Should I ditch weak nt, or simply improve hand evaluation?

[Cyberyeti]

I guess I'm out of line here, but I feel like sharing my thoughts anyway.

 

Mikeh's suggestion of opening 1♣ more often is exactly the solution to the problem. The level of detail and complication of the followup system are up to you - it really can be as simple as (for example) "1♦ can be 3 on 3=3=3=4 or (32)=3=5 with soft clubs only", although of course far more complicated schemes exist.

 

By contrast, the suggestion of overloading 1♦-2♣ by introducing many 10+ hands, and then quibbling about what is or is not a 'good 10', sounds to me like turning the clock back by half a century. That particular auction is one of the worst auctions in natural systems, and personally I'd recommend playing artificial continuations just to make up for lost ground. Compared to mikeh's suggestion this 1♦ has more hand types (strong NT) and 2♣ has more hand types (non-GF with 5+ clubs, may be balanced). I don't see how you could ever hope to recover, not without a system more complicated than I'd be willing to play.

 

And sure, your partner made a conservative choice with 1NT, but this is also a systemic weak point. You go low or you go high, and sometimes you guess wrong. I think this is just resulting (especially when someone brings in K&R - or can you consult that at the table?), all systems have weaknesses and intermediate hands with some clubs over a 1♦ opening is one that has been discussed for decades.

 

All the systems that don't play 2/1 GF should bid 2♣ on this, you are not overloading 2♣ with this hand particularly where in a weak NT context you have a GF 2N available (most people play it 15-19 bal, we just play it GF not necessarily balanced).

[Stephen Tu]

I guess I'm out of line here, but I feel like sharing my thoughts anyway.

 

Mikeh's suggestion of opening 1♣ more often is exactly the solution to the problem. The level of detail and complication of the followup system are up to you - it really can be as simple as (for example) "1♦ can be 3 on

 

Although opening 1c on all 15-17 balanced solves *this* issue, it's not like totally for free. If you are going to be opening 1c regardless of minor held, it's going to be harder to compete successfully in either minor when partner has the strong NT when the opponents stick in their major; it's analogous to the problem precision pairs have over the nebulous 1d. It also complicates finding minor slams when partner has the strong NT.

 

Meanwhile, the 1d-1nt auction is *very rare*. Partner has a 4 cd major, or LHO competes, *A LOT*. So you have to make a calculation whether you think this problem auction comes up often enough (plus any edges you think you gain from having 1d promise unbalanced, or from say transfer Walsh auctions) that it is worth taking on the other issues.

 

[mycroft]

Your title was "...or simply improve hand evaluation?"

 

I know we covered the rest of the title - you can switch to strong NT if you feel it will help; given the bridge population, it is likely that you and your partner will at least have better hand evaluation, and access to more solid advice, in the "what we all learned" system than something fringe, never mind the "the awful K/S hands are awful - and they're all or nothing because we're the only ones in this situation".

 

But if you play K/S, you are playing sound minor openings. Maybe with the "overstrength weak 2" added (but that's not an issue, it doesn't pass 1 or 2NT). If your, or your partner's, evaluation of that hand is "opposite partner's strong NT opener, I want to play 1NT"; I don't think switching to strong NT will help. If your, or your partner's, immediate visualization of partner's hand is "random 12-count", that's a basic lack of understanding of the basics of K/S, and maybe it's time for a review (NB: K & S's actual book works much better here for understanding than the KSU summary I posted earlier. Unfortunately, you have to deal with the fact that the people K & S were talking to were Goren players, not modern "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" players. Note also that this "failure to internalize how K/S works" is a standard issue I've found when people ask me to help them with weak NT - even serious flight A players. Too much evaluation goes on subconsciously before it gets to "wait, things are different here"). If your, or your partner's, understanding of your system doesn't include "when it goes 1♦-1NT, partner is going to pass with all but the strongest strong NTs" and therefore this hand isn't a 1NT response (whatever response it is), then that's a flaw in partnership understanding of how K/S works, and, well, "good judgement comes from experience. experience comes from bad judgement."

 

You showed the hand with a sentence of "I guess I have to shrug and smile at the missed games". You should never miss this game, and if a lot of the "missed games" are like this, then that's not a fault of the system (well, okay, I'd rather have "good 9s" in 2NT than "bad 10s" in 1NT. I think that your explanation of your system triggered my "they play it, but they don't truly understand it yet"), it's an evaluation issue. Yes, what to do with the "good 8, decent 9" that would invite opposite a strong NT but your system doesn't have a bid for will bite you occasionally (and will pay you back when the limit is 7 tricks and you're +90 into -100). That's why real K/S doesn't do that, they put those hands into 1♦-2♣. Which causes its own issues.

 

Yes, putting all the balanced hands into 1♣ solves a lot of these issues; as always, it causes others. And if your partnership has this level of "haven't internalized the system" already, adding more isn't going to help.

[jillybean]

We don't play K/S, this hand is not a gf 2♣ for us. Regardless of the advantage and fun we'd have playing Mike's 1♣ approach, we aren't going to change the system to that extent, for now anyway. I think the best we can do is stretch to bid an invitational 2nt after an 1♦ opening. When I said South's hand was a "good 10" for me, it is worth a 2nt invite, closer to a gf than a nf 1nt. My partner didn't see it that way. Other calls will be closer, we aren't going to get them all right.