Weak NT System

[dustinst22]

Does anyone have a good system you use for over weak nt (12-14) in a 2/1 context (either 2-way stayman or any other system you like)

 

Also can put your favorite escapes/runnouts that you use.

 

This is what we use currently when the opponents double:

 

P = Balanced 8ish+

xx = majors or single minor

2m = m+higher

2M = single suited major

[Flem72]

Does anyone have a good system you use for over weak nt (12-14) in a 2/1 context (either 2-way stayman or any other system)

 

Also can put your favorite escapes that you use.

 

This is what we use currently when the opponents double:

 

P = Balanced 8ish+

xx = majors or single minor

2m = m+higher

2M = single suited major

 

You can just use the same SNT structure that you are used to, just adjust the ranges down. Or you can play 2WAY, 2C = any inv and 2D = any GF, so that every other call you make (except 2N is useful for any GF two-suiter) is your best guestimate of whre to play--this is a highly tactical style thst I find hard to compete against. Or you can play K-S style, where jumps are GF and 2C followed by anything is inv. (Look at Andy Stark's _The Weak NT_ -- not a really great book, but useful b/c it gathers a lot of WNT stuff in one place and provides starting points for various discussions. Also, googling "weak notrump systems"....?)

 

There are a ton of WNT runout structures out there. A relatively simple one is ("forces" means Advancer doesn't bid):

 

P forces RDBL, either to play or to escape into a 7-card fit (see below).

RDBL forces 2C, and Responder will either pass with 5+ or bid 2D with 5+

Transfer to get out into a 5+-card major.

After 1N-(X)-P-P/XX-(P)-? DONT runouts: bids show two 4-card suits, one bid plus one higher and you STOP in your lowest 7-card fit. If you're 4-3-3-3, hope the 4 is C so you can pass Opener's next bid (his lowest 4-carder).

[Cyberyeti]

You have to decide on the escape front whether you want to be able to pass out 1Nx, many people decide that they will play pass over 1Nx as forcing to redouble.

 

We play:

 

XX = any single suited weak, opener bids 2♣ P/C

 

pass forces redouble

 

2♣/♦/♥ = that suit and suit immediately above

2♠/N are invitational 5/5 touching/non touching

 

opener now redoubles unless he wants to bid a 5 (rarely) or 6 card suit

 

responder passes 1Nxx if he wants

or

bids 2m as a non touching 2 suiter (♣/♠ don't touch for this purpose)

2♥/♠/N are GF 5-5s ♥/any, ♠/minor, both minors

 

With 4333 you take your choice as how you show it.

 

The one thing I wouldn't bother with over a weak NT is Smolen, if you're just bidding game, you've probably got at least as much stuff as opener so why bother arranging to put it down on the deck.

[jwccsllc]

Does anyone have a good system you use for over weak nt (12-14) in a 2/1 context (either 2-way stayman or any other system)

 

Also can put your favorite escapes that you use.

 

This is what we use currently when the opponents double:

 

P = Balanced 8ish+

xx = majors or single minor

2m = m+higher

2M = single suited major

 

I've been playing a 12-14 point NT since the late '60s when I played K-S, and currently play it with most of my 2/1 partners.

 

We go against the Conventional Wisdom and use standard Stayman, 4-suit Transfers with fit-showing Super Accepts of 2♦ and 2♥ transfers, and South African Texas 4-level transfers. 3♣ and 3♦ are to play while 3♥ and 3♠ varies with my partner's prejudices.

 

When doubled we use DONT Runouts as described in Andy Stark's book on weak NT.

 

XX = 10+ -- it's our hand.

2 of a suit is at least 4-4 in that suit and a higher suit.

Pass is forcing (avertable), a single-suited hand. This requires Opener to bid a 5-card suit if available or redouble without one asking Responder to bid his single suit.

 

When playing Precision, we open a 10-12 NT in positions 1-3, any vulnerability. DONT runouts are the same except that redouble requires 12+. Here we use 2♣ Stayman, 2♦ GF Stayman, 2♥ and 2♠ to play. South African Texas is on.

[Adebisi]

1NT-(DBL): Pass=asks for RDBL with 4333/4432 or 2C/D with 5c/d332, if opener RDBLs then respender with 44 suits bids his lowest.here with 4333 use your imagination( this is problem hand always), but here is possibility opener bids 2c or 2d with 5carder.RDBL=nat penalty.2C/D/H/S=nat 5+ card s/o; 2NT=FG 1 or 2 suiter. 3C/D/H/S=6+card INV.Its simple and works.I dont know any other system thats allows opener to bid his 5card minor if responder is balanced.I guess i have read 90 % defences against DBL what you could find in the internet but nothing better so far.

[Wayne_LV]

Does anyone have a good system you use for over weak nt (12-14) in a 2/1 context (either 2-way stayman or any other system)

 

Also can put your favorite escapes that you use.

 

This is what we use currently when the opponents double:

 

P = Balanced 8ish+

xx = majors or single minor

2m = m+higher

2M = single suited major

 

My partner and I played weak NT (12-14) with 2/1 for over a year. We tried 2-way stayman and it does help to side more contracts with the field but that is not always an advantage. We found 2-way stayman to have an extremely unnatural feel and went back to 4-way transfers. I consider lebensol a must play convention with weak NT. You will get overcalled far more often than those playing a strong NT and must have a good method of dealing with that interference. Most good opponents will play Cappelletti or some other defense that includes a penalty double. To avoid the dreaded 1NT x contract you must employ some form of escape. We used Moscow Escapes (bids are similar to DONT) and it worked well. You must also play either NMF or Checkback Stayman (I much prefer the latter).

 

A double of 1N is not the worst situation a weak NT player encounters, especially with a method to escape.

 

The worst contract is 1NT passed out when partner has a bust hand. Many times the opps will have missed a part score and on rare occasions a game. But with unfavorable vulnerability, you can also book some heavy losses, even not doubled - especially when the field is in an unmakeable conract in the other direction. For that reason, many play a variable NT i.e. weak NT not vully, strong NT vully - but that is a disaster waiting to happen if you forget to change gears with the vulnerability. After a variable 1NT opening bid a LOT of follow on bids are also changed and this can be terribly confusing to a tired brain.

 

The best defense against a weak NT is to let the opener play the hand in 1NT. Against weak opponents the weak NT can be a very powerful tool, especially given its preemptive value. But if your opponents are good at competitive bidding, your edge diminishes or disappears completely.

 

We found over time that the Weak NT was not worth all the mental baggage necessary to cover the bases. We also came to the same conclusion for 2/1. I have yet to see a contract arrived at using 2/1 that a good pair would not reach using more traditional Standard American bidding sequences, and the loss of 1NT to play after a major suit opening is serious IMHO. I know that can be worked around by playing 1NT/M as semi-forcing but that just becomes one more thing to remember. As with most other aspects of life, there are trade offs between cost and benefit.

 

For all the fuss made over exotic bidding systems and arcane conventions it boils down to considering all the information from the auction to make sound bidding decisions and then playing the spots off the cards when the dummy hits the table.

 

We are now playing a more basic Standard American System with strong NT and a dozen less conventions and our win/loss rates have not suffered. But I must point out we are not playing against World Class players and most BBO matches are won by just making fewer obvious errors than your opponents.

 

The weak NT can be a lot of fun to play but be prepared to do a lot of alerting and typing "12-14" after your 1NT opening bids as well as alerting and explaining all of your NT rebids after opening 1 of a minor.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing a mini NT (10-12) when not vul in 1st & 2nd seats for many years. Opposite the mini NT opening we play a system of responses promulgated by Paul Soloway. They are set out in this post:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/28977-weak-nt-structure/page__st__20

 

When doubled, my partner and I use a very simple system - Moscow runouts. Moscow runouts are similar to DONT. A suit bid shows that suit and a higher ranking suit. A redouble shows a single suited hand. Pass shows no desire to run.

[Mbodell]

I strongly recommend, especially at white in MP, that you not have pass force XX. Lots of times 1ntX is the best spot (or least worst spot) and XX is going to cause that to turn from a best spot and top board (like 1ntX-1 for -100) into a bad spot and bottom board (1ntXX-1 for -200) as you skip over nearly all the making part score results for their side. Similarly down 2 or even down 3 against a game can be a fine result X, but XX is another story. The last people who played that against me gave us a 2200 on a hand where half the field failed to get to game our way.

 

I like inverted pycho suction run outs as:

 

By an unpassed hand:

XX = business - it is our hand, we play the contract or they play doubled.

2♣ = both minors OR just hearts - not forcing. You guess what I have and pass or correct.

2♦ = both reds OR just spades - not forcing. Again, pass/correct.

2♥ = both majors OR just clubs - not forcing. Again, pass/correct.

2♠ = both blacks OR just diamonds - not forcing. Again, pass/correct.

2nt = two non-touching suits (C+H, D+S - advance by bidding your cheapest preferred suit from each pair)

4 level transfers still on for shapely freaks.

 

If you are a passed hand (either before the 1nt opener or the auction went 1nt, P, P, X) then we steal the XX to make some of the run outs get out earlier (the rest of the bids are the same as the uph above):

XX = either just C or just D or C+H or D+S

 

after the XX the partner bids 2C (nearly always - other bids are to play with their own great suit). The 2C bid now allows the partner to:

pass with just C

bid 2♦ with just D

bid 2♥ with H+C

bid 2♠ with S+D

 

and now we'll get out on the 2 level for everything but the 2-non touching when our fit is in the minor suit.

 

I also play that if the 1nt bidder wants to self run out they use the method of the passed hand (since the most common hands for a 1nt opener to want to run to IMO are long single suited minors (especially for the 6322 openers), or both minors [2=2=(54)]).

[Zelandakh]

Arguably the very best method over a weak NT is the ETM structure but this has a massive memory load and is probably not worth it for most partnerships. I personally play a method based on transfers and really dislike the methods based on forcing Stayman.

 

My favourite escapes are a slight modification of Spelvic. The theory is to get spades into the auction quickly to act as a mild preempt.

 

P = forces XX, then P = to play; 2♣ = clubs and a red suit*; 2♦ = reds; 2♥ = majors with better hearts; others = freak GF 2-suiters

XX = forces 2♣, then P = clubs*; 2♦♥♠ natural; others = GF 1-suiters that do not want to sit

2♣ = blacks*

2♦ = pointy suits

2♥ = majors with equal/better spades

2♠ = natural, partner may raise with fit

2NT = minors

3♣♦♥♠ = preemptive

 

The above is Spelvic, more or less. The modification I have added is that with a 4333 hand, you pretend you have an extra club. Then if 2♣ gets doubled, XX shows the 4333 hand. I have marked the (3) adjusted sequences with an asterisk.

 

I disagree with Mbodell about the frequency of 1NTX being the best spot. I find it quite rare for 1NT to be better than a suit runout. The suit runout is often not any better but that is a different thing entirely.

[Zelandakh]

Incidentally, I played Moscow runouts as a junior but they were quite different from the way Art describes. As I understand it, Moscow means system on - Stayman, transfers, etc. XX is a minor or both majors and Pass forces XX, followed by 4 card suits being bid up the line (Baron style) until some kind of fit is found. The method Art describes is one I think I have heard called Aardvark but I can easily imagine Americans referring to them as DONT escapes.

[trevahound]

Hello,

 

I play 10-13 nt in most seats (14-16 only in 3rd hot and 4th all) with many partners. I absolutely love what we play over that, which is 2way stayman with SA texas, but with the responses to the 2♦ artif GF all transfer-style (as the GF'ing hand is always better than the 1nt opener, and we want that hand declaring anytime the final contract isn't 3nt).

 

After 1nt - 2♦^:

 

2♥ = 4+ ♠, less than 4 ♥

2♠ = 4+ ♥, less than 4 ♠

2nt = 5+ ♣, no 4cM

3♣ = 5+ ♦, no 4cM

3♦ = both 4cM

3♥ = exactly 3-2-4-4

3♠ = exactly 2-3-4-4

3nt = either 3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4

 

It's simple to remember, and we right side many contracts we didn't used to right side.

 

I also am not a fan of pass forcing XX, for basically all the reasons listed above.

[mycroft]

On runouts: no theory, but lots of options: http://blakjak.co.uk/dbl_1nt0.htm .

 

I happen to prefer systems where I can play 1NTx, especially white. It is very difficult to get 9 tricks against 1NT, even if they could take them, playing it. Even if they do, you're still +IMPs at equal vulnerability. Less so if it's redoubled... I also like systems where I can set an "our hand" force as early and when possible. They *will* come in with their random 12s.

 

Another of the frequent weak NT losers is 1NT all pass just in vs 1m-1M; 2M just in, or 1NT+1 vs 2/3M making 3. Of course that pays back when we get to play 2M.

 

The biggest problem with weak NT is fourth-seat action after you *don't* open 1NT, and you have this 15-19 range (as well as the normal unbalanced ones) to deal with. Strong NTers just pass the balanced 12-14s, and act with 18, and don't worry about it much.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the thread reminded me, that I wanted to ask a similar question

 

currently we play, that 1NT showes 11-14 and denies 4 spade, unlesss 4333.

My feel is, that the standard schema with stayman / transfer wont work very well,

the shape restriction makes a 2S response to the 2C inquiry nearly extinct.

 

Does anyone has a good suggestion, how to improve the standard schema without a

lot of changes?

E.g. a 2S answer to the 2C Stayman inquiry as showing a 54 shape?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Does anyone has a good suggestion, how to improve the standard schema

You could start by using the 2♣ response the same way that ETM does, asking about 4 hearts, then optimise to take account of the shape difference. For example, in ETM the sequence 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ is used to ask for 4 spades. You could adjust this to be GI with 5+ hearts, also freeing up the 2♠ rebid. Similarly, the 2♦ response is not needed to ask for 4 spades. So it could be adjusted to ask for 3 spades perhaps.

 

I do agree that Stayman and transfers is not really optimal here but I do not think there is a simple solution without changing the framework. If ETM-style 2-under transfers do not appeal then I would suggest a method based on a 2♣ Puppet, Keri or whatever, should be easier to adapt.

[Siegmund]

For a while this past year I experimented with 1NT 11-14 no 4CM, and started off with ETM-like responses (2C asking 2 vs 3 hearts, 2D asking 2 vs 3 spades) which really acted more like 2-under transfers than Staymanlike bids. But I gave them up, and switched to something much more Keri-like: 2C = diamonds any strength or invitation any shape, 2D/H transfers (weak or GF), 2S asking for better minor, 2NT transfer to clubs, 3any natural GF.

 

I am curious how the 11-14 without 4 spades works. I felt 11-14 with no restrictions came up too often and was too hard to control.

 

Playing a regular weak notrump, I'd try the ETM responses again just for variety's sake. :)

[MickyB]

currently we play, that 1NT showes 11-14 and denies 4 spade, unlesss 4333.

My feel is, that the standard schema with stayman / transfer wont work very well,

the shape restriction makes a 2S response to the 2C inquiry nearly extinct.

 

Does anyone has a good suggestion, how to improve the standard schema without a

lot of changes?

 

I played this a few times and just played 2C as asking for four hearts. 2C then 2M was 5+card INV.

[nige1]

Does anyone have a good system you use for over weak nt (12-14) in a 2/1 context (either 2-way stayman or any other system you like) Also can put your favorite escapes/runnouts that you use.

Responses to 1N (Weak 9-11/10-12/11-13/12-14)

• 2♣ = Garbage Stayman. (also used to sign-off in 2♠). Rebids at 3-level are strong.
• 2♦ = Transfer. Weak 5+ ♥ or various strong hands.
• 2M = Nat. 5+ cards. NF invite.
• 3B = Nat. 6+ cards. NF invite.
• 2N/3N = Nat

JANET (Just Another Notrump Escape Technique) if opponents double. i.e.

 

After 1N (_X) ?? Responder bids...

• _P = Nat. (Opener normally passes but can redouble with a 5 card suit).
• XX = Art. Any two suits. (Opener bids 2♣ unless he has 5 of another suit).
• 2B = Nat. 5+ suit. (usually) OR 5+ of the transfer suit (revealed only if ops double and you redouble).

After 1N (_X) XX (_P); 2♣ (_X) ?? Responder bids...

• _P = Nat. ♣ and another.
• XX = Art. Red suits..
• 2♦ = Nat. Pointy suits.
• 2♥ = Nat. Major suits.
  

After 1N (_X) XX (_P); 2♣ (_X) _P (_P); ?? Opener bids...

• _P = Nat. 3+ ♣. Otherwise, opener must have two suits, which he shows as above, i.e.
• XX = Red.
• 2♦ = Pointy.
• 2♥ = Major.

This rescue-method rapidly retreats into an 8-card fit if possible and into a major if possible (harder for opponents to double).

A drawback of this method is that you need opponents to double 2♣ before you can show the red suits unambiguously.

There used to be a selection of escape mechanisms on David Stevenson's website

[jdeegan]

:P Several thoughts:

1. Transfers are less useful with a weak NT. You are not protecting a very strong hand.

2. The Soloway/Marshall Miles responses to the 10-13 HCP 1NT are tons of fun, but they are keyed to a particular aspect of the mini-NT: only 5-x-x-x and x-5-x-x hands are opened with 13 HCP. All other 1NT opens are 10-12 HCP.

3. The watershed issue on interference is whether to focus on escaping or trying to penalize the opponents. I always preferred the latter, but you and pard have to have confidence in your defense. Getting +1100 will usually do terrible damage to your opponent's game.

[Free]

1. Transfers are less useful with a weak NT. You are not protecting a very strong hand.

Transfers aren't only useful to protect a strong hand, they're also useful for constructive (and slam) auctions. That's why I don't like to give up transfers after a weak or mini NT, although I gladly admit that 1NT-2M signoff can be very powerful.

[kreivi68]

Transfers aren't only useful to protect a strong hand, they're also useful for constructive (and slam) auctions. That's why I don't like to give up transfers after a weak or mini NT, although I gladly admit that 1NT-2M signoff can be very powerful.

 

+1. When responder transfers to 2M to play there, she has still weaker hand than weak 1NT opener. So there is something to protect.

Negative side is that transfer gives opponents more possibilities to enter the stage.

 

T.

[ArtK78]

There are a number of reasons NOT to play transfers opposite a weak NT (and even more so opposite a mini-NT). One is that it puts the opps under immediate pressure. Another is to not wrongside the hand when it belongs to the opening side. And a third is it gives the opps fewer opportunities to enter the auction safely by doubling a transfer call when our side has less than the balance of strength.

 

To take it further, when in a game forcing auction, we use methods calculated to make responder the declarer as often as possible. For example, if the auction begins 1NT (10-12) - (P) - 2♦, which is game forcing Stayman, opener, with one major, bids the other. With both majors, he bids 3♣, and with both minors, he bids 3♦. Bidding suits that we don't have is less dangerous when we are already in a game forcing auction.

[gnasher]

I don't agree that transfers make it easier for the opponents to enter the auction.

 

If it goes:

1NT pass 2

♠

(natural signoff)

both opponents get a chance to bid after responder has shown weakness.

 

If, instead, we have the transfer sequence:

1NT pass 2

♥

pass

2

♠

it's true that fourth hand gets an extra opportunity to bid, but this is balanced by the fact that second hand's only chance to bid is in a live auction.

 

If, for example, second hand has a minimum takeout double of spades, it's far more dangerous for him to enter the transfer auction than the natural auction.

[Free]

I don't agree that transfers make it easier for the opponents to enter the auction.

 

If it goes:

1NT pass 2

♠

(natural signoff)

both opponents get a chance to bid after responder has shown weakness.

 

If, instead, we have the transfer sequence:

1NT pass 2

♥

pass

2

♠

it's true that fourth hand gets an extra opportunity to bid, but this is balanced by the fact that second hand's only chance to bid is in a live auction.

 

If, for example, second hand has a minimum takeout double of spades, it's far more dangerous for him to enter the transfer auction than the natural auction.

On the other hand, 4th seat can easily distinguish between a good takeout dbl of ♠ (immediately) or a weak one (delayed). I guess it balances out. After a transfer they do get an easy lead directing Dbl though.

 

One of the biggest advantages of 1NT-2M natural signoff hasn't been mentioned yet: the weak hand has a wide range, which makes it much harder to defend. Responder can have 0 to 10 HCP, a huge difference. After a transfer that hand is put on the table and opener's range is much better defined, which makes defense much more easy.

[kreivi68]

One of the biggest advantages of 1NT-2M natural signoff hasn't been mentioned yet: the weak hand has a wide range, which makes it much harder to defend. Responder can have 0 to 10 HCP, a huge difference. After a transfer that hand is put on the table and opener's range is much better defined, which makes defense much more easy.

 

In theory, yes. But if opener has 12-14 and responder 0-4, they are probably not going to declare,

Not without penalty double at least. :) So I think that range is not that wide IRL.

 

T.

[trevahound]

In theory, yes. But if opener has 12-14 and responder 0-4, they are probably not going to declare,

Not without penalty double at least. :) So I think that range is not that wide IRL.

 

T.

 

 

I don't know why that would be true. If opener has say 10-12, and responder has 0-12 for their 2M signoff, when opps' points are fairly evenly divided often neither can safely enter the auction. Give responder 4 like you mention, and opener 11, one opp 12 and one opp 13. Sure, either could choose to enter the auction, but if they do, they're beginning to exchange info at the 3 level with no idea what their partner has, and if they do this regularly then they'll enter on their 12 or 13 and find responder with 10-12 too, just like opener, and opening side already knows they had only a partscore at stake yet they own half or more of the deck. Doubling is easy, and it's often quite bloody. Entering the auction with a wk NT over a wk NT is a long term loser.

 

The "system" wins for baby NT are putting an immense amount of pressure on the opps early, while still having constructive auctions when it's clearly our hand. The biggest loss is playing in the wrong strain on partscore deals. Adding transfers is an artifact of a str nt background only, imo.