What unusual agreement do you and partner have..........

[Zelandakh]

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

[lalldonn]

One more agreement that bears mentioning.

 

My regular partner and I have agreed that 3 of a minor preempts in 1st & 2nd seats have suits headed by AQ or AK or better. While this limits the number of hands that we can open 3 of a minor, when we do open 3 of a minor it is great for offense and defense both.

 

And, once you get used to it, you find that opening 3 of a minor is overrated.

 

I am told that this is a treatment devised by Barry Crane.

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

[aguahombre]

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

Perhaps not. But including it as an unusual agreement which has proved beneficial to the poster might be appropriate to this thread.

 

My unusual agreement was not intended as advice, nor even useful to others who have different structures. Pard and I take some of our ideas from the oldies as well; some of them are now unusual, but we haven't discarded them because they still fit nicely.

 

With regard to preempting style, the ancient ideas about relative suit quality, outside stuff, and attention to vulnerability still have merit. In particular they seem to allow partner/advancer to make more informed decisions.

[ArtK78]

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

 

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

 

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

[CSGibson]

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

 

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

 

Did Barry Crane play in an era before lebensohl defenses to weak 2 bids were popular?

 

The reason I ask is that I find 3m preempts more effective than any 2 level preempts, precisely because they do take away lebensohl, and I am unwilling to restrict my less effective 2M preempts to that level of constructiveness, so I am fairly sure I would also be unwilling to play 3m preempts that way.

 

As a caveat, I'm fairly sure that when those preempts come up that you have much better auctions/decisions than your counterpart. My problem comes from the clear path given to opponents on auctions where you are not allowed to preempt.

[32519]

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

Zel, you are the equivalent of a walking bridge encyclopaedia! I won’t even ask how you know about all this stuff.

 

There is absolutely zero chance that my current F2F partner will put in the effort to play the complex follow up structure in the link you have provided. So I am turning to you for some help in your “simple and rustic” suggestion. Something simple yet effective that doesn’t require much memory load. I am putting the following forward as a starting point –

 

1NT (10-12 HCP), denies a 5-card major, may contain a 5-card minor

• Pass (no way of improving the contract)

• 2♣ / 2♦ / 2♥ / 2♠ = To play, 5+ card suit

• 2NT = 12-13 HCP, invitational to 3NT, may or may not contain a 4-card major

oooo 3♣ = 12 HCP, 4-cards in both majors (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♥ or ♠) [Reverse Stayman]

oooo 3♦ = 12 HCP, 4-card ♥ suit (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♥) [Reverse Stayman]

oooo 3♥ = 12 HCP, 4-card ♠ suit (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♠) [Reverse Stayman]

oooo 3NT = 12 HCP, to play, no 4-card major

• 3♣ = 14+ HCP, GF, Stayman

oooo [Responses are Transfer Stayman to allow the stronger hand to be declarer]

oooo 3♦ = 4-card ♥ suit

oooo 3♥ = 4-card ♠ suit

oooo 3NT = no 4-card major

oooo 4♣ = 4-cards in both majors, minimum, 10-11 HCP

oooo 4♦ = 4-cards in both majors, maximum, 12 HCP

 

Please help me to fine tune this.

[Free]

Currently I have the following unusual agreements in 2 different partnerships:

- Wilkosz 2♦ has been great ever since we started playing it. Opps have messed up quite a lot though.

- Trash preempts when NV vs V first seat: 0-7HCP (never a good max) with at least a 5 card suit. Suit quality isn't important, neither is distribution. Works brilliant in my experience.

 

Still, one of my all time favorites is the MOSCITO 1♠ opening (9-14HCP, 4+♦, can have longer ♣, usually no 4M), combined with the rest of the system ofcourse... :D

[rogerclee]

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

 

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

I find it incredibly easy to dismiss a decades-old theory formed at a time when the standard of play, and especially the standard of bidding theory, was much lower, especially when it is such an obviously bad one. Sorry there is a reason that the level of bridge is so much higher now, one of which is that bidding theories that haven't held up have been abandoned.

 

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

[GreenMan]

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

 

Meckstroth and Levin, like many of their peers, play matchpoints infrequently, so the evidence for their superiority at that form of scoring is conjectural.

[Cthulhu D]

The biggest obvious winners are going to be preempts and overcalls because they are frequent and the gains are closely linked to the point at which you use the method. For us it is:

 

2C: Weak with diamonds or some strong hands

2H: Ekrens - Both majors weak (4+/4+)

 

For bids we can play all the time, these are our biggest winners - the amount of time people go wrong in both auctions is phenomenal, and the annciliarly benefits (the 2C bid frees up 2D for multi at minimal cost, which then frees up 2H for ekrens. I have yet to come up with a good use for 2S). For brown sticker stuff, (1x)-1y: 3-4 cards in the suit bid, 5 cards in an unbid suit is a huge winner against bad pairs in competitions where you can play it, because you can pick off their suit and bad pairs struggle to get back.

 

The biggest losers we play atm imho are the (1x)-X = 15+ semi balanced power double which results in average or bad results basically every time - the room has overcalled 1NT and then had an auction on firm footing to the normal spot, but you're in a much less certain place and it's tricky to get to the right spot. We've only got +800 once.

 

I think of the constructive methods we play, 1M-2NT-3C as a minimum opening is a subtle winner every time it comes up. Transfer responses to one club is a less clear winner - 1C-1X-1NT is good, but 1C-1S-?? has had ups and downs. I tend to think it's a plus but the business case is less clear.

[ArtK78]

I find it incredibly easy to dismiss a decades-old theory formed at a time when the standard of play, and especially the standard of bidding theory, was much lower, especially when it is such an obviously bad one. Sorry there is a reason that the level of bridge is so much higher now, one of which is that bidding theories that haven't held up have been abandoned.

 

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

 

You speak of the "Crane era" as if it were the dark ages. It was not that long ago. Barry Crane died in 1985 at the age of 57. While this may be before your time, it is not before mine. And bridge in the 80s was not prehistoric by any stretch. We used Stayman and Blackwood and, gasp! even Lebensohl. Sometimes we even gave count.

 

I remember hearing the story of a player being congratulated for his and his partner's huge game in the final session of a qualifying and final open pairs. The friend assumed this player and his partner had won. The player turned to his friend and said "Not so fast - Barry is in the field." Crane and his partner won by two boards.

 

There are a lot of Barry Crane stories out there. Unfortunately, I never played against him. I played in a few events that he was in (including one regional pair event that my partner and I won). But, for the most part, he was on the West Coast and I was on the East Coast.

[aguahombre]

He was as gracious to up-and-comers away from the table as he was fierce at the table. The main reason it only took the biggies around ten years to equal his masterpoint holding after his murder was that he could only make it for 2 to 3 days of tournaments because of his occupation with producing/directing things like Mannix and Police Story.

[rogerclee]

You speak of the "Crane era" as if it were the dark ages. It was not that long ago. Barry Crane died in 1985 at the age of 57. While this may be before your time, it is not before mine. And bridge in the 80s was not prehistoric by any stretch. We used Stayman and Blackwood and, gasp! even Lebensohl. Sometimes we even gave count.

 

I remember hearing the story of a player being congratulated for his and his partner's huge game in the final session of a qualifying and final open pairs. The friend assumed this player and his partner had won. The player turned to his friend and said "Not so fast - Barry is in the field." Crane and his partner won by two boards.

 

There are a lot of Barry Crane stories out there. Unfortunately, I never played against him. I played in a few events that he was in (including one regional pair event that my partner and I won). But, for the most part, he was on the West Coast and I was on the East Coast.

So let me be clear that this is your chain of logic:

 

1) There once was a regional pair game that someone thought he had won, but in reality, Barry Crane won it by 2 boards.

2) You never played a single hand of bridge against Barry Crane in your life. Since so little has been written up about his play (since he did not participate much in high level IMP events, which is mostly what the literature covers), I assume that means that you know very little about how he actually played from either first hand knowledge or from study, and you are simply parroting the glamorization of a huge personality in bridge who met a sensational early end.

3) Therefore Barry Crane is the best matchpoint player of all time.

4) Therefore his weird view about 3m preempts that no top player in the modern game would even remotely agree with is worthy of consideration.

 

You are also forgetting that Crane preferred his partners to play like robots, that he was fickle and capricious, and that his partners tried their best to please him even when his rules were illogical, since it was the only way to not have Crane steaming and ruining your game, despite superior bridge judgment saying otherwise.

[Siegmund]

Unusual agreements that rake in good results:

 

With two partners, we don't use Michaels, but instead use cuebids to show otherwise hard-to-bid 4-5 overcalls (1C-2C 4S 5+Red, 1D-2D 4M 5+C, 1H-2H 4S 5+min, plus 1C-2D 4H 5+D and 1D-2H 4S 5+H.) I find we lose very little on the 5-5s by bidding them naturally, and gain a lot from finding 4-4 and even 4-3 fits at the 2-level that nobody else in the room is getting to.

 

Related to the above, we gain quite a bit any time we use pass-or-correct / paradox methods, whether after cuebids, in our notrump defense, or a few other places, vs. the typical American pair who always asks with 2NT after 1M-2M if he wants to know overcaller's major, always bids 2D over partner's 2C DONT bid if he doesn't like clubs, etc.

 

My answer would have been Wilkosz in a heartbeat, if I had anywhere except BBO I could legally play it. I dream of living long enough to see it brought back to respectability:)

[Mbodell]

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?

1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?

2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?

3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

 

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

 

Use your regular system for 1st and 2nd seat. I'm extremely skeptical of anyone who thinks that transfers are a loser due to not putting people under pressure because IME opponents don't use the extra space very well and it helps with our constructive bidding a lot.

 

Over 3rd and 4th seat (especially if you open light) then just pass unless you have the majors. I play, over 3rd and 4th, that 2♣ is both majors stronger ♥, 2♦ is both majors stronger ♠, 2♥ is both majors equal, and 2♠ is just spades. This is after finding that trying to play 2 red let opponents find their better part scores but playing 1nt just won lots.

[Kungsgeten]

Me and a partner plays 1S as 8-11 balanced (1NT is 12-14). This has worked really well for us. However we're about to change it since we feel uncomfortable opening it when vulnerable (we've have some potential disaster boards, but the opponents has saved us by bidding or bad defense) and do not feel like having different systems vul or not. We also played 2NT as a strong hand (15-17) with 5-5 majors. This was very infrequent (has happend twice) but scored good both times.

[rhm]

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

When playing mini notrump I simply play 2-way Stayman and everything else natural and preemptive for the above reasons, with the exception of Gerber.

Obviously the weaker your notrump the less likely you will have a high level contract.

 

I am still at a loss to understand why other methods (like the complex one mentioned above) should be an improvement.

Often people give you complex sequences and claim that to be "very good", but rarely bother to explain in detail why. Few bother to tell you disadvantages.

The above one is no exception. What I often can tell is that a "perfectionist" was at work and that makes me skeptical. Not that I am immune to that myself.

 

I would very much prefer instead of claims without proof some illustrative examples and a deeper explanation, when and where they really gain over standard methods so that I can apply my own judgment better.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

10-12 nt.

 

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

 

+1

 

Been playing this for years with one partner. Many good results, few bad ones. And some of the bad ones are when we are not content to let the opening bid do the work for us and we try to improve the contract.

 

By the way, I play the 10-12 1NT in the context of a light-opening but otherwise Standard system.

What worries me is that Mexkwell has given it up after playing it only white against red for many years and Fred considers this range outright bad.

One of his main arguments is that it gives a lot of information when opponents play the hand, not only after a mini notrump opening, but also when you do not open the bidding at all.

 

I play mini notrump white against red, but would not claim it to be an unmitigated success.

 

One important problem is of course that you have to deal with 15-17 notrump range in another way.

The standard methods nowadays over 1NT (like transfers) are quite effective opposite balanced opening with extras and I at least think I am at a disadvantage when I have to open such hand differently.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Maybe Heeman is best opposite 10-12 (and especially 10-13) because invitational hands are much more common. rhm: while in general I agree that there are no big differences between methods, I never liked auctions where I had hearts in 2-way stayman, i.e. 1NT-2C/2D; 2S-3H. Like Gerben argued several times, it doesn't feel logical to have two low-level bids asking for a four-card major (of course this is oversimplifying it, the follow-ups become easier and opener can also reply 3m).

[rhm]

Maybe Heeman is best opposite 10-12 (and especially 10-13) because invitational hands are much more common. rhm: while in general I agree that there are no big differences between methods, I never liked auctions where I had hearts in 2-way stayman, i.e. 1NT-2C/2D; 2S-3H. Like Gerben argued several times, it doesn't feel logical to have two low-level bids asking for a four-card major (of course this is oversimplifying it, the follow-ups become easier and opener can also reply 3m).

I believe this to be a misunderstanding caused by the name of the treatment.

The point about two-way Stayman is that I reserve s single bid, 2♦, to show a strong hand. The main purpose of 2♦ is to change the bidding from obstructive to constructive mode and taking it slowly from there.

You need such a bid. Only this allows you to play anything else as obstructive or preemptive (like jumping to three of a major over 1NT).

Calling 2♦ Stayman could be considered a misdescription, since responder may or may not be interested in the majors.

It simply asks opener to describe his hand. He will start by showing a 4 card major if he got one.

In my view the major disadvantage of the method is that opener describes, who will be infrequently dummy.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Zel, you are the equivalent of a walking bridge encyclopaedia! I won’t even ask how you know about all this stuff.

I daresay most of the posters on BBF could give you the same links. Mostly, I know of things from having researched online in the past. Bidding theory is my big bridge passion. Before getting into system specifics, I would like to point you in the direction of a previous BBF thread on this subject, where posters much more experienced with the mini NT than me gave various suggestions. In general, methods based on a 2♣ puppet or marionette (Keri, Gladiator, etc) are popular for this range. At one time, Chris Ryall had a very good and simple response structure for a mini NT on his site. He still has his main 1NT page but seems to have taken down the section on his own methods. Shame - it is one you might find helpful to see. Perhaps he still has a copy if you try writing to him.

[fromageGB]

Transfer responses to one club is a less clear winner - 1C-1X-1NT is good, but 1C-1S-?? has had ups and downs. I tend to think it's a plus but the business case is less clear.

Maybe it depends on what you use the bid for. I now use 1♠ as a relay for opener to describe his hand, and this is often the starting point for a NT contract at any level, and also used to show minors as weak or invitational. While it usually is no benefit, sometimes it is (eg right-siding NT, or for responder to make a game invitational hand with a long minor where opener can decline and play in either 2NT or 3m), and very rarely does it seem to lose out to the rest of the field. However, the main advantage in transfer responses for me (particularly at matchpoints) is the ability for responder to show his exact length in his majors, and his strength band of weak/invitational/game, with often the ability to play in a fitting 2M when the game invitation is declined. This has found good contracts others don't reach, and occasionally you get 2M tick while others are 3M-1.

 

1♣ 1NT as a weak {54} in the majors has proven very effective. (Opener bids 4 card major, else responder transfers to the 5)

 

On other things that seem to work well :

- I like 2♦ open as 4+4+ both majors, usually weak. These keeps 2M as natural, and 2♦ has also been passed successfully

- 1NT = 15/16 (17 goes via 1♣), which gives extra space because responder does not need an invitation

[Cthulhu D]

Maybe it depends on what you use the bid for. I now use 1♠ as a relay for opener to describe his hand, and this is often the starting point for a NT contract at any level, and also used to show minors as weak or invitational. While it usually is no benefit, sometimes it is (eg right-siding NT, or for responder to make a game invitational hand with a long minor where opener can decline and play in either 2NT or 3m), and very rarely does it seem to lose out to the rest of the field. However, the main advantage in transfer responses for me (particularly at matchpoints) is the ability for responder to show his exact length in his majors, and his strength band of weak/invitational/game, with often the ability to play in a fitting 2M when the game invitation is declined. This has found good contracts others don't reach, and occasionally you get 2M tick while others are 3M-1.

 

1♣ 1NT as a weak {54} in the majors has proven very effective. (Opener bids 4 card major, else responder transfers to the 5)

 

On other things that seem to work well :

- I like 2♦ open as 4+4+ both majors, usually weak. These keeps 2M as natural, and 2♦ has also been passed successfully

- 1NT = 15/16 (17 goes via 1♣), which gives extra space because responder does not need an invitation

 

Yeah, I use it for diamonds, and 1NT is to play opposite a weak NT.

[Cascade]

1.

1♠ 2♣/♦

1♥ 2♣/♦

1♦ ♦

 

Natural and non-forcing, weak 6-9 by a passed hand.

 

2. 1m 2M fit jumps, 4+m 4+M 10+ hcp

 

3.

1NT 3m 4+m 0-1 om GF

1NT 3M 4M 0-1 oM GF

 

We also use these over 2♣ 18-20 Bal and 2♦ 23+ Bal or nearly

 

4. 1x 1/2y; 2x 2NT Artificial GF

 

5. Herbert Negative after a reverse

 

6. Cheapest suit the default response to 4th suit.

 

Also raise of 4th suit to show no additional feature but with extra values

[MickyB]

2D bad multi 1st NV. We open it on complete rubbish and pass 2D frequently. Perhaps not a method for anyone who wishes to avoid director calls - I'm still somewhat in shock about a hand from August where 2D-P-P-3C was ruled "evident" on a 2335 10-count after direct seat had tank-passed a flat 14-count.

 

1C:2C showing 5+S,4+H [in conjunction with transfer responses to 1C]. So much better than using jumps to show this hand - you can stop in 2C, you can invite and stop in 2M, you can set up a cheap force and relay.

 

2C overcall of 1NT showing 3+spades,4+hearts [never 3433 or 3424]. Gets all three suits into play on 34(15), 35(14) and 4441, even 3442 when the conditions are right. Oppo seem to struggle to cope with it too.