[sceptic]

Example 1

P - 1 C - P - 1S
1NT ............................is this sandwich NT and if so what range and distribution do you play it with or what is standard

Example 2

1C - P - 1H - 1NT......... is this sandwich NT and if so what range and distribution do you play it with or what is standard

also what difference should there be between examples 1&2


Example 3

1C - P - 1H - X ........ if you use sandwich NT what would you ultimately play this as

Example 4

P - 1C - P - 1S
X ............................if you use sandwich NT what would you ultimately play this as

also what difference should there be between examples 3&4

and would you build all 4 instances into a partnership agreement?

also is there better ways to relay info about the unbid suits in the sequences ?

[pbleighton]

1 and 2 are sandwich NT, the range is anything less than a takeout double. Range and shape are really what you are comfortable with. I will do it with 4432 shape and a yarborough at unfavorable, but....

3 is a takeout double.

I have no bid for 4, though I'm sure you could come up with one, such as 5-4 with the 5 in the higher (or lower) raking suit.

I've been playing sandwich NT for about a year now, I think it's great.

Peter

[firmit]

Me and my partner have just agreed on Sandwich.
(1C)-p-(1H)- ?
X = exactly 4 spades with 4+ unbid minor or strong one-suiter, or strong balanced
1NT = 5spades + 4+ of unbid minor ( may even be bid if 1C promise 2+)

[awm]

In the first sequence, 1NT is unusual for the unbid suits. You could also call it sandwich notrump by a passed hand. This meaning is extremely standard, since there is no sensible natural meaning for the 1NT call (yes I know some people play it as 9-11 balanced, I think they're crazy myself). I would definitely assume "unbid suits" as the meaning for this call if undiscussed with a good partner.

The second sequence is the typical "conventional" sandwich 1NT showing the unbid suits. There seems to be a lot of controversy over whether this is a good convention or whether it would be better to play 1NT as natural in this auction. Obviously this is something to discuss with partner.

In the third sequence, double is takeout. The difference between this and the sandwich 1NT (if you play that convention) is that the double shows a better hand. Typically double is at least opening strength and usually 4-4 in the unbids; double could also be a "power" double with a very strong one-suiter or a slightly off-shape double (say 4-3 in the unbids) with a strong hand. This call suggests defensive values and partner is encouraged to penalize in some auctions when the opponents bid on without a great fit. The sandwich 1NT would show a weaker hand with more shape (at least 4-5 in the unbids and less than opening values).

In the fourth sequence (passed hand), a popular treatment is that double shows a preference for the higher suit (typically 5-4 in the unbids) whereas 1NT shows a preference for the lower suit (typically 4-5). Both generally show around 8-11 hcp (near maximum for a passed hand, the lower end of the range is often 5-5 or 4-6 respectively for the two calls).

[Free]

Don't we have enough of these threads yet?

[bid_em_up]

sceptic, on Mar 19 2007, 12:41 PM, said:

Example 1

P - 1 C - P - 1S
1NT ............................is this sandwich NT and if so what range and distribution do you play it with or what is standard

Example 2

1C - P - 1H - 1NT......... is this sandwich NT and if so what range and distribution do you play it with or what is standard

also what difference should there be between examples 1&2


Example 3

1C - P - 1H - X ........ if you use sandwich NT what would you ultimately play this as

Example 4

P - 1C - P - 1S
X ............................if you use sandwich NT what would you ultimately play this as

also what difference should there be between examples 3&4

and would you build all 4 instances into a partnership agreement?

also is there better ways to relay info about the unbid suits in the sequences ?

Case 1) definitely sandwich NT. You are already a passed hand. It should always be sandwich in this case.

Case 2) is only sandwich by agreement. It is possible for you to still hold the 15-17 NT hand in this case, and some people like to play it as such.

Sandwich NT usually is 5+/5+ in the other two suits, with weakish values. However, you can do it as in example two when holding extra values where you will still have options to get partner to choose a suit later. Alternatively, you could define 1N and 2N in such a way to show a weak 5-5 and a strongish 5-5, if you so desired.

Case 3) is takeout for the other two suits, usually 4-4 or 5-4 and 10+ hcp as you are not a passed hand.

Case 4) is same as case three, but limited by the fact you are a passed hand. Range is approximately 9-12. The HCP range needs to be a little stronger here than in the cases of a 1N overcall, because you do not have the "extra" distributional compensation that comes from being 5+/5+.

Yes, you should build (or at least discuss) all 4 sequences in any serious partnership.

There may be better ways to incorporate info regarding unbid suits, but I have yet to find them.

The main downside to using sandwich NT overcalls is you give up the natural 1N overcall showing 15-17 by a non-passed hand. I don't find this to be much of a problem, but other people seem to have difficulties with this.

[jtfanclub]

I have been considering using sandwich 1NT to show the unbid major and the BID minor.

Example: 1C-P-1H-1NT as spades (4) and clubs (5+).

The logic is obvious to me...there's no reason that I can't have a long club suit (I don't think opener having 3+ clubs is a big negative indicator of that), and I'll never be able to show them later if I don't show them now. We already have a perfectly good bid for spades and diamonds, and if I bid spades now and diamonds later it should be clear what's going on.

Does anybody on the planet play this? I'm sorry if I've asked before.

[Codo]

I think Sandwich NT is better to show different length not different strength compared to a take out double. I play it to show 4/5 in the unbid suits without a 5card major. I believe that this imporoves competitive bidding much more then knowing whether you are 5-10 or 11-15 (or whatever range you like).

So for your 4 cases:
1. 4 Hearts, 5 Diamonds
2. 4 Spade 5 Diamonds
3. 4 Spade 4 Diamonds
4. 4 Heart 4 Diamonds

If I would believe that there are better tools, I would use them. This way works quite well for me and is easy to rememberand to handle.

[sceptic]

Quote

Don't we have enough of these threads yet? 

if I thought so I would not have posted it

as bid em up has cleared up or at least made me aware of hand 1 & 2 which is where my main query was intended

and codos answer gives food for thought

[MFA]

By an unpassed hand the sandwich NT should be natural. 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.

1NT in sandwich by a passed hand is of course unusual. In my system, 1NT is then a shape take-out while D is more balanced. Other distinctions are possible here.

@pbleighton

Quote

1 and 2 are sandwich NT, the range is anything less than a takeout double. Range and shape are really what you are comfortable with. I will do it with 4432 shape and a yarborough at unfavorable, but....

LOL, good luck with that

[jdonn]

MFA, on Mar 20 2007, 08:28 AM, said:

By an unpassed hand the sandwich NT should be natural. 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.

1NT in sandwich by a passed hand is of course unusual. In my system, 1NT is then a shape take-out while D is more balanced. Other distinctions are possible here.

@pbleighton

Quote

1 and 2 are sandwich NT, the range is anything less than a takeout double. Range and shape are really what you are comfortable with. I will do it with 4432 shape and a yarborough at unfavorable, but....

LOL, good luck with that

Ditto 100%, including sarcastic remark at end.

[1eyedjack]

MFA, on Mar 20 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

By an unpassed hand the sandwich NT should be natural. 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.

Your assumption that once in a blue moon we might have game on because both opponents might be subminimum for their bidding may be valid. I don't see that as sufficient justification for 1NT to be natural. Contrast that frequency with partner having a bust on a misfitting hand and your optimistic scenario is one that I for one would be happy systemically to forego.

[Tola18]

jtfanclub, on Mar 19 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

I have been considering using sandwich 1NT to show the unbid major and the BID minor.

Example: 1C-P-1H-1NT as spades (4) and clubs (5+).

The logic is obvious to me...there's no reason that I can't have a long club suit (I don't think opener having 3+ clubs is a big negative indicator of that), and I'll never be able to show them later if I don't show them now. We already have a perfectly good bid for spades and diamonds, and if I bid spades now and diamonds later it should be clear what's going on.

Does anybody on the planet play this?

I think this is an interesting idea, especially playing against systems when the minor may be less then 4 cards - and frequently is.

I for one will think about it.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Mar 19 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

I have been considering using sandwich 1NT to show the unbid major and the BID minor.

Example: 1C-P-1H-1NT as spades (4) and clubs (5+).

The logic is obvious to me...there's no reason that I can't have a long club suit (I don't think opener having 3+ clubs is a big negative indicator of that), and I'll never be able to show them later if I don't show them now. We already have a perfectly good bid for spades and diamonds, and if I bid spades now and diamonds later it should be clear what's going on.

Does anybody on the planet play this? I'm sorry if I've asked before.

For quite a long time I have been playing something similar:
(1C)-P-(1?)-X = 3 suited takeout of Clubs
(1C)-P-(1?)-1N = 3 suited takeout of ?
(1C)-P-(1?)-2C = 2 suited takeout of C and ?

Not only does this capture the occasions when 1C is short and we have a fit there, but we also get to find our fit in "?" where responder only had 4 in them.

[jdonn]

1eyedjack, on Mar 20 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 20 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

By an unpassed hand the sandwich NT should be natural. 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.

Your assumption that once in a blue moon we might have game on because both opponents might be subminimum for their bidding may be valid. I don't see that as sufficient justification for 1NT to be natural. Contrast that frequency with partner having a bust on a misfitting hand and your optimistic scenario is one that I for one would be happy systemically to forego.

You refer to it as someone else's assumption when he never said "once in a blue moon" and also never said the only goal is to reach game. You are putting words in the mouth of the other position to try and strengthen yours.

Aside from the (far greater than once in a blue moon) likelihood of a game, it is important to have 1NT available for the partscore battle. When you are that strong there is a real likelihood the hand belongs to your side. The sandwich notrump tells the opponents all about your shape when you are so weak that you are likely to end up on defense, and all on a hand that had other available bids (double, 2NT) to show the other suits. Unlike other two suited bids that may be weak, it is KNOWN to be weak yet has no preemptive value. Hardly a recipe for success.

Your point about the danger is valid, and I usually bump up the range for this 1NT to something like 16-19 or so.

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Mar 20 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Mar 20 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 20 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

By an unpassed hand the sandwich NT should be natural. 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.

Your assumption that once in a blue moon we might have game on because both opponents might be subminimum for their bidding may be valid. I don't see that as sufficient justification for 1NT to be natural. Contrast that frequency with partner having a bust on a misfitting hand and your optimistic scenario is one that I for one would be happy systemically to forego.

You refer to it as someone else's assumption when he never said "once in a blue moon" and also never said the only goal is to reach game. You are putting words in the mouth of the other position to try and strengthen yours.

Aside from the (far greater than once in a blue moon) likelihood of a game, it is important to have 1NT available for the partscore battle. When you are that strong there is a real likelihood the hand belongs to your side. The sandwich notrump tells the opponents all about your shape when you are so weak that you are likely to end up on defense, and all on a hand that had other available bids (double, 2NT) to show the other suits. Unlike other two suited bids that may be weak, it is KNOWN to be weak yet has no preemptive value. Hardly a recipe for success.

Your point about the danger is valid, and I usually bump up the range for this 1NT to something like 16-19 or so.

Now whose putting words in whose mouth? When I sandwich it is not "KNOWN to be weak". Also it is clear from my post that it is my opinion that the likelihood of game is that small, just is it IS in fact clear from the OP that I was quoting that it was the prospect of missing game that drives his argument for a natural 1N. The introduction of the partscore battle may or may not be a valid point, but it is exclusive to your post.

Even when I am weak, whether we are likely to win the battle to declare will largely be a function of partner. It is by no means certain that we will lose out on that purely because I personally, of our partnership, might lack the strength.

It is also far from clear to me that just because we have the balance of the values in the partscore battle (when that happens) that we are better off declaring than defending.

It is also far from clear to me that on those occasions that we do have game on the opponents will obtain a superior score by playing in their ultimately doubled partscore.

As regards what is the actual frequency of our having game on, I would be interested in some hard stats, if anyone out there has the resources for it.

[1eyedjack]

Couple of additional points.

I would be interested to know what proportion of the top players play a sandwith 1N as natural by a non-passed hand. Not sure how anyone would know the answer to that, but those who move in those circles may have a feel for it.

If you are going to play it as natural, and for fear of punitive action decide to keep it up to strength, say 16+, then you are going to cut out a significant proportion of the hands when you have game on (perhaps the majority), where the values are more evenly divided between your hand and that of partner. Perhaps nothing to be done about that.

As to contesting the partscore, even if I am weak and playing the classical 2-suited sandwich, I would expect to have reasonable prospects of winning the partscore battle after
(1C)-P-(1D)-1N
when I might have less anticipation after
(1H)-P-(1S)-1N
Perhaps if you are concerned about being outbid, you might want to distinguish between these (and other) situations when deciding on the merits of the balanced alternative.

[1eyedjack]

I had another thought:

It has long been my opinion that the propensity to make increasingly light opening bids (in 1st or 2nd seat) opposite a partner who makes increasingly light responses is a strategy destined to end in tears. I am not talking about systems specifically designed to make light openers, such as Moscito, which typically place a corresponding lower ceiling on the upper limit assigned to the opener.

Occasionally you may successfully talk the opponents out of game, and when both partners are minimum or subminimum for the bidding you will not overreach. And of course you have entered the race at a sprint in the partscore battle.

But as against that you will overreach by going down in high level partscores when game tries are refused (or punted games find a subminimum partner).

The increasing instances of this policy suggests empirically that it may on balance be the winning technique. But I am unconvinced of this, and I also suspect that its prevalence is "talked up". If it is losing strategy then there remains the question, in defending against such methods, how should you (if at all) adjust your own methods. Should you design your methods to cater for their both being rock bottom minimum? Or should you accept that on occasion their system works against you, secure in the knowledge that in the long term they will lose more than they gain? Not obvious, to me. There is a risk, in my view, that if you adjust your methods to cater for their best possible scenario, then you are playing into their hands and actively increasing the success rate of their methods.

[jdonn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?