ for weak with one or both majors

2♦ for both majors, intermediate

2♥ for hearts intermediate

or

2♠ for spades intermediate

 

In that structure, the interference is less costly than with other approaches where Overcaller has a huge range. For that matter, if Responder passes (no interference at all), you are better positioned as Advancer to decide whether 2M is enough or to move forward into the three-level if you know partner's general strength.

 

Conversely, because you have both a weak and a strong way to show one major, or both majors, you can have a wider "range," not passing weak but playable hands (and hence less susceptible to intervention) and not having to double with some high-end intermediates (also a problem if intervention occurs after the double).

 

Some of the more complicated versions have similar range protections, like a Crunched Capp with a "power 2♦."

 

In Mid-Chart, you can even show range for minor overcalls (e.g., bid 2NT for both, 3♣, or 3♦ with values, but 2♠ for one-or-both-minors weak).

 

So, if strength and interference-protection is your goal, that is also answered.

[Statto]

... higher intervention probably means that it is their hand anyway ...

It sometimes happens that opener is the only one with a balanced hand. Responder might bid 4M to make and we may want to sac, or occasionally bid 4M as a preempt when we have a distributional game. I don't really know which is better: swings, or roundabouts? B-)

[wank]

it's all about the majors. bugger showing these other random combinations

[benlessard]

People who play Meyerson should just give up on the natural diamonds and show wich M+m is longer like i do. Also if the X promise a 5M you dont need 2C for both M. Being able to show 45,46 vs 54,55 is just more important than natural diamonds.

[awm]

People who play Meyerson should just give up on the natural diamonds and show wich M+m is longer like i do. Also if the X promise a 5M you dont need 2C for both M. Being able to show 45,46 vs 54,55 is just more important than natural diamonds.

 

I disagree with this. The natural diamond bid is extremely effective. It forces opponents to wrong-side their 2M contracts when responder has five, and it can make it hard to find their major fits (because a negative double over 1NT-2M needs to hold only one major suit, whereas a negative double over 1NT-2♦ is usually played as showing both majors). We have never had any issue finding our major suit fits, and further there is a big advantage in being able to play in hearts when partner has spades+minor (presumably if you play 2♦ as M+m a 2♥ advance is some kind of pass/correct bid and you can't play there if overcaller has spades). We are easily able to distinguish which suit is longer via our 2♣ advance ("bid your longer suit"). Further, the high frequency double actually allows us to pass out some hands for penalties.

 

It's also much better to have a call that shows both majors, rather than a double that shows "a 5M and another suit" in case opponents compete further.

[benlessard]

I disagree with this. The natural diamond bid is extremely effective. It forces opponents to wrong-side their 2M contracts when responder has five, and it can make it hard to find their major fits (because a negative double over 1NT-2M needs to hold only one major suit, whereas a negative double over 1NT-2♦ is usually played as showing both majors). We have never had any issue finding our major suit fits, and further there is a big advantage in being able to play in hearts when partner has spades+minor (presumably if you play 2♦ as M+m a 2♥ advance is some kind of pass/correct bid and you can't play there if overcaller has spades). We are easily able to distinguish which suit is longer via our 2♣ advance ("bid your longer suit"). Further, the high frequency double actually allows us to pass out some hands for penalties.

 

It's also much better to have a call that shows both majors, rather than a double that shows "a 5M and another suit" in case opponents compete further.

 

2D with 5/6D+4M is tougher to defend than 2D nat because like you said the neg tend to show both M.

 

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big. The 2C bid is less preemptive but perfect for pushing them to 3. Often getting them out of 1nt is enough. Also the X that promise a 5M is safer and less vulnerable to preemption , its easier for them to bury your 5m+4M hands than your 5M+4m hands.

 

Playing unknown lenght 2 suiters doesnt compared to knowned lenght 2 suiters, so you must have a good compensation elsewhere to even it out Im pretty sure having 2D natural and 2D--2H to play is far from being enough.

 

Reaching the best fit in almost all hands allow you to double with 54 shapes more often, wich is a prime goal of defending against 1NT IMO. Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

[bluecalm]

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big.

 

Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

 

Out of 12 pairs in 2011 Bermuda Bowl semi-finals 11 of them plays 2C as majors (and one use 2H as majors).

It's safe assumption that all of them played more bridge and at higher level than you and still weren't convinced.

Why should we be then ?

 

2C majors is the only thing I really want to have vs 1NT. If other bids are natural, multi, two suiters or w/e doesn't concern me that much.

[benlessard]

Your point is out of context. If you are using the X for double suiters than I strongly believe that both M should be under the X and 2C to show something else. If the X show single suiter its a different story.

[mgoetze]

2♦ as one major tends to mess up even the good pairs in the room.

 

Only in GCC Country, of course.

[awm]

2D with 5/6D+4M is tougher to defend than 2D nat because like you said the neg tend to show both M.

 

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big. The 2C bid is less preemptive but perfect for pushing them to 3. Often getting them out of 1nt is enough. Also the X that promise a 5M is safer and less vulnerable to preemption , its easier for them to bury your 5m+4M hands than your 5M+4m hands.

 

Playing unknown lenght 2 suiters doesnt compared to knowned lenght 2 suiters, so you must have a good compensation elsewhere to even it out Im pretty sure having 2D natural and 2D--2H to play is far from being enough.

 

Reaching the best fit in almost all hands allow you to double with 54 shapes more often, wich is a prime goal of defending against 1NT IMO. Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

 

We are able to determine the longer suit virtually always by advancer bidding 2♣ ("bid your longer suit"). Please give examples where this creates a problem for us. In fact without further competition we always reach the same contract as Woolsey when overcaller has a major/minor two-suiter (and Woolsey is a method where the longer suit is always known).

 

On the other hand, I can see a lot of problems for your method. You didn't give the continuations after 1NT-X, but it seems important to show that you have both majors (as opposed to 5M/4m) at a level where responder knows which major is longer and you can still play in two of either major. Seems somewhat awkward. You are also less well-placed after further competition, for example 1NT-X-2♥(spades) and advancer has a 2245. You definitely want to be in 3m if overcaller has 5♥/4+m, but you don't really want to go anywhere if he has 5♥/4♠. We don't have any real problem with this hand type because overcaller promised a minor via the double.

 

Passing the double for penalties is clearly our advantage, since our double is more frequent than yours by a factor of almost 4:3.

[han]

Adam, you should publish an honors book about this stuff.

[fromageGB]

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.

 

 

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?

Agree absolutely that 2M should be single meaning natural, and agree absolutely that it is important to know which of 2 suits is longer. This is a big problem with most of the defences showing a major and a minor, which could be 45 any way round. As partner, if it can be a 5 card major I may want to be in that, but if it is a 4 card major, then want to be in the minor.

 

A practical problem with defences where a minor shows a specific major is that you cannot pass the minor as it may be the wrong one. In effect you have to go to the 3 level. I think it more sound that a minor bid shows that minor and an unknown major. With length in the minor you can pass it.

 

This is why I play vertigo, and like it.

 

Most of my opponents play weak NT, but I am still happy to give up the penalty double. Without the double (you have to pass with a strong balanced hand) declarer will not know you have such a strong hand and possibly not play so effectively, and having no penalty double means that they cannot escape to responder's 2 of a minor or weak 2 suited hands. (Of course, should partner reopen with a vertigo double then you have the option of passing.)

 

With one partner I play vertigo where the double is either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor or both majors any length. With another partner I give up the 5m4M hands and have double as just both majors. Then you can always play in the best fitting 2M regardless of length (eg partner bids his longer major, but with equal length he bids 2♦ for doubler to bid the longer), and you can also have the option to play a response of 2♣ as pass or correct to 2♦ if partner hates both majors.

[fromageGB]

We are able to determine the longer suit virtually always by advancer bidding 2♣ ("bid your longer suit"). Please give examples where this creates a problem for us.

I just don't get this. Perhaps I have misread what you play, but if "X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way" then it seems hopelessly useless.

 

As advancer I have 4153 shape. I don't want to play in your 4 card major if it is hearts, so I can't bid 2♦. I can't bid 2♠ natural as I don't want to play in a 42 fit or worse. I am not strong. So I bid 2♣ to ask for your 5 card suit. Is that right?

 

You bid 2♥, your longest suit in 2542. What am I supposed to do? Rescue with 2♠ so we can escape to your second suit and risk playing in a 4-3 club fit at the 3 level?

 

With standard Vertigo with your 2542 shape it goes (1NT) 2♦ (p) p. Advancer knows your minor, so there is no problem.

(If advancer's hand was 4135 he still passes, if 4315 he bids 2♥.)

 

It seems to me that when your double is as vague as this, there must be many times you have no way of finding the correct contract.

 

If overcaller's reds were reversed, ie 2452, then that is a Vertigo X, and advancer's

4153 : X 2♦(showing 4 spades and denying 4 hearts) pass

4315 : X 2♥(ostensibly 4 hearts maybe 4 spades) pass (advancer prefers a 4-4 or 4-3 major fit to a possible 5-1 diamond fit)

3145 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦

 

I can't see how your one bid(call) of double for any major+minor, of any lengths, can be useful.

 

Edit - an alternative and better way of bidding the penultimate hand is

4315 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦ 2♥(I prefer your major)

as this leaves the possibility open of playing of playing 2♣ in a 5-5 fit.

[bluecalm]

I like this vertigo idea. It seems Balicki-Zmudzinski play that from direct seat (and multi landy from balance position). I didn't know the idea nor continuations. Thanks.

[benlessard]

With one partner I play vertigo where the double is either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor or both majors any length. With another partner I give up the 5m4M hands and have double as just both majors.

Like i said just reverse the X and 2m bids.

 

(1Nt)-2m-(X neg)-??

 

its easier to raise to 3m and annoy them if parter is 5m+4M than the opposite.

 

(1Nt)-X-(2H) S transf- ??

 

its easier to X takeout because its almost sure that partner is 5H/4m while if hes 5m+4M its somewhat still possible hes got 4S.

 

More importantly if your X show 5M partner its easier to X with both M. Finally its easier to bid 2C with 5C+4D if 2C is meaning 5C+4M

[billw55]

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.

Why do you think so?

[kenrexford]

In looking through vertigo and thinking about it, I can see that the intended focus does seem to be met. Extreme safety and assurances of a best fit seem to be met fairly well. But, this seems also to me to have a feel similar to one problem that I have seen in many approaches, namely that the extreme focus on avoiding the three-level has a cost of making constructive auctions with stronger playable hands difficult.

 

Consider, for instance, the two-suiter with values. It does not take much to make game with a 5-5 hand. I recall a slam auction from Philadelphi (that went off the rails because of a sleep-deprived brain fart) where Overcaller held ♠Axxxx ♥AK10xx ♦-- ♣Jxx and Advancer ♠Kxx ♥Jxxx ♦xxxx ♣Ax. At our table, Advancer made a call that should have resulted in the final contract being 6♥ (cold on the layout). Certainly, bidding game with this 20-count should be easy.

 

This theme is not that uncommon, IMO. This is especially less so against weak 1NT and against the trending upgrades and semi-balanced 1NT calls that are called "strong."

 

In my judgment, with which many may disagree, an ideal approach is one where information is exchanged at a relatively safe level (which often means playing three of a minor) in a way where either strength is distinguished immediately or where at least Overcaller (and/or Advancer) has the ability to control the auction somewhat with additional calls. Jumping everything into "double then bid high" seems insufficient.

 

But, that's more of a philosophy issue.

 

 

[awm]

I just don't get this. Perhaps I have misread what you play, but if "X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way" then it seems hopelessly useless.

 

As advancer I have 4153 shape. I don't want to play in your 4 card major if it is hearts, so I can't bid 2♦. I can't bid 2♠ natural as I don't want to play in a 42 fit or worse. I am not strong. So I bid 2♣ to ask for your 5 card suit. Is that right?

 

Sure, (41)(53) where partner has five in the singleton major is basically the only problem shape. Of course it is also a problem shape if you play Woolsey or the like where partner overcalls two of your singleton major showing that major and a minor. Then again, playing Vertigo you would be somewhat embarrassed if you reached a 4-3 diamond fit only to find that partner's major was your four-card major!

 

Vertigo has its problems too. For example: I hold a 2632 hand and partner doubles. If I bid 2♥ (hearts, maybe spades) then partner is probably bidding 2♠ with his 4♠/5m combination and I get to the three-level (or a sub-moysian). The alternative would seem to be bidding 2♣ (bid your five-card suit) but then I often get to play 2♣ on a seven-card fit when I would much rather be in hearts. My methods have no problem after double by advancing 2♥ natural. Same thing happens if partner bids 2m and I hold 1633; I get to choose between the 4-3 minor fit and a 5-1 spade fit, with no ability to introduce my six-card heart suit (which is quite often the best spot to play). Another example: I hold a 2425 and partner doubles. If I bid 2♥ (four hearts, maybe four spades) then I get to play 3♦ in the likely event that partner has 4♠/5♦. But if I try 2♣ (no major) I get to play 2♠ when partner has 5♠/4♥ (also sort of lousy). In my methods I can always play this hand at the two-level by advancing 2♣ to double (reaching 2♦ in partner's five-card suit) or 2♥ to both majors (reaching the best fit). Another: suppose I have a 4315 hand and partner doubles with a 5431. You've suggested that since I don't want to play in diamonds opposite partner's 4M/5♦, I should make the 2♥ call that ostensibly shows four hearts. But partner is passing that right? In a system where 2♣ showed majors this would never happen.

 

And this is ignoring that fact that Vertigo has no way to show the diamond one-suiter at the two-level, and that you have some issues with both majors when opponents compete further. For example, say you hear 1NT-X-2NT (transfer to clubs) and you have a mediocre 5224 hand. Seems like you defend 3♣, since partner probably has the reds. But if you knew partner had majors, you'd probably want to be in spades!

[bluecalm]

Why do you think so?

 

We can discuss capp's 2D bid but the real problem is with 2C "any suit". Now, what is the most important thing is that if they bid their major we could compete in ours.

This is easy with natural 2M overcall, it's easy with multi overcall (from multi landy) if the double shows 5M-4m for example then again, if they bid and raise their major we know partner has 5 cards in the other (or 4 in case of discussed "Meyerson"). Not so in capp.

One example:

 

1N - something - 2D - p

3H - pass - pass - ????

 

You really want to know if partner has spades. If "something" is 2S you know that. If "something" is 2D as multi you know that too. If 'something' is capp you are lost.

Not only that. The more spades you have the less likely you are to take action and the more you lose if partner has spades. You can easily lose 10 card fit in such auctions.

No decent defense to 1N has a call like "any suit". You either want 2M natural or 2D as multi or 2D/2H as transfers.

 

As to 2D call. The only advantage of it is that you play from better hand (less disclosed and putting strong hand on lead) but you often play in worse fit.

You are left guessing with 2-2/3-2/2-3/3-3 configurations in majors and it's painful.

[bluecalm]

Btw, I think "Meckwell" should be added to original list:

 

2C/2D = nat + major

2H/2S = nat

dbl = one minor or both majors

 

I don't know if 2C/2D calls could be either way or if they promise 5cards in a major (or maybe in a minor ?)

[32519]

I have been following these posts keenly, hoping to find the optimal solution which caters for both major suit and minor suit orientated hands in the direct seat over the 1NT bidder. How do any of the 1NT defences already posted here find the game contract (or a very profitable sacrifice) for the 3 hands below? Granted that it will be rare that these situations arise, but when they do, I don’t want to miss the game opportunity. Over a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, declarer can bid game on sub-game values, making use of the information of knowing where most of the missing HCP are located. The 4th hand wants to retain a penalty orientated double, more so when the opponents are vulnerable. How do I cater for them all in one solution?

 

For all 4 hands, dealer is South playing a 15-17 NT range.

 

Hand 1: Major Suit Game[hv=pc=n&s=sj54ha43dkq2caqj7&w=sk963hkq9652da7ct&n=st872h87d64c96432&e=saqhjtdjt9853ck85]399|300[/hv]

 

A botched defence from N/S here sees 4♥ home.

 

Hand 2: How do you find the very profitable 4♠ sacrifice here?

[hv=pc=n&s=saqh9864daj4cajt2&w=skj98haqjt75dc864&n=sthk32dkq9632ckq3&e=s765432hdt875c975]399|300[/hv]

 

The sacrifice becomes even more profitable with red versus white.

 

Hand 3: Minor Suit Game

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqthj52dkq9c632&w=s9hk8da8654cakj84&n=sj87532h763dt72c5&e=s64haqt94dj3cqt97]399|300[/hv]

 

Will your methods find the minor suit game?

 

Hand 4: I still want to retain a penalty double. If this is IMPs, the opponents vulnerable and West on lead, the penalty double becomes very profitable.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt3hakq2d72ckt3&w=sah8dakqj84c87642&n=sj984h9653d53cq95&e=s7652hjt74dt96caj]399|300[/hv]

 

What is the plan of action for either North or South after the penalty double?