[mikeh]

I am late to the thread, because I thought this topic had been exhaustively canvassed not too long ago, but apparently not all recall that, or read it.

I am a big believer in the natural, strong 1N. I completely agree with those who argue that this wins because:

1. We may have game, despite their bidding. Certainly, against me and (I think) most experts, the auction 1minor [p] 1major to you could be your LHO opening on a shapely 11 and rho responding on a 3 or 4 count.

While some (leveljack, for one) think that this light opening, light response is asking for trouble, I disagree. 30 years ago, much expert bridge was devoted to disaster avoidance, so this kind of bidding rarely happened. Modern expert bridge is based, to a great extent, on disaster-creation: to getting in the face of the opps and creating opportunity for error. This is as a result of the large number of players who are very good constructive bidders... compared to the far lower number of players who have correspondingly good competitive methods/judgement.

2. We may well have a good partscore: partner's pass of the opening does not deny a 5 or 6 card suit, and he can introduce that suit comfortably after we show a balanced good hand

3. The sandwich NT is a duplication, to some degree, of the takeout double and, unless you play all cues natural, the cue. Many experts now play that the cue of either opp suit is natural, but I still play that the cue of opener's suit is takeout and the cue of rho's suit is natural. Furthermore, we have 2N available for extreme shape. And, as has been pointed out earlier by others, the use of the sandwich 1N for hands too weak or otherwise unsuited for other action more often helps the opps than it harms them.

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

As I understand it, the convention is specifically for hands lighter than a double would be. If yours is not known to be weak, on what hands are you using it? I wouldn't mind some stronger alternative so much, but that such hands can already be shown with a double.

There is nothing in my opinions that is new or that I have made up myself. They are straight out of Payne and Amsbury's "TNT and Competitive Bidding" (ISBN 0 7134 25423 or 0 7134 25431). Rather a dated publication now, and perhaps predates the currently perceived propensity to light openers and light responders. As I said in an earlier post I prefer to distinguish double and 1N purely on shape, not on strength. The Law of Total Tricks has been largely discredited now, but it still has a modicum of validity. All that you say may be correct if your underlying system that relies on a very weak 1N intervention is the norm (when 2-suited), but you have yet to address the diversity of the cases where opponents have shown both minors v both majors, and you have not addressed the possibility that partner may have strength + fit to compensate for your weakness.

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

I agree, there is not much to be done when the cards are something like 12 and 13 and no player has convenient distribution to enter. Life stinks that way. It is simply a matter of deciding on the compromise between safety and enterprise.

There is I think also to be considered a general principle that the partner who has the shape has some obligation to act upon it, because his partner is assuredly "fixed" if you do not. He could be really quite strong, but be unable to act.

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

I still disagree with what you are assuming the original poster meant. All he said was people bid with lighter hands these days than they used to. This is not (exclusively) an argument that we will likely have game, but just an argument that we will likely own the hand.

Ok, let us agree to differ. I simply quote from his post, with emphasis added by me, "The traditional assumption that opener always holds 12+ and responder always 6+, ***and we thus don't have a game***, is too far off in modern bridge." The assumption may be off. Whether you should adjust your strategy to compensate is yet to be proven to my satisfaction. It may be so, but for the moment I think otherwise.

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

When you say on a given hand maybe we should defend when we have the balance of values, that is true but moot. On a given hand we might do better by passing out in 4th seat with 16 high card points also. The fact is when you have more values than the opponents, it is more likely than otherwise that you want to play the hand rather than defend it at a low level.

If it is true, why should it be moot? By passing out the hand in 4th seat you are comparing your expected plus score (from bidding) with zero (from passing it out). In our original situation you are comparing our expected plus score (from making a partscore) with our expected plus score (from taking a penalty). The analogies do not match. It may be that MP v IMP scoring makes a difference to the strategy here. I can certainly envisage that the argument for a natural 1NT is strengthened in a MP arena.

I have always been taught that whether you should choose to defend or declare, where passing it out for zero is not an option, should be predicated primarily on whether or not you are likely to have a fit, how big that fit is likely to be, and at what level you will be required to commit to buy it. If the hand is so misfitting that I prefer NT then if I have the balance of values I am not particularly concerned whether I am declaring NT or defending NT, subject to the caveat below.

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

I don't know how you are doubling all these partscores the opponents will bid on these auctions. Are you doubling on balanced 17 and no particular length in any suit when it goes 1♣ p 1♥ p 1NT p p ?

On this occasion I probably pass them out. If I happen to have game then I get stuffed. Am I going to change my system for that low frequency, instead risking coming in with 1NT? I don't think so. One factor I take into account: If I bid 1NT and it is right for the opponents to double, then they are in a position to do so with a considerable degree of accuracy.

[awm]

The discussion about the merits of sandwich NT was covered pretty extensively in a recent thread. Since people still seem to want to talk about it, I'll reiterate some of my points from before in favor of the convention.

(1) While it's true that people are opening/responding lighter and lighter, this doesn't mean that they usually have nothing for an opening and response. In fact the odds that our side has 24+ hcp are still pretty low even assuming they open all tens and respond all hands.

(2) In fact the light opening/response style often backfires when the opening side has no real fit. The issue is that while occasionally you "steal a game" when you have 14 hcp combined and no fit, much more often someone has a little bit of values and you end up playing 1NT with 17 hcp combined and no fit. Quite frequently this is worse than just passing and letting the other side bid their partial. The reason good players still bid/respond very light has to do with the fact that you have a fit on something like 85% of all hands (even more if responder has shape, and most people aren't actually responding on balanced zero-counts so much as shapely zero-counts). It's not clear that letting the opponents play the hand when they open/respond and have no real fit and less than half the high card points is necessarily a bad result.

(3) When fourth seat has the wrong shape for a takeout double, it tends to increase the odds that the opponents have flattish hands and/or no real fit. Note that most people don't open balanced ten counts, it's the shapely ten counts where they bid. The more cards I have in opener's minor the more likely he is flat. And if the opponents have a fit in responder's suit, often fourth hand will be short in that suit and be able to manage a double. The very fact that fourth hand has the right shape for a 1NT bid and the wrong shape for a double tends to imply that opponents being very light on fitted hands is less likely than it would otherwise be.

(4) In addition to increasing the odds that we have game (slightly) by opening/responding very light, the opponents also increase the odds that we want to compete for the partial (substantially) by opening/responding very light. Intermediate hands (say 8-11 high) with the unbid suits are going to be more frequent than strong (say 16-19 high) hands without great support for the unbids. If our goal is to compete for the partial we want to get in on as many hands as possible.

(5) An advantage to using sandwich is that it keeps the minimum values up for the takeout double. This sometimes allows us to penalize the opponents. Of course, the strong notrump also allows us to penalize, but here opponents have an easy out (just pass the 1NT) when they are bidding on garbage, and the value-showing double is going to be a lot more frequent than the big notrump.

(6) In any case, sandwich notrump is more appealing at MP scoring than IMP. I've won a ridiculous number of matchpoints by bidding sandwich 1NT on hands where other people couldn't get into the auction. Of course, at MPs the frequency of bids is extremely important. Perhaps a part of my contrasting philosophy with some of the best players on these forums has to do with a preference for MP scoring (as opposed to the apparently prevalent preference for IMPs).

[awm]

Here's another interesting thought.

If the auction goes 1X - Pass - 1Y, it'd be nice to be able to get in with an offensive-oriented hand with moderate values and support for both other suits. It would also be nice to be able to announce a strong hand with defensive values for a number of reasons, including avoiding missing games, penalizing opponents, and competing when partner is weak but with a long suit. Suppose we'd like to allocate 1NT and Double to these two hand types.

It makes a lot more sense for Double to show the strong hand. With the strong hand you will occasionally want to defend doubled, and starting with a double tends to pressure the opponents any time they don't have a fit in responder's Y suit. Now they are scrambling, partner knows you have a hand, they could be doubled anywhere and everywhere. Also, there exist some strong hands that are unbalanced, and people come in a lot more aggressively in this auction (especially at the one-level) than they used to. These days 1♣-P-1♥-1♠ doesn't show much more than a 1♠ direct overcall (which doesn't show much at all). So we might want to distniguish a "big hand with spades" from "garbage with spades" by using the initial double. Of course you could use 1NT for this, but presumably 1NT if a "strong hand" is supposed to be natural. In addition, using double on the strong hand may give us some safety (in an abstract sort of way) because most people use redouble as support. This makes it somewhat more difficult to penalize if we've stepped into an auction where we have no fit and the opponents have the values -- if we overcall a natural 1NT then either opponent can double to show values, whereas over a value-showing double it's not clear that either opponent can actually redouble to show a good hand (and even if they have that agreement they may not want to play 1Y redoubled).

So it seems reasonable to define 1NT as a "takeout double" and X as "I have a good hand." Now the question comes up: how strong is the double, and what kinds of hand can it be? It seems like with length in responder's suit Y it is relatively safe to pass. If the auction continues with 1NT from opener and two passes, double should show a "good balanced/semi-balanced hand with length in suit Y." If opener rebids 2X it's reasonable for double in balancing seat to be "takeout of X, normally with support for Y and good values." So perhaps the double is best defined as something like "general values; will not have substantial length in suit Y; typically 3/3 or better in the unbids or a strong one-suiter; frequently has some length in opener's suit X as well."

This looks a lot like "sandwich notrump and a takeout double" except that the range for the 1NT call is a bit wider (includes minimum opening hands), the takeout double is stronger (say 15+), and the takeout double need be only 3/3 in the unbids. The guarantee of 3/3 is nice because it lets partner run with a weak hand and four-card suit with some guarantee of safety (in fact he can also run to opener's suit in some situations). In some ways this is similar to playing "overcall structure 1NT/Double" except that the shape for both double and 1NT is better defined.

[blackshoe]

Tell you a story about Sandwich NT. Some years ago, playing with my then regular novice partner, we arrived at a table where the opponents were discussing this convention (it had apparently come up in the previous round, and they'd had a miscommunication). Second board of the round: 1C on my right, I pass, 1H on my left. Partner gets this look on her face, and bids 1NT. I alerted. RHO asked. I said "we haven't discussed it or agreed to play it, but given your previous discussion of Sandwich NT and the look on partner's face, I'd say she has the other two suits". They won the auction. Turned out partner had a 4=2=4=3 13 count, and yeah, she figured this "Sandwich NT" gadget was just perfect for the hand.

[jdonn]

awm, on Mar 20 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

The discussion about the merits of sandwich NT was covered pretty extensively in a recent thread. Since people still seem to want to talk about it, I'll reiterate some of my points from before in favor of the convention.

Sorry I suck, I vanished off the discussion board for a long time

And of course you know, I only really pick on you because you write long answers. After all, you were my partner for my best ever finish in an NABC.

I can't remember, did we play sandwich notrumps?

Quote

(1) While it's true that people are opening/responding lighter and lighter, this doesn't mean that they usually have nothing for an opening and response. In fact the odds that our side has 24+ hcp are still pretty low even assuming they open all tens and respond all hands.

Wouldn't you have to agree that the odds our side has a game are MUCH MUCH MUCH higher on a balanced 18 than on a randomly selected hand in that position?

Quote

(2) In fact the light opening/response style often backfires when the opening side has no real fit. The issue is that while occasionally you "steal a game" when you have 14 hcp combined and no fit, much more often someone has a little bit of values and you end up playing 1NT with 17 hcp combined and no fit. Quite frequently this is worse than just passing and letting the other side bid their partial. The reason good players still bid/respond very light has to do with the fact that you have a fit on something like 85% of all hands (even more if responder has shape, and most people aren't actually responding on balanced zero-counts so much as shapely zero-counts). It's not clear that letting the opponents play the hand when they open/respond and have no real fit and less than half the high card points is necessarily a bad result.

It sounds to me like you haven't even convinced yourself this is true. A ton of the hands with 8 or even 9 card minor suit fits are going to end in 1NT anyway, so just because they end in 1NT does not mean at all they do not have a fit. And of course, if the opponents have a fit, then you (almost always) do too.

Quote

(3) When fourth seat has the wrong shape for a takeout double, it tends to increase the odds that the opponents have flattish hands and/or no real fit. Note that most people don't open balanced ten counts, it's the shapely ten counts where they bid. The more cards I have in opener's minor the more likely he is flat. And if the opponents have a fit in responder's suit, often fourth hand will be short in that suit and be able to manage a double. The very fact that fourth hand has the right shape for a 1NT bid and the wrong shape for a double tends to imply that opponents being very light on fitted hands is less likely than it would otherwise be.

It's a lot like what I said above, but the argument that we will have game much more often when I am known to be strong has to drastically overshadow your third point, which combines merely an inference (that if we are balanced the opponents likely are) with a conclusion based on an assumption which will often be untrue (that the opponents will not be light if they are balanced).

Quote

(4) In addition to increasing the odds that we have game (slightly) by opening/responding very light, the opponents also increase the odds that we want to compete for the partial (substantially) by opening/responding very light. Intermediate hands (say 8-11 high) with the unbid suits are going to be more frequent than strong (say 16-19 high) hands without great support for the unbids. If our goal is to compete for the partial we want to get in on as many hands as possible.

- Many of those intermediate hands can get in already via double or 2NT, or a cuebid for some people.
- Even when you have a partial, competing for it when you might not have will often gain you nothing. Maybe the opponents outbid you for their partial. Maybe you were setting them a similar amount. Maybe you even help them (say by allowing a support double).
On the other hand, when you have game and fail to compete, disaster.

Quote

(5) An advantage to using sandwich is that it keeps the minimum values up for the takeout double. This sometimes allows us to penalize the opponents. Of course, the strong notrump also allows us to penalize, but here opponents have an easy out (just pass the 1NT) when they are bidding on garbage, and the value-showing double is going to be a lot more frequent than the big notrump.

Can anyone remember the last time they hit the opponents for a big penalty after 1X p 1Y DBL, with the further caveat that they would have been unable to make the later penalty double but for the oh-so-stringent takeout double requirements? To me this is the kind of argument that is somewhat convincing in theory, but has absolutely no impact at the table.

Quote

(6) In any case, sandwich notrump is more appealing at MP scoring than IMP. I've won a ridiculous number of matchpoints by bidding sandwich 1NT on hands where other people couldn't get into the auction. Of course, at MPs the frequency of bids is extremely important. Perhaps a part of my contrasting philosophy with some of the best players on these forums has to do with a preference for MP scoring (as opposed to the apparently prevalent preference for IMPs).

The first sentence is certainly correct

[han]

I agree with most of what jdonn said in this thread, but I don't agree with his use of the word sarcastic.

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2007, 02:59 AM, said:

Quote

(1) While it's true that people are opening/responding lighter and lighter, this doesn't mean that they usually have nothing for an opening and response. In fact the odds that our side has 24+ hcp are still pretty low even assuming they open all tens and respond all hands.

Wouldn't you have to agree that the odds our side has a game are MUCH MUCH MUCH higher on a balanced 18 than on a randomly selected hand in that position?

and

jdonn, on Mar 21 2007, 02:59 AM, said:

Can anyone remember the last time they hit the opponents for a big penalty after 1X p 1Y DBL

You raise an interesting point. I can't remember the last time I was dealt a balanced 18 count in the sandwich position.