[jillybean]

Comments?

NT run out

1nt (X) P* (P) XX

Pass forces XX
Pass by responder shows a strong hand and any escape from opponents must be doubled.
2C, clubs and hearts or spades. 2H by opener is pass or correct, 2D by opener is natural and a suggestion to play.
2D, diamonds and spades

1nt (X) XX* (P) 2C
XX shows a good 5 card suit, 2C is pass or correct


1nt (X) 2C*
4/4+ Clubs and diamonds. Pass or correct

1nt (X) 2D*
4/4+ diamonds and hearts. Pass or correct

1nt(X) 2H*
4/4+ hearts and spades, Pass or correct

Sometimes it will be 3 / 4. Or 4 / 3 in our touching suits , if we have to run, we have to run.

1nt (X) 2S
2S to play

1nt (X) 2nt/3C/3D/3H transfer to next higher suit, preemptive

After a balancing seat double: 1nt (P) P (X)
Opener can run with a nice 5c suit, otherwise wait for R to use DONT
XX relay to 2C pass or correct
2m: m + higher suit
2H 4/4+ hearts and spades
2S spades

[mycroft]

Well, I'm not sure what it gets you over either Guoba rescues (non-Canadians may know it as Moscow escapes, but they're wrong) or a rescue system with an immediate strength-showing XX.

Any pass-forces-redouble has two downsides:

• 4th seat gets two shots at it (although this one, where the strength showing nature is obvious round 1, probably has a different best meanings for each round than Guoba). This one, the doubler also gets a chance to reconsider, like the strength-showing XX, but also can continue to pass the decision to partner.
  
• You can't play 1NTx. Many experts have laughed at me for caring, as 1NTxx is game, but the number of huge matchpoint results I have got from -100 into partscores or -200 or -300 into game is at least memorable (and +180 is almost never worth any fewer matchpoints than +760 would have been). -200 into partscores, not so much. -400 or -600 into game? Also, not so much.

For a system that prioritises finding the least bad place to go down, this one seems very sensible. It's not my priority, as regular readers here will well know.

[mikeh]

I didn’t see any way to run to a 5 card suit unless it’s ‘good’. As someone who plays 10-13 on a regular basis, I wish all my five card suits were good, but they are often disappointingly bad.

Fwiw, here what I’ve been playing for more than 25 years:

1N (x)

P. Forces a redouble. May intend to play 1Nxx. Otherwise it shows two suits of which hearts is not one, or both majors with spades better or longer (or both) than hearts

After the xx, we do NOT play that the opps must be doubled if they run. I think that an extremely bad idea. It’s trivial to construct hands where 1N xx is probably making yet we can’t beat 2 of their suit. Remember, against 1N xx opening leader doesn’t have X-ray vision and will frequently make a lead that gives a skilled declarer an advantage, but when they have 18-20 hcp, a decent 8 or 9 card fit, a skilled opp will often make his contract.

An immediate bid of 2m shows that suit plus hearts. 2C is suspect…it ostensibly shows clubs and hearts and opener will assume such but it might be 3=4=3=3, in which case responder redoubles for takeout if 2C is doubled.

An immediate bid of 2H shows both majors, hearts better and or longer than spades

2S shows 5 spades and a hand willing to see partner raise if the opps compete and opener has 4 card support

2N is minors

3x is ‘to play’, which definitely isn’t the same as ‘weak’. Responder may have a zero count but he could also have a 10 count…..say x xxx KQJxxx QJx…..no way you want to risk 1N xx nor do you want them to find a major, so this is a clear 3D over the double.


xx shows a one suiter….opener is to bid 2C. If followed by 2S, responder does not want opener to raise under any circumstances.



After 1N P P x

Opener can run…definitely run…with a 6 card minor (very rare but possible since we don’t have a weak 2D bid) and can choose to run with a chunky 5 card minor and a min.

Assuming the balancing double is passed…


Responder bids DONT….any suit bid shows that suit and a higher. Bear in mind that responder ought not to hold a five card major.

A redouble shows a long (5+) minor, but 6 would be a very weak suit since we tend to blast to 3m over 1N with 0-10 and a decent suit (ok, zero would need a 7 card suit, lol)

We’ve gone for a few numbers…such is the price of doing business….but on the whole the results have justified our sticking with this. We’ve completely redone every aspect of our methods over the years…many aspects many times over…but this one is the same as when we started playing 27 years ago,

We’ve made 1N xx a number of times…firstly in the 2000 BB and most recently at the 2024 Toronto NABC, the day before I had to quit the NABC due to Covid

[jdiana]

This seems like a lot to remember. This is the extent of my old notes on the subject:

If opener’s LHO doubles, we ignore it and systems remain ON regardless of whether their double is conventional or for penalty. If it’s a conventional double, then a redouble by responder (NOT ALERTABLE) shows 8+ HCP and suggests that opponents made a mistake by entering the auction. Subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty.

If they make a penalty double, then a redouble by responder (ALERTABLE) is for runout to a long minor suit. Opener must bid 2♣, which responder intends to pass or correct to 2♦.

If opener’s RHO doubles in the balancing seat (whether conventional or a penalty double), then systems are OFF and all bids are natural. Subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty.

Baby steps. Given mikeh's comments, I might reconsider the "subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty" part. (As always, the comments in our notes about alertability refer to my understanding of the ACBL alert procedures in effect at the time.)

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-January-23, 19:42, said:

I didn’t see any way to run to a 5 card suit unless it’s ‘good’. As someone who plays 10-13 on a regular basis, I wish all my five card suits were good, but they are often disappointingly bad.

In this context, perhaps it's best that we consider any 5 card suit 'good'.

Is this run out the same as your 12-14nt run out?

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2025-January-23, 20:08, said:

This seems like a lot to remember. This is the extent of my old notes on the subject:

If opener’s LHO doubles, we ignore it and systems remain ON regardless of whether their double is conventional or for penalty. If it’s a conventional double, then a redouble by responder (NOT ALERTABLE) shows 8+ HCP and suggests that opponents made a mistake by entering the auction. Subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty.

If they make a penalty double, then a redouble by responder (ALERTABLE) is for runout to a long minor suit. Opener must bid 2♣, which responder intends to pass or correct to 2♦.

If opener’s RHO doubles in the balancing seat (whether conventional or a penalty double), then systems are OFF and all bids are natural. Subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty.

Baby steps. Given mikeh's comments, I might reconsider the "subsequent doubles of opponent’s bids are for penalty" part. (As always, the comments in our notes about alertability refer to my understanding of the ACBL alert procedures in effect at the time.)

This sounds like a run out of a strong nt?

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-January-23, 20:31, said:

This sounds like a run out of a strong nt?

Yes, sorry. I guess it's totally different with a weak nt. Never mind.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-January-23, 20:30, said:

In this context, perhaps it's best that we consider any 5 card suit 'good'.

Is this run out the same as your 12-14nt run out?

I don’t play 12-14 with anyone, and have no intention of doing so. But, it would be.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-January-23, 20:51, said:

I don’t play 12-14 with anyone, and have no intention of doing so. But, it would be.

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with 12-14nt?

[steve2005]

You have no way to say, I want to bid our contract.
Like with a good shapely 2 suiter, you want to show your suits Inviting or forcing to game. With limited defensive prospects, so you aren't going to double the opponents.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-January-23, 20:30, said:

In this context, perhaps it's best that we consider any 5 card suit 'good'.
<snip>

For sure, if either side has always a 5 carder, you can call yourself blessed.
I usually have a zero count with 4333 and need to decide, which combo to sell
as 44.
For whats it worth, I would not play a different scheme after a reopening,
reduce the memory load.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-January-24, 09:34, said:

For sure, if either side has always a 5 carder, you can call yourself blessed.
I usually have a zero count with 4333 and need to decide, which combo to sell
as 44.
For whats it worth, I would not play a different scheme after a reopening,
reduce the memory load.

Thanks
This is one of my pard's treatments. I agree, I need to suggest dropping DONT in balancing seat, too much for infrequent games.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-January-24, 09:45, said:

Thanks
This is one of my pard's treatments. I agree, I need to suggest dropping DONT in balancing seat, too much for infrequent games.

Whatever seems simpler to achieve, i.e. you could also try to change to DONT in direct seat.

And we play the system, although your description is not full, if I got it right, I only looked
briefly.

Bidding a suit direct showes touching.
A direct XX showes a single suit, i.e. it is an xfer to clubs.
Pass forces opener to XX, suit bids now show non touching suits.

spades and clubs are considered to be touching.

There is more to it, but this part I usually forget, it never comes up anyway,
it handles strong hands, ..., I am happy to hold a 44.

For reopening X: Opener now starts to describe his hand.
The partner of the NT opener can decide to not make the XX, and also to pass the XX.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-January-24, 10:40, said:

Whatever seems simpler to achieve, i.e. you could also try to change to DONT in direct seat.

And we play the system, although your description is not full, if I got it right, I only looked
briefly.

Bidding a suit direct showes touching.
A direct XX showes a single suit.
Pass forces opener to XX, suit bids now show non touching.

spades and clubs are considered to be touching.

That sounds a LOT more straightforward. tyvm

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-January-23, 21:13, said:

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with 12-14nt?

Mycroft has posted about this a few times - arguably he and I are better qualified to address this since we actually play it...

The big problem with 12-14 1N is that you should pass Qxxx x AQxxx Kxx or even Qxx x AQxxx KJxx; if LHO bids some number of spades, responder now has to cater to that hand and 16 balanced and 19 balanced simultaneously and that's impossible.

Now mycroft and I both think that downside is worth it, but we're not playing against the opps mikeh is playing against.

[mycroft]

I agree - but I would point out the Acol world, which does not play "sound minor bids" to hang with the weak 1NT. I'd ask people like Tramticket and Cyberyeti about that, because I have repeatedly tried to understand how Acol works (along with many other non-forcing auctions that seem impossible to resolve) and failed. I will note that traditional Acol (including the weak NT) is being forced out by American-style 2/1 at the top levels even in England. There might be a reason for that.

What I say (for K/S style weak NT) is that 1NT fills in the gap between a pass and a decent opener; the strong NT in a standard format fills in the gap between a minimum opener and a strong hand.

The reason the weak NT struggles in some competitive auctions is that they have two "strong" hands to show (15-17 BAL and good one- or two-suiter), and one "weak" hand (the overstrength preempt or the minimum unbalanced hand) - and only two actions to take (pass or bid). Okay, there's double, and that's a traditional way to handle the problem (strong NT hands double); but support doubles (what I play) or a "takeout"-ish strong hand are yet another incredibly important hand to show, and now you don't get either of those. So when I pass in these auctions, partner takes me for strong NT, and that *usually* works; but what if I was 13ish 1=3=5=4 or 0=4=5=4 after 1♦-p-1♠-2♥?

The strong NT player, with an equivalent (balanced, less than 18) hand - passes. As he does with the minimum bad-shape hands, and it "doesn't matter" to partner which one it is. Problem solved.

Which leads to the other problem that MikeH frequently points out, with K/S style weak NT: sound minor openings means that you have to pass hands that "the room" playing a strong NT can afford to open. And you are immediately behind when you do, if it's a competitive auction; even when partner opens and they stay silent, it can be hard to come back from.

Now, the issues with the 10-12 or 10-13 NT are there as well, especially in a standard format (for one thing, the 13-22 range is massive, and you have to find ways to show it all). But it does have the advantage that most auctions "look like" strong NT system auctions (the ones that don't, you've either opened 1NT or you are going to make some "I have a balanced hand" rebid). The big problem with 10-12 these days is that, back in the Goren days when it was popularized, 90% of the hands you opened 1NT "the room" was passing. A lot of the wins from it came from the fact that your opponents were starting at the 2 level with their good hands, which is always harder than other people starting at the 1 level. But Mike's "hands we all open that the K/S players have to pass" are frequently things like "flattish 11s" - so now you don't have that advantage, a lot of the time at least. The right solution to that would be to "standardize" your opening 12 counts and move to 9-11, but for Some Reason that is difficult (*) in the ACBL.

You still get the benefit (and curse, when it's wrong) of taking away the entire 1 level with the hands that "the room" is opening 1 of a minor. But it's much less powerful than when it was 1NT vs pass, and the risks haven't got any lower.

One of the benefits of Precision (crossing the streams somewhat) is that with "two ranges" for balanced hands, you can get the "best of both worlds" if you want - whether it's an 11-13 NT NV (or 1&2, or whatever) or a 10-12 and deal with the 16s somehow, or a "strong NT" of 14-16 (**) or even 15-17. Obviously, the issues spread instead to the "wide-range" strong 1♣ opener - there's still no free lunch.

My like of K/S really boils down to comfort; when I learned serious bridge, the crowd I learned in liked 12-14, so I "learned" modern bridge that way; I picked up the K/S book and (modernizations aside) understood the theory behind it in a way that I never read for the strong NT (^). When I found my current K/S partner, it turned out that's what she grew up with, too. We both "feel the auction" better in a K/S context; it's easier, more understandable, and just makes more sense. It could be - and if you're not Adam Wildavsky, probably is - just inferior to a strong NT base at absolute top level; but "a system both players understand and are comfortable with beats a better system they're not sure of every day".

(*) Okay, illegal. I'm sure nobody here needs me to type out my "confusion" about that one again?
(**) Insert European rants about "but what you actually play is" or "so, how many 13s do you upgrade" here. The reason for that is the 10s (or lower - that's part of the European rants too) they feel they "need to"/can open 1♦, and the issues resolving the 10-13 rebid.
(^) Sheinwold was *really really* good at teaching by explaining the why and therefore the how, in ways that I've rarely seen since, at the introductory level at least. That's the gold in "5 weeks", too; frankly it's the closest at doing this for a strong NT base I've read - although with 16-18 NT and 4cM, and 2/1 being 20 years away, it's just hard to use it to teach since about 1990.

[P_Marlowe]

An old thread, ... surprisingly i was able to locate it fast.


https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry373578

[DavidKok]

Over here it is common to play the following if our 10-13 (or 9-14) NT gets doubled for penalties:

Pass: opener will bid a 5-card suit (or 6-card, if they opened semibalanced again), redouble with 4432 (or perhaps 4441 - semibal again) and pass with 4333 - though some also redouble with 4333. This starts a scramble, looking for the nearest 7(+)-card fit to play. There are some nuances - as opener with 4333 you are supposed to pass on 1NT-(X)-P*-(P); XX-(P)-2♣-(P); ? even if you only have three clubs in support (braving the 3-3 fit), while with 4432 you normally pull to your 4-card suit - but maybe not with three clubs, again.
XX: strength. Our next double is takeout, by either hand. Some partnerships have this set up a force, typically to 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT.
Bids: natural NF. Opener needs 4-card support or an exceptional hand with 3-card support to raise.

Personally I think making pass nearly-forcing is not the best treatment, and I'm not so fond of giving up the ability to play 1NTX. I've had it happen a few times where on my 1NT-(X)-P* my alert and explanation of the pass gave RHO free reign to pass with a weak hand, where if the pass was a (weak) offer to play they would have likely rescued us immediately. A second downside of this treatment is that it doesn't deal with the auction 1NT-(P)-P-(X); ?. Is opener supposed to run with a 5(+)-card suit now? Do you have a way to distinguish 4432 from 4333? I would run here right away with a five card suit, but it's committal.


Regarding Weak (12-14) NT versus Strong (15-17) NT, there are upsides and downsides to both but I have four reasons to prefer the strong range (though I prefer 14-16, but the arguments are the same). Some are covered extensively by akwoo and Mycroft, so I'll keep it brief on those points.

• A Weak NT is often/normally paired with sound (minor suit) openings, which puts us behind when I have to pass. Note: the 10-13 NT does this as well, though to a different degree.¹
  
• Playing a strong NT, on a competitive auction after our 1-suit opening I know that all non-minima are unbalanced. This makes it easier to re-enter the auction - with extra values, opener will also have extra shape (or 17+).
  
• A strong NT 'enables' a semiforcing NT response in a 2/1 structure. On e.g. the auctions 1♥-1NT, or 1♦-1NT, opener can be really stuck for a rebid with 15 balanced. Gazzilli can solve some of this, and 5♥332 isn't that common so you could just take the hit, but when it does come up it is very awkward. You might be holding 15-opposite-11 (or even 12, in some systems!), but if you bid on you might be in 2NT with 15-opposite-6. Plus, there's no suit to bid anyway, as you are 5♥332. I experienced this downside of the 10-13 NT in painstaking detail - all the experts here do not have a solution, they just pray it doesn't come up. I'm honestly tempted to start opening 1♣ with 5X332 14-16 while playing the 10-13 NT just to solve this, but I think that'd cost more than it gains.
  
• Strong NT finds the best strain more often in uncontested auctions, compared to weak NT. If you play 15-17 NT you will on average have (just below) 16 HCP, so partner will on average have (just above) 8 HCP. And 8 HCP facing 15-17 is an invite, meaning partner can frequently use Stayman to find a 4-4 fit. If you play a 12-14 NT the numbers shift - now our average is (just below) 13, making partner's average (just above) 9. And 9 opposite 12-14 isn't an invite - in fact, 10 isn't either. We've shifted the curve compared to the strong variant, and will more regularly miss an 8 card major fit.

¹Because the 11-13 ish semibalanced opening hands do not have extra playing strength, and this Kamikaze NT style behaves similarly competitively if the opponents interfere after our 1m openings, a common approach is to fold a lot of these semibalanced hands into the 1NT opening. The argument is threefold: 1) we clean up our 1m openings; 2) we maximise the preemptive effect of the 1NT opening; 3) a lot of the 10-11 hands in particular would not be worth an opening normally, so they have to choose between pass and 1NT - and generally pass is considered worse.
I am not a fan of the "10-13 NT is nearly any hand in range as long as we can make it legal" approach, especially since it's often paired with terrible disclosure. But I've played it before, and it produces big swings - I think in our favour more often than not. One thing that surprises me is that I felt this should open the door to traditional weak NT competitive agreements, e.g. 1♣*-(2♠)-3♣ as 9-11 with (3)4(+)♣ NF, even if 1♣ can be two (the argument being that opener can bid 3NT with the big balanced hand, and pass with any weaker hand, which is therefore unbalanced, therefore the clubs were real, therefore supporting with 4 cards or even with 3 cards is sound). Instead nobody plays those here. I feel like people just slap the Kamikaze NT on the system and change nothing else, with all the struggles that brings.