Kleinman's Notrump Zone

[helene_t]

(Subtitle inspired by "We love 1NT in Israel")

 

Just read Danny Kleinman's "The Notrump Zone".

 

I think it's a very strange book. Enormous emphazis on right-sidding contracts and no emphazis at all on keeping the opponent's out of the auction. Even to the point of occasionally opening 1♣ with 4234 and 16 HCPs in order to led partner declare, and suggesting that weak twos might not have become popular if Jacoby transfers had been around before them.

 

Any opinions?

[Gerben42]

The trend among top players seems to be to ALWAYS open 1NT when the hand fits the description, and sometimes when it doesn't.

 

Weak two bids would always have become popular. It is a good idea and an idea worth praising. 2♠ showing long spades and a weak hand makes a lot of sense. Note however that intermediate style two bids are gaining popularity due to the successes of Fantoni & Nunes. Strong two bids have gone out of fashion and if you ask me, they should never come back.

 

What all this has to do with Jacoby transfers I have no idea.

[helene_t]

[....] Weak two bids would always have become popular. [...]

What all this has to do with Jacoby transfers I have no idea.

The idea is that playing Jacoby transfers, you can pass and wait for partner to open 1NT so that the contract becomes right-sided.

 

I would say that it's far from always an advantage to have the stronger hand declare:[hv=n=s54ht98dt987ct987&w=sakq2hkqjdkqjckqj&e=st3h5432d5432c432&s=sj9876ha76da6ca65]399|300|2♣-2♦

2♥-2♠

3NT

(South doubled 2♠ for the lead)[/hv]

 

Anyway, partner doesn't always open 1NT so you would have to play transfers in a lot of other situations. Then you might just as well play weak two's as transfers.

 

Just wondering if "The notrump Zone" is actually an influential book.

[Gerben42]

The idea is that playing Jacoby transfers, you can pass and wait for partner to open 1NT so that the contract becomes right-sided.

 

But partner will not open 1NT more than 5-10% of the time! In fact partner might not open at all. But all this makes me interested in this book which seems to have some odd ideas.

[EricK]

On a hand like ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQx it would be nice if we opened 1♣ and heard an (unopposed) auction like 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2NT 3NT so the lead comes round to partner's red suit tenaces rather than through them.

 

However, we wouldn't like to hear something like 1♣ (2♦) P (3♦) where anything we do now is just a guess.

 

In "the old days" you were much more likely to get unopposed auctions when you held the balance of points, so the first approach had a lot of merit. Nowadays unopposed auctions are much rarer, so the emphasis has to be on giving partner as much useful information as one can as soon as possible. Which is why things like right-siding the contract have to take a backseat.

 

Anyway, right-siding is more complicated than having the strong hand as declarer. After an auction like 1NT 4♥ the defense will be totally in the dark as to how strong or distributional declarer is, so it will be much harder for them to formulate the best strategy. If the bidding goes 1NT 4♦ (transfer) 4♥ they will know much more about declarer's assets because the NT bid was so revealing.

 

Eric

[fred]

What does this have to do with Canada? Danny is an American.

 

Being a proud Canadian (at least by birth) and a person who likes to push the envelope in terms of opening 1NT, I am puzzled by the topic of this thread :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

Fred, how do you get on with pushing the envelope in terms of the regulations for opening 1NT with a singleton - particularly a singleton honour.

 

I understand that ACBL has some rule/guideline about restricting opening 1NT with a singleton. I am interested because we have a similar rule and it seems sensible to me to open 1NT on difficult to bid hands (4441) where 3NT is a likely contract and we have good methods to locate our 4-4 fits etc but I feel constrained by the regulations.

[fred]

Fred, how do you get on with pushing the envelope in terms of the regulations for opening 1NT with a singleton - particularly a singleton honour.

 

I understand that ACBL has some rule/guideline about restricting opening 1NT with a singleton. I am interested because we have a similar rule and it seems sensible to me to open 1NT on difficult to bid hands (4441) where 3NT is a likely contract and we have good methods to locate our 4-4 fits etc but I feel constrained by the regulations.

Almost all of the bridge I play these days is in high-level events (such as ACBL National events or major international tournaments). The people who play in those events rarely (if ever) call the director when you do things like open 1NT on an unusual hand. Perhaps the reason is that most of the leading players seem to understand that, on some offshape hands with difficult rebid problems, opening 1NT is a reasonable least of evils solution.

 

If it sounds like I am trying to "get away with something" that is not the case. I actually have no idea what the rules are in ACBL (or elsewhere) when it comes to opening 1NT with offshape hands. Besides that, if I did it often enough that I thought my partner might start to cater to it (or if our system included ways of checking for strange distributions after a 1NT opening), I would do the right thing and ask my partner to alert when I opened 1NT.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[LH2650]

I understand that ACBL has some rule/guideline about restricting opening 1NT with a singleton.

The ACBL policy can be found at http://www.acbl.org/learn/noTrumpwithaSingleton.html

 

Too much is made of it. Although opening all 4441 in-range hands would be excessive, if you have a genuine rebid problem, open 1N. It is when you start bending your system because of your propensity to do this that you are in violation.

[Cascade]

The relevant piece in that document is :

 

"It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time), Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton."

 

Although I do not particularly want to debate the ACBL regulations since I do not play there nor am I likely to play there.

 

It is not clear from the regulation/article what the 1% is based on. However opening 1NT with all 4-4-4-1s with singleton honours would amount to much more than 1% of your 1NT openings.

 

It is interesting that you say that top players will not call the director for this or other off-shape NT bids (and I imagine other bids). That is my experience too.

 

Nevertheless it would be better if this type of regulation was less restrictive. Especially since the regulation seems to be at a disagreement with standard or nearly standard expert practice.

[helene_t]

Sorry Fred didn't mean to offend you or other notrumpish Canadians, I think I was confused by the fact that my copy of the book was printed in Canada.

[hrothgar]

(Subtitle inspired by "We love 1NT in Israel")

 

Just read Danny Kleinman's "The Notrump Zone".

 

I think it's a very strange book. Enormous emphazis on right-sidding contracts and no emphazis at all on keeping the opponent's out of the auction.

 

Any opinions?

Here in North America, players enjoy a god-given right to constructive auctions.

[helene_t]

Here in North America, players enjoy a god-given right to constructive auctions.

And also a God-given right to playing against oponents who make the same blind lead against

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠*

2♦-2♠*

3♣-3♠*

3NT

as they do against

1NT-3NT?

Interesting.

[hrothgar]

Here in North America, players enjoy a god-given right to constructive auctions.

And also a God-given right to playing against oponents who make the same blind lead against

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠*

2♦-2♠*

3♣-3♠*

3NT

as they do against

1NT-3NT?

Interesting.

Taking advantage of long informative auctions would be unsporting...

 

(In case you haven't guessed, you're preaching to the choir. Much of my philosophy about bidding is based on the theory that its better to have a direct auction to an acceptable contract rather than a long informative auciton to the "best" contract)

[fred]

Sorry Fred didn't mean to offend you or other notrumpish Canadians, I think I was confused by the fact that my copy of the book was printed in Canada.

I wasn't really offended, Helene, and since I have found Canadian bridge players to be by a large a sensible group, I doubt anyone was offended.

 

I was trying to be funny - sorry if it didn't sound that way.

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I was trying to be funny

 

In case you haven't guessed

 

YesYesYes I understood it. I should add more smileys to my posts. Making up for that now ;) :rolleyes: B) :)

[Chamaco]

I have Kleinman's book.

 

In my opinion, it seems like the author is trying to be as provocative as Marshall Miles in his statements, although apparently - IMO - with less success.

 

However, the book is not an empty box: it is filled with material, with examle hands and not-so-common treatments.

 

In these days when so many books are simply restating the obvious, it not so easy to find textbooks who at least try to discuss delicate subjects, even if we disagree.

 

Indeed I am not a fan at all of most treatments suggested by Kleinman, but it was indeed good to read something new. :rolleyes:

[LH2650]

It is not clear from the regulation/article what the 1% is based on.  However opening 1NT with all 4-4-4-1s with singleton honours would amount to much more than 1% of your 1NT openings.

 

Nevertheless it would be better if this type of regulation was less restrictive.  Especially since the regulation seems to be at a disagreement with standard or nearly standard expert practice.

If I added 4441 hands to my present list of acceptable notrump opening shapes, they would comprise slightly over 5% of the total. If I did not open 1N with a singleton Ten or Jack (personally I think that the King is the only appropriate card), I would be down to about 2%. The "standard expert" might think that some of those hands containing two four card majors would be better opened with one of a minor. If so, his methods would be close enough to the ACBL standard that there would be no objection.

[helene_t]

There was something else that stroke me in that book:

 

Kleinman says that Jacoby transfers should be taught to beginners. His case is this: if you play natural sign-offs, he 1NT-opener will feel that it deprives him his birthright of declaring the contract, so no matter how hard you teach him to pass he will keep bidding 3NT after partner's sign-off.

 

Now I could mention a lot of reasons for not agreeing with that point of view (I will not bother you), but actually I've been playing for some time with a beginner and apparently it doesn't feel natural for her that she has to pass the sign-off especially with a doubleton in my suit, and that she can't respond 2♥ to my 1NT opening with 9 HCPs and/or a 4-card hearts.

 

Just wondering if there are people here who have similar experiences and if you have some suggestions for an easy-to-learn response scheme to 1NT. Some of my thoughts are:

- Simplify the rules for when a 4-card is biddable. (In a short-club system with a 6-11 notrump reply (most people play short club over here), 4-cards are almost never biddable.).

- Make the responses to the 1NT opening as similar as possible to those to the 1NT rebid. For example, if we play non-forcing Stayman with all jump responses forcing, then the check-back structure should also be New Suit Invitational rather than New Minor Forcing.

[Guest Jlall]

4441 with 4 spades is not a hand with a rebid problem so I dont know why one would open 1N with that hand type. 1444 with a singleton spade honor could be reasonable though e.g.

 

K AQJx Kxxx QJxx

 

I would hate to open 1D and rebid 2C with this.

 

The main hand type that has no rebid is 14(35).

 

With

 

K KQxx KJxxx Axx

 

I would strongly advocate a 1N opener. Again the honor would have to be singleton K or Q preferably (some hands with stiff J or A could be ok).

[mcphee]

At one time there was plenty of problems with regard to opening the bidding 1NT with a singleton. So much so that it was frowned on and, if not mistaken, the rules were such that it was not permitted.

 

Since things have changed, and if a pair was to open 1NT frequently holding 4-4-4-1 (some nonsense about alerting has come to the front) if the aprtner is expecting this sort of hand they are supposed to alert.

 

Frankly I do open 1N with this shape when my rebid will be come awkward and the hand left undiscribed. One thing for sure when holding 16 or 17 you will find it hard to get than strength across as you are unable to reverse should partner bid you short suit.

 

Bottom line, the ACBL has come to its senses, and rather than listen to the crying, the 4-4-4-1 1NT (even 2NT) has become a bit more common.

[MickyB]

There was something else that stroke me in that book:

 

Kleinman says that Jacoby transfers should be taught to beginners. His case is this: if you play natural sign-offs, he 1NT-opener will feel that it deprives him his birthright of declaring the contract, so no matter how hard you teach him to pass he will keep bidding 3NT after partner's sign-off.

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner.

[EricK]

There was something else that stroke me in that book:

 

Kleinman says that Jacoby transfers should be taught to beginners. His case is this: if you play natural sign-offs, he 1NT-opener will feel that it deprives him his birthright of declaring the contract, so no matter how hard you teach him to pass he will keep bidding 3NT after partner's sign-off.

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner.

But this is because beginners aren't (generally) taught any reasons for bids meaning what they do.

 

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

 

Eric

[helene_t]

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

I agree with that.

 

But are beginners taught to seek an 8-card fit? I think it should be stressed that while an 8-card fit is required for game, a 7-card fit is allright for partscores. What I've seen a lot of times is beginners "improving" a 5-2 fit to 2NT.

[Chamaco]

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

I agree with that.

 

But are beginners taught to seek an 8-card fit? I think it should be stressed that while an 8-card fit is required for game, a 7-card fit is allright for partscores. What I've seen a lot of times is beginners "improving" a 5-2 fit to 2NT.

I am not in a position to make significant comments of my own about bridge teaching, but I have taught some chess (2 of my kids were chess JR national champions in Italy).

 

Sometimes we tend to forget how we reasoned when we were beginners (in any field): we tend to believe that teaching right away principles will work better than teaching "hard and fast" rules.

 

But it is not necessarily so: every person's mind works differently.

I hacve seen in chess persons asking me to stop explaining the logic behind a move to remember, because it was too much.

 

Basically:

- some people need to learn first some "hard and fast rules" to become comfortable with the routine; later they can be explained the underlying reason for using such "memory rules". These person's minds need to first experience one thing, and only later sinthethize the underlying principle.

- other people are more comfortable learning right away the underlying priciples; for such kind of persons it is easier to remember the logic and reproduce it in various situations, rather than simply learn a different rule for each situation.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

The above considerations were confirmed to me by Enzo Riolo, one of the stronger bridge teachers in Italy: he told me that one should give CERTAINTIES to beginners, even if these certainties are IMPROPER in some cases (such as "8 ever, 9 never", or bidding based on strict hcp count). Later on, they will learn to deviate.

 

In his opinion, trying to teach fine points to beginners will just leave them into a lot of doubts (e.g. is right here to open with ten points?; is it right to raise to game with 7 points ?) and at the beginning it is just too much.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

What's my point ?

Simply that it seems hard to claim to know what's better for beginners: every beginner's mind works differently and what's good for person A may fail for person B, so the good teacher - like in all fields - is the one who can understand who he is teaching to, not the one who speaks better about his topic.