Defence to a 1NT opening bid

[32519]

Are those a priori odds? You need to calculate the probability of being dealt an awkward hand given that Opener has a NT of the opponents' range and given that partner has one of the hand types shown by the 2♦ call. It should also be pointed out that there are other problem shapes without a fit at the 3 level (for example 1255, where you are almost certainly losing) and some shapes where you will lose if 8 tricks are the limit in your major despite a fit.

 

You need to calculate all of these to determine if you are plus or minus on the specific hands where you respond 2♦. You then need to do the same procedure for all of the other hand types to see if your method is overall good, bad, or neutral. And the odds will change depending on the NT range so it might be that your method is good against 12-14, neutral against 14-16 and bad against 15-17, for example. It is certainly correct to say that every method has hands which it finds difficult. It is certainly not correct to say that your methods are only minus in comparison to a baseline (such as Multi-Landy, say) on 0.12% of hands.

 

So what are we looking at here?

 

Kamikaze = 10-12 HCP (We will ignore this one)

Weak = 11-14 HCP (fairly common at top level)

ACOL = 12-14 HCP (if you play in GB or the Netherlands, you see this all the time)

Precision = 13-15 HCP (fairly common as well)

Precision = 14-16 HCP (less common than the 13-15 HCP range)

Standard = 15-17 HCP (my guess this is the most common)

Old Goren = 16-18 HCP (rare to see this nowadays)

 

A lot of people play a different defence against a strong NT versus a weak NT. Just make sure you or partner don’t forget or mix them up. Having the same defence against a weak and strong NT reduces memory load. This may prove beneficial in a lengthy tournament.

 

So, pays yer money and makes yer pick!

[benlessard]

Precision = 14-16 HCP (less common than the 13-15 HCP range)

huh ?

[mgoetze]

huh ?

Just put him on ignore already...

[32519]

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 over your 1NT bid.

 

Here is a great thread Dealing with NT Interference for you to study as well.

[32519]

Coping with interference again, this time over 2NT.

 

Someone at the recent Vanderbilt got their knickers in a knot after interference 2NT-P-3C-X. Again, some nice suggestions on how to deal with this sort of interference.

[32519]

TONT stands for Transfers Over No Trump.

 

More information on TONT can be found in this thread.

[32519]

It should also be pointed out that there are other problem shapes without a fit at the 3 level (for example 1255, where you are almost certainly losing) and some shapes where you will lose if 8 tricks are the limit in your major despite a fit.

 

With these hands types, my reply is the same as I gave antonylee. Where advancer sees an absolutely awful fit looming, the best decision would be to simply pass the 2♦ overcall. Advancers hand is useless outside of the suit bid whereas the 2♦ overcaller has a trick taking hand in the majors. 2♦ still has a chance of making. Furthermore, it is unlikely to get doubled as this would allow the overcaller to escape to his 6-card major.

 

What I like about this defence of mine is that it brings three suits into play, both majors in overcaller’s hand and either minor suit in advancer’s hand.

[klozetia]

hi all you forgot about MULTI LANDY ASTRO SO IN SHORT THIS LOOKS THAT

• x - 6+♠ or 4♥ -5+♣/♦
  • 2♣ - to suit partner (usually without 4 hearts) next:
    • 2♦-4♥ -5♦;
    • 2♥ - 6+♠ little more down (!);
    • 2♠ - 6+♠, down

    [*]2♦ -® next:

    • 2♥ -4♥ -5♣/♦, down
    • 2♠-6+♠, down
    • 2BA - 6+♠, max
    • 3♣/♦ - 4♥ -5♣/♦, max

    [*]2♥ -to partner suit 4+♥[*]2♠ - to partner suit, invite if overcall was option with hearts[*]3♣ - block, support in ♣, ♦ i ♠[*]3♦ - invite on majors[*]3♥ - block on majors

  [*]2♣ - 5-4+ in majors (landy)[*]2♦ - 6+♥ or 4♠-5♣/♦

  • 2♥ - to partner suit next: with hearts pass with spades - 2♠ (2nt- ask about minor)
  • 2♠® next:
    • 2BA - any hand max, next: 3♣® :
      • 3♦ - 5♦-4♠;
      • 3♥ - 6♥ ;
      • 3♠ - 5♣-4♠

      [*]3♣/♦ - natural with 4 spades, minimum[*]3♥ - 6♥ , minimum

    [*]3♦ - invite on majors[*]3♥ - block on majors

  [*]2♥ /♠ - natural 5 with 4 minor[*]2BA - 5-5 ♣/♦

GREETINGS KLAUDIUSZ

[32519]

Does your defence to a 1NT opening bid make room for game exploration after the interference? Board 4 here at the USBC both teams were playing DON’T and both teams made 10 tricks. The difference? The one stopped in 2♥, the other bid the ♥ game.

 

If your methods don’t allow for game exploration when overcalling a 1NT opener, you are playing losing bridge.

[32519]

Board 30: Round of 16 – Segment 2 of 8.

 

The amount of hands thus far in the USBC allowing you to –

1. Test your defence over a 1NT or 2NT opening, and

2. To play your Puppet Stayman sequence

thus far have been staggering.

 

DON’T was again employed here. A mis-defence allowed 4♥ to make.

[Statto]

If your methods don't allow for game exploration when overcalling a 1NT opener, you are playing losing bridge.

I don't know of any method that doesn't.

[32519]

DON'T appears to be an extremely popular defence to 1NT by the players in the USBC. It keeps appearing.

 

If these guys have figured out DON'T is effective, why bother with anything more exotic? What I have noticed as well, the lower ranking suit overcalled is usually 5-cards, while the higher ranking suit, only 4-cards. Or have the boards been rigged again in favour of DON'T? :unsure: :P :blink: :rolleyes: :) ;)