[kenberg]

Scoring: MP

---

Pass Pass 1N X
XX Pass 2C X
2S 3H Pass ?

1N is 11-14
X is a good hand, although partner and I differ a bit on how good
XX is explained as a relay to clubs, leading to an expected minor sign off
X is penalty
2S is undiscussed but I assumed, correctly, spades and diamonds
3H is undiscussed but obviously natural. Strength undiscussed.

I must choose a call over partner's 3H. Your thoughts?

I suppose one of your thoughts is that we should have discussed 3H. I should also lose some weight. But still, here we are.

[glen]

Any idea how strong/weak etc. 1NT-X-XX-2♥ would be?

Edit: Ken replies (via playing against me in an ACBL tourney), natural, likely weak. Thus I agree with next two posts, 3NT.

[helene_t]

Partner's 3H should show a decent hand, an immediate 2♥ would have been weaker.

I'm torn between pass and 3NT. I think I try 3NT.

[pclayton]

Yes; pass over the redouble indicates some values. 3N looks like our home.

By the way, I play xx followed by 2♠ as a weak hand with spades only. A direct 2♠ shows a hand with a hand that wants to compete higher if opener has a fit.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

Depends a bit on your opening style, but partner certainly
has no 6 card suit (no weak two), and he should have no
5-4 distribution with 11HCP.

If we bid 3NT, we may make it, but we may also go down,
3H should have the best chances to make.
Partner will not hold any spade values, i.e. if they force
out the King of spades, we need 9 running tricks

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: What would 2NT by partner have been?

[1eyedjack]

I think I pass
Yes, partner rates to have some values, but even so I consider it non-forcing.
As doubles go I am pretty minimum, I have minimal support for partner, and my second double just about completes the description. If I am not going to pass a nonforcing bid now, then I never will.
But then, perhaps it should be forcing?

[kenberg]

I'll leave it up a bit before I show the four hands. Seems like the choice is not a slam dunk anyway. Glad to hear it.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Mar 4 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

But then, perhaps it should be forcing?

Maybe it should. Maybe 2NT from partner would have been Lebehnsohl.

I wouldn't make specific agreements about Lebehnsohl after a redouble (pubbet to clubs) by opps but maybe it could be deduced from some meta-agreements about Lebehnsohl. That would be nice.

Anyone for playing transfers after partner's X gets XX'd as a pubbet to clubs?

[the hog]

3NT. 3H is 100% forcing. The reason it is forcing is that IF your partner wanted to play 3H he would do so by using a Lebensohl structure via 2NT. Here pd has about 10-11 points and is forcing to game. Yes, I can see that pd is a passed hand, but no doubt he realises that you can see the bidding as well and your X of 1NT has taken that into account.

If you think it isn't forcing try to figure out a way pd can force to game with say
Qxx AQJxx Jx xxx
He is too good to bid a weakish 2H over the xx, so is he supposed to wait and the bid 3S? And what is that supposed to mean pray tell?

Btw this X is the absolute minimum you should hold to X a weak NT, even if pd was not a passed hand. Many players X a 12-14 NT with a 14 count and this is SO wrong.

[whereagles]

I think the following makes sense:

1. If pard had a weak hand, he would have passed XX and pass 2♠.

2. If pard had a competitive hand with a suit, he would have bid his suit over XX, so as not having to bid it a level higher later.

Since pard is not expected to have hand 1 or 2, I must conclude he has a good hand with hearts.

3NT thus.

[kenberg]

I'll put up the hands first, and then comment.

Scoring: MP

---

I bid 3NT, down 1. This may get lengthy since I found the hand a challenge and I want to respond to various thoughts

Hog says 3H is forcing since with a non-forcing hand (possibly this one) partner would bid 2N Leb. Very possibly we should play this way, but we do not. We have trouble defending against the weak nt, and all suggestions taken seriously, this definitely included, but at the time this was played, that's out. I mentioned that partner and I differ a bit on what the double of a weak nt requires. I am of the hog's view that this is the least I would do it on and I wasn't all that happy about it. When I double any nt I like to have an idea of where the tricks might be coming from (ok here) and I like to have a lead that won't blow a trick (not so clear here: I plan to lead the ace of clubs but if declarer has Qxx and partner a stiff this won't be so great). Partner is more of the opinion that you gotta get in there and fight. We haven't resolved this.

Our style when flying a bit blind in undiscussed auctions is along the lines of: Most bids are not forcing. Assuming this style is in force here, partner's 3H can be taken as: "Based on what I have heard, I am willing to place a bet that 3H is right". In this light, I think I need to pass. My hand will not be a disappointment to partner when I spread it, but it won't be a cause for celebration either. So, as we play, pass seems right.

Before we wrap it up though, let me change the opponents hand just a little:

Scoring: MP

---

I have given E a four card heart suit by exchanging a club spot for a heart spot. Certainly a reasonable exchange. The bidding would presumably go exactly the same. Now there is no way to stop a heart contract from scoring four hearts, five clubs and the ace of diamonds while 3NT still suffers the same fate.



I am aware that moving cards around to make a contract work is a bit suspect but it seems more justified here as firstly you get dealt more four card holdings than five card holdings and secondly even weak no trumpers may choose 1H here if they decide to open this. I didn't check the score sheet bu I can imagine a third hand 1H being overcalled by 2C after which we outbid them in clubs even if they find their spades.

So my conclusions are: I should have passed, it's a close call, there is something to be said for 4H (I considered it) if I am going to bid. Whether this hand should be seen as a showcase for the weak no trump is less clear to me. It seems more to highlight the importance of not opening 1H when the guy on your right has five of them.

Thanks for the responses and I would be happy to hear more about effective defenses to the weak nt.

Ken

[the hog]

Ken I used to play in an environment where 90% of the players played a WNT. So you get a lot of experience playing it and playing against it.
Let me say that methods like Cappelletti are very ordinary against WNT. Dont is also not that effective, as it is more designed to get into the bidding. The thing is that after a WNT it is certainly possible for you to have a game, so your bidding needs to be constructive rather than destructive.

I love playing against players like your partner. They want to get into the action and what happens is that they cop a penalty X or their partner overbids. Without being nasty, I would say clearly your partner has no understanding of a WNT. Like I said in my previous post - your hand is a dead minimum X for me, and given that your pd had passed, I might not even have taken action.

I have always thought the best method of getting in over a WNT is either something really simple like 2C Landy or if you want something a little better Asptro. David Stevenson's web site has a good explanation of Asptro. We have played the latter for a long time and really like it.

[kenberg]

Thanks, I looked up the site. I'll give this some thought. Right now our methods (Capp) are the same over both weak and strong NT. I can easily believe that isn't optimal.

[glen]

Say one is playing against Meckwell, with 14-16 notrumps, and upgrades with 13.
Constructive or destructive?

[pbleighton]

"I'll give this some thought. Right now our methods (Capp) are the same over both weak and strong NT. I can easily believe that isn't optimal."

I've played a lot of weak NT (though not as much as Ron, the Ancient Mariner of aggressive bidding ), and an approximately equal amount of strong NT. I've also played Capp, as a concession to partner.

Capp isn't optimal over either, but I think it's much worse over a strong NT. IMO you need a double to show big flat hands against weak NT. At least Capp gets that right. DONT and similar methods are just horrible against weak NT.

Natural bidding is better than Capp over a weak NT.

I completely agree with Ron about the need to bid constructively over weak NT.

Peter

[jikl]

The 14-16 is a very different beast, most just make a decision on whether it is strong or weak and use their particular method for that type of NT for it. I am sure some people have a 3rd method for the mid NT.

Sean

[helene_t]

officeglen, on Mar 6 2007, 03:49 AM, said:

Say one is playing against Meckwell, with 14-16 notrumps, and upgrades with 13.
Constructive or destructive?

Many consider 13+ as weak and 14+ as strong. Not sure if the excact thresshold should be 13.3, 13.5, 13.8 or whatever. This sounds like 13.25

But as you all know, 89.62763% of all published statistical figures are less accurate than they seem. In other words, it doesn't really matter as long as you agree with your p.

If in doubt, look at the scoring and agree to play constrictively at IMPs and competitively at MPs. Ideally it should also depend on the vulnerability. Not sure it pays to make such complex agreements. It's probably different for every partnership.

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Mar 5 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

I have always thought the best method of getting in over a WNT is either something really simple like 2C Landy or if you want something a little better Asptro. David Stevenson's web site has a good explanation of Asptro. We have played the latter for a long time and really like it.

Landy is very good considering how simple it is. IMO, Asptro is a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance, and the major two-suiters are problematic -

Kx AKxx xxxx xxx

Pard overcalls 2♦. If he has 5♥4♠, you want to be looking for 4♥, but you have no way to do so.

Kxx Kxxx xxxx xx

If pard has 4♠5♣, I'd want to be in 2♠, but bidding 2♠ would miss a ♥ fit opposite 4♠5♥.

My favourite defence to 1NT is David Collier's invention, 'Half-Astro' - 2♣ shows both majors, 2♦ shows spades and a minor.

[kenberg]

MickyB, on Mar 6 2007, 08:20 AM, said:

My favourite defence to 1NT is David Collier's invention, 'Half-Astro' - 2♣ shows both majors, 2♦ shows spades and a minor.

Seems worth playing just for the fun of announcing it by name.