Bidding a strong 1NT hand

[silvr bull]

My partner and I bid a perversion of Kaplan Sheinwold, and we open a 12-14 1NT. With a 15-17 HCP balanced hand, we open our better minor and rebid 1NT. In doing this, we have had several problem hands that are difficult for responder when the opening bid is 1♦. For example, what is the best bid for responder with xx xxx Kxx KJxxx after partner opens 1♦? Pass is out of the question, and the hand is not close to being strong enough to respond 2♣. We also bid inverted minors, so a raise to 2♦ is not possible, even if the hand was 4-4 in the minors. 1NT is the only alternative, but it has obvious defects. Another problem hand is one that is almost good enough to respond 2♣ after partner opens 1♦, such as xxx AQx xx KJTxx. If you think my example hands are too obvious and easy, then feel free to craft your own examples where responder's hand is too good for a 1NT bid, but not good enough for a 2♣ or a strong 2♦ call after a 1♦ open. The point is that we run into problems when the opening bid is 1♦ and responder does not have a 4 card major.

 

The solution I am trying to define is to open all balanced 15-17 point hands (that the field will open 1NT) with 1♣, even if opener has only a doubleton ♣ (which we would alert). If opener subsequently bids 1NT (or jumps to 2NT), then the message is to ignore the 1♣ bid because it was only part of the sequence to show a strong 1NT. The advantage I see by doing this is to allow responder to bid 1♦ on a wide range of hands (without a 4 card major), including my examples above. Essentially, 1♦ could be used as the equivalent of a forcing 1NT response to a 1M open. That enables opener to rebid 1NT with the strong balanced hand so the contract will be played from the same side as the field which opens a strong 1NT. The obvious confusion about the true distribution of the minor suits at the one level would be quickly resolved by subsequent bids. An interesting sidelight is that a 1♦ open would never be a balanced hand, so it would begin distributional sequences which include a ♦ suit.

 

My questions are (1) does anyone else see value in this approach, and (2) do you know of bid systems that use this style? Thanks!

[lowerline]

Dutch Doubleton, played by Brink-Drijver, is a system with a 15-17 1nt opening, but all balanced hands outside that range are opened 1♣. The 1♦ response to the 1♣ opening shows any 0-7 or 8-11 unbalanced without a 4crd major or 12+ natural. After 1♣-1♦ the 1nt rebid shows 18-20 balanced. With 12-14 balanced they rebid 1♠ with a 4crd spade suit or 1♥ otherwise. This is all very similar to Polish Club.

The 1♦ opening shows a 5crd suit with one exception: exactly 4-4-4-1.

 

Your two example hands for responder:

(1) xx xxx Kxx KJxxx

(2) xxx AQx xx KJTxx

With hand (1) they can respond 1♦ to a 1♣ opening, but they would still respond 1nt to a 1♦ opening.

With hand (2) they can respond 2♣ which is an invitational or better relay (but I have no idea how they continue after that).

Steven

[ahydra]

I play a 5541 style which works quite well. 1C is opened with all BAL 15-19 (unless 5 card D/H/S), and any 4441 except singleton spade. You can play transfer responses after 1C, and 1C-1x-1NT rebid as either 15-19 or 15-17, with the appropriate checkback mechanisms.

 

ahydra

[nigel_k]

My suggestions:

 

1. Don't play inverted minors, allowing you to raise to 2♦ on xx xxx Kxx KJxxx. Using 2♥ instead of 2♦ to show a good diamond raise works fine.

 

2. I think it's perfectly ok to respond 2♣ on xxx AQx xx KJTxx, expecially since you know partner doesn't have a weak notrump. With less you can respond 1NT.

[akwoo]

I don't think a semi-forcing 1N (opener passes with 15 or bad 16 balanced and can be forced to rebid 1D on 5) on the first hand is too problematic. (Remember that many of the minimum (42)52 openers are opened 1N, so the only serious problems are (43)51 openers.) The real problem is a hand like xxx xx Kxx QT9xx, where 1N rates to make opposite 15-17, but 2N might be troublesome opposite an average 16, and that's only a problem at MPs in a strong NT field. (At IMPs, a pass is unlikely to cost you much.)

 

On the second hand, I think defining 1D-2C-2D as "any (unbalanced) minimum" and allowing 1D-2C-2D-2N and 1D-2C-2D-3C to be passed makes more sense in a K-S framework. Or you can define a 2N response as 10-12. Either pretty much solves your problem.

[ggwhiz]

What you have in mind seems to be a spinoff of the Montreal relay that could help with a bit of tweaking and a road test. ie. responder can still bid 1nt over 1♣ to show ????

 

I'm too far removed from KS to offer much insight but played it for 1 year just to learn how to play against it. We had to go through Montreal players on our way to whatever (oblivion in my case) and the most enlightening thing I read was that the main advantage of KS is when you DON'T open 1nt such as when responder can compete to 3♣ on only 3 cards when the opener was a shapely minimum.

 

imo, you lose advantages to break even on same siding the notrump contracts.

[DJNeill]

Check out Kokish-Kraft weak NT system notes on

www.bridgewithdan.com/systems

 

Kokish has very clear definitions of every sequence, and why each bid should be what it is. I believe here he suggests responding to 1D with a 3crd major whenever it would wrongside the contract to respond 1N. But over 1C, responding 1D is like a catchall, 3+ cards.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[fromageGB]

I think you can get over the problems as you outlined, with 1♣ being balanced or clubs, but suggest the possibility of transfer responses for the majors, with responder bidding 1♠ as a puppet denying a major holding. Opener bids 1NT if balanced, or bids 2♣ with long clubs.

 

Responder can do this with any strength (raising NT) or with a minor hand. Over 1NT a rebid of 2♣ or 2♦ is to play, and you can have 2♥ and 2♠ as game invitation in the corresponding minor, as the 1♠ response has denied a major holding.

 

Essentially my suggestion is to abandon the idea of a 1♦ response as denying a major, and play whatever flavour of transfer walsh you like. This gives more benefits, I feel.

[Zelandakh]

The idea of opening all balanced hands outside of range 1♣ is a good one and the idea is often dubbed unbalanced diamond, since the 1♦ opening now guarantees an unbalanced hand. Within a weak NT system you can go further and move the 10-14hcp hands with long clubs to a 2♣ opening and thereby make the 1♣ opening 15+ natural or 15+ balanced or artificial and strong. This is the basis of the system I prefer and this uses a negative 1♦ response (denying GF values but not denying a major).

 

I do think you can improve on the way you want to use the 1♦ response within the more natural framework you envisage though. If you think for a moment about the hands without a major, they will either contain diamonds, or some club length, or have very long clubs. You can respond on these 1♦, 1NT or 3♣ respectively with weak hands, or 1♦, 2♣ and 2♣ respectively with good hands. You might also look into transfer responses (do a search for 'Transfer Walsh') which offer a substantial improvement for 1♣ auctions if they are allowed in your jurisdiction. It is true that you do get more out of trasfer responses playing a strong NT, and most schemes are built around this, but they are also good within a weak NT structure.