Raising 1m-1M With 3 In A 5cM Weak NT System

[pbleighton]

With K-S style minor suit openings (5cM, weak NT, 1m = reasonable unbalanced 12+), the auction 1m-1M-2M shows 15+ support points if the raise is made with 4 cards. Responder can count on this, as long as opener doesn't raise with 3 very often.

 

Does this constitute a good argument for not raising on 3, at least with a minimum? If not, and raising on 3 is fairly frequent, should responder not count on 15+?

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

this is a problem with weak NT systems in standard structures imo, and also probably a reason taht K-S 1m openers were sound. If you, like me, would open Axx QJxx KQxxx x with 1D, then raise 1S to 2S (what else) you are overstating your hand. You do not have a strong NT in support of what could be only a 4 card spade suit.

[luke warm]

If you, like me, would open Axx QJxx KQxxx x with 1D, then raise 1S to 2S (what else) you are overstating your hand. You do not have a strong NT in support of what could be only a 4 card spade suit.

 

which is exactly why i'd open that hand 1H, not 1D...

[MickyB]

Yes, you have a choice - either make 3 card raises on hands with far too little playing strength, or rebid your suit on hands screaming out for a raise like Justin's. I'm not sure which method I prefer.

 

It is changing the system quite a bit, but I'd probably put all the balanced hands into 1♣ and all the minor 2 suiters into 1♦. Now 1♦:1M, 2♣ shows longer ♦ and 1♦:1M, 1NT shows longer ♣ or equal length. 1♣:1M, 2♦ shows either a 3 card 12-14 raise or various strong hands that you might feel like putting in. Transfer responses to 1♣ could open up a similar bid over a 1♦ response showing hearts (1♣:1♦, 1♥ = minor 2 suiter with longer clubs).

[hrothgar]

If you, like me, would open Axx QJxx KQxxx x with 1D, then raise 1S to 2S (what else) you are overstating your hand. You do not have a strong NT in support of what could be only a 4 card spade suit.

 

which is exactly why i'd open that hand 1H, not 1D...

Assume for the moment that you open 1♥ with the hand in question and partner makes a 1♠ response:

 

I don't see how your beloved canape open style impacts your rebid decision...

 

Yes, you now have the option of rebid a natural 2♦, showing 4+ Hearts and 5+ Diamonds. However, in this case you are suppressing primary support for partner's hand...

 

I play canape systems a LOT. If you choose to raise spades with the hand in question, your choice of a canape opening style seems irrelevant. If you suppress you Spade support, you're going to end up in some VERY in-elegant contracts. In particular, your gonna be hurting any time that responder has a 4=2=2=5

[MickyB]

Is your comment aimed at majors first systems Richard? Luke is referring to true canape, ie a 2♦ rebid would show 4+♥, longer ♦, so a weakish 4225 can pass quite happily playing limited openers.

[hrothgar]

Is your comment aimed at majors first systems Richard? Luke is referring to true canape, ie a 2♦ rebid would show 4+♥, longer ♦, so a weakish 4225 can pass quite happily playing limited openers.

Quite honestly, I'd need to see a complete system description to be sure, however, my experience is that suppressing support cause all sorts of nasty effects, regardless of the base of the system.

[luke warm]

taking the hand in question, just because one is 3451 doesn't mean one has to rebid diamonds over partner's 1S... 2S might be the better bid, especially at mps... however, partner doesn't have to respond 1S... in that case 2D looks pretty good

[MickyB]

Is your comment aimed at majors first systems Richard? Luke is referring to true canape, ie a 2♦ rebid would show 4+♥, longer ♦, so a weakish 4225 can pass quite happily playing limited openers.

Quite honestly, I'd need to see a complete system description to be sure, however, my experience is that suppressing support cause all sorts of nasty effects, regardless of the base of the system.

Sure, there will be problems if opener suppresses support, but more so when responder has five spades.

[Chamaco]

If i had to play a system a la KS or a la Fantunes,, I would strongly try to convince my pard to play the following:

 

1NT = 12-14 (any 5332, many 5422, frequent 4441)

1♣ = either clubs unbal OR 15-17 bal

1♦= either diamonds unbal OR 18-20

1M = natural

 

 

Now the sequences 1m:1M become:

 

1♣:1M

?

 

1NT = 15-17, max 3card support

2M = 4 card support, minimum

2NT = artificial H raise, a la Jacoby (as used by Ben); relays may follow.

3M = unbalanced reverse raise

 

 

1♦:1M

?

 

1NT = 18-20. This is forcing 1 Round. It can still have 4 card major as well as 4 card support for pd. Checkback sequences follow

2M = 4 card support, minimum

2NT = artificial H raise, a la Jacoby (as used by Ben)

 

In this case the use of 3M might be redundant.

Or, one may as well use 2NT as raise with fir in 18-20 bal, vs 3M raise as unbalanced reverse.

 

There is plenty of room to improve on the idea, but basically the main point is to include the 18-20 balanced hands in the 1D opener (as in Nightmare), freeing the 2NT jump for the artificial strong raise of the major.

[david_c]

There is plenty of room to improve on the idea, but basically the main point is to include the 18-20 balanced hands in the 1D opener (as in Nightmare), freeing the 2NT jump for the artificial strong raise of the major.

Actually, if you look a bit closer, the main idea here is putting all the balanced 15-17HCP hands into 1♣. It doesn't really matter what you do with the 18-20HCP hands - you can agree to open them 1♦ if you like, but a reasonable alternative is to put those into 1♣ as well. I prefer this method because it keeps the 1♦ opening pure and frees up 1♦:1M,1NT completely. The extra possibilities in 1♣ don't really cause any problems, because there's plenty of space available, particularly playing transfer responses.

[Chamaco]

It doesn't really matter what you do with the 18-20HCP hands

 

.........

 

but a reasonable alternative is to put those into 1♣ as well.

IMO putting ALL strong balanced hands into 1C is too vulnerable to opps preemption.

 

Say bidding goes:

 

1C-(2S)-p-p

DBL

 

or

 

1C-(p)-1H-(2S)

DBL

 

What balanced hand are you holding ?

 

Ambiguous (2-way) bids are always vulnerable to competitive bidding, but it gets worse as we add contiguous range balanced hands in the same catchall bid.

 

The key to "get ready for the battle" is separating the ranges.

 

If you include the 18-20 into 1D then the contested auction of 1C is much clearer, and the same approach will be used if our 1D is overcalled.

 

After all, the 1D bid as diamonds OR 18-20 has already been played with reasonable results by top class players (see Buratti-Lanzarotti, Nightmare system).

Luckily enough, it's not an idea of mine, therefore it should be reliable :D

[david_c]

Say bidding goes:

 

1C-(2S)-p-p

DBL

 

or

 

1C-(p)-1H-(2S)

DBL

 

What balanced hand are you holding ?

My philosophy is that balanced hands of 15-16HCP aren't worth another bid in competition. So I would pass in these auctions with up to 16HCP. That's not to say that I would be happy with the way the auction had gone. Everyone knows this is one of the main weaknesses of weak-NT systems. I'm not sure it's so much better even if you do exclude 18-20HCP balanced from 1♣ - are you really happy doubling on a flat 15 in the first auction? And what do you do if you have a weaker hand, but with the right shape for a take-out double? Is the double two-way?

 

After all, the 1D bid as diamonds OR 18-20 has already been played with reasonable results by top class players (see Buratti-Lanzarotti, Nightmare system).

Luckily enough, it's not an idea of mine, therefore it should be reliable  :D

I believe the reason that they include 18-20HCP balanced in 1♦ is to solve a rebid problem. Their 1♣ opening is forcing and they don't play a negative, so after 1♣:1♠ (for example) they would not want to have to bid at the 2-level to show 18-19HCP balanced, when responder could be completely broke.

 

But playing Nightmare the situation is different because 1♣ promises 15HCP. So if the auction goes as in the two examples above and you have a balanced 15-17HCP, you can pass and feel happy about it. So in fact if you're only thinking about competitive auctions, taking 18-20HCP out of 1♣ makes less sense in Nightmare than in the short club we're talking about.

 

(Millennium Club rules OK - have I said that already? :D )

[Chamaco]

I believe the reason that they include 18-20HCP balanced in 1♦ is to solve a rebid problem. Their 1♣ opening is forcing and they don't play a negative, so after 1♣:1♠ (for example) they would not want to have to bid at the 2-level to show 18-19HCP balanced, when responder could be completely broke.

 

Right, but the same strategy is played in some 5 card major systems in Italy.

To quote one, many players in the Bologna club (where the top players were Facchini and Zucchelli, yes, the ones of the soldiers foot episode, sigh....), play the 2-way diamond, and use strong 1NT opener and weak NT is included in a 2-way 1C opener.

 

Since I am a weakNT-addict, I prefer to switch 1C and 1NT balanced hands.

 

Including 18-20 into 1D does not hurt so much, at least not more than including into a "supernebulous 1C" :-)

 

BTW:

I I were playing this system, I would be playing it in the Fantunes/EHAA style rather than KS style, e.g. all 1-level opening forcing.

 

So if the auction goes as in the two examples above and you have a balanced 15-17HCP, you can pass and feel happy about it.

 

Not sure I like this approach.

Let's say I am not feeling happy at this thought :D

 

I much prefer having two 2-way bids, relatively well defined, rather than a single catchall bid which may be nearly everything.

More in general, I have been taught that continuous range bids tend to lead to trouble.

 

So in fact if you're only thinking about competitive auctions, taking 18-20HCP out of 1♣ makes less sense in Nightmare than in the short club we're talking about.

 

I do not understand why, could you explain further ?

[david_c]

BTW:

I I were playing this system, I would be playing it in the Fantunes/EHAA style rather than KS style, e.g. all 1-level opening forcing.

Ah, that makes a difference. One reason that the Nightmare 1♦ can be bad is that responder has to stretch to respond with short diamonds. If you're playing 1♦ as forcing anyway then this is a non-problem.

 

So in fact if you're only thinking about competitive auctions, taking 18-20HCP out of 1♣ makes less sense in Nightmare than in the short club we're talking about.

I do not understand why, could you explain further ?

Playing a short club, you might want to double on relatively weak hands if they have the right shape. You also might want to double on hands at the upper end of the 15-17HCP range, in order to try and show your strength. If you include 18-20HCP balanced as well, you'll often have to double on that too. So double covers a lot of hands, which isn't great.

 

Playing a 15+ club, the weakish hands are ruled out, and there's no real need to double with a balanced 15-17HCP, because partner already "knows" you have this much. So the double is used almost exclusively for the 18+ HCP balanced hand. This is why I don't think the 18-20HCP hand is a problem in competition, if your 1♣ promises 15+.

[Chamaco]

This is why I don't think the 18-20HCP hand is a problem in competition, if your 1♣ promises 15+.

Well, let's say we include in 1C opening either of the following:

 

x-xxx-Kxx-AKJxxx

x-Axxx-xxx-AKxxx

KJx-Kxx-AQx-KTxx

AJx-KQx-AQxx-KJx

 

I think they have a different power in competition, and it shuld be important to deliver it to pard.

I'd rather have one hand type removed from this bid.

 

If I am playing Fantunes style, then all 1-bids guarantee 14+, then fine: in this case I'll open marginal openers at the 2-level.

 

But playing in an 5 card major context, I'd like to be able to open 11 and 12 count, unbalanced, with 1C.