[Kungsgeten]

Me and a partner plays 1S as 8-11 balanced (1NT is 12-14). This has worked really well for us. However we're about to change it since we feel uncomfortable opening it when vulnerable (we've have some potential disaster boards, but the opponents has saved us by bidding or bad defense) and do not feel like having different systems vul or not. We also played 2NT as a strong hand (15-17) with 5-5 majors. This was very infrequent (has happend twice) but scored good both times.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-22, 08:35, said:

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

When playing mini notrump I simply play 2-way Stayman and everything else natural and preemptive for the above reasons, with the exception of Gerber.
Obviously the weaker your notrump the less likely you will have a high level contract.

I am still at a loss to understand why other methods (like the complex one mentioned above) should be an improvement.
Often people give you complex sequences and claim that to be "very good", but rarely bother to explain in detail why. Few bother to tell you disadvantages.
The above one is no exception. What I often can tell is that a "perfectionist" was at work and that makes me skeptical. Not that I am immune to that myself.

I would very much prefer instead of claims without proof some illustrative examples and a deeper explanation, when and where they really gain over standard methods so that I can apply my own judgment better.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-18, 01:03, said:

10-12 nt.

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

ArtK78, on 2013-April-19, 12:27, said:

+1

Been playing this for years with one partner. Many good results, few bad ones. And some of the bad ones are when we are not content to let the opening bid do the work for us and we try to improve the contract.

By the way, I play the 10-12 1NT in the context of a light-opening but otherwise Standard system.

What worries me is that Mexkwell has given it up after playing it only white against red for many years and Fred considers this range outright bad.
One of his main arguments is that it gives a lot of information when opponents play the hand, not only after a mini notrump opening, but also when you do not open the bidding at all.

I play mini notrump white against red, but would not claim it to be an unmitigated success.

One important problem is of course that you have to deal with 15-17 notrump range in another way.
The standard methods nowadays over 1NT (like transfers) are quite effective opposite balanced opening with extras and I at least think I am at a disadvantage when I have to open such hand differently.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Maybe Heeman is best opposite 10-12 (and especially 10-13) because invitational hands are much more common. rhm: while in general I agree that there are no big differences between methods, I never liked auctions where I had hearts in 2-way stayman, i.e. 1NT-2C/2D; 2S-3H. Like Gerben argued several times, it doesn't feel logical to have two low-level bids asking for a four-card major (of course this is oversimplifying it, the follow-ups become easier and opener can also reply 3m).

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2013-April-23, 03:47, said:

Maybe Heeman is best opposite 10-12 (and especially 10-13) because invitational hands are much more common. rhm: while in general I agree that there are no big differences between methods, I never liked auctions where I had hearts in 2-way stayman, i.e. 1NT-2C/2D; 2S-3H. Like Gerben argued several times, it doesn't feel logical to have two low-level bids asking for a four-card major (of course this is oversimplifying it, the follow-ups become easier and opener can also reply 3m).

I believe this to be a misunderstanding caused by the name of the treatment.
The point about two-way Stayman is that I reserve s single bid, 2♦, to show a strong hand. The main purpose of 2♦ is to change the bidding from obstructive to constructive mode and taking it slowly from there.
You need such a bid. Only this allows you to play anything else as obstructive or preemptive (like jumping to three of a major over 1NT).
Calling 2♦ Stayman could be considered a misdescription, since responder may or may not be interested in the majors.
It simply asks opener to describe his hand. He will start by showing a 4 card major if he got one.
In my view the major disadvantage of the method is that opener describes, who will be infrequently dummy.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2013-April-22, 12:31, said:

Zel, you are the equivalent of a walking bridge encyclopaedia! I won’t even ask how you know about all this stuff.

I daresay most of the posters on BBF could give you the same links. Mostly, I know of things from having researched online in the past. Bidding theory is my big bridge passion. Before getting into system specifics, I would like to point you in the direction of a previous BBF thread on this subject, where posters much more experienced with the mini NT than me gave various suggestions. In general, methods based on a 2♣ puppet or marionette (Keri, Gladiator, etc) are popular for this range. At one time, Chris Ryall had a very good and simple response structure for a mini NT on his site. He still has his main 1NT page but seems to have taken down the section on his own methods. Shame - it is one you might find helpful to see. Perhaps he still has a copy if you try writing to him.

[fromageGB]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-April-22, 17:21, said:

Transfer responses to one club is a less clear winner - 1C-1X-1NT is good, but 1C-1S-?? has had ups and downs. I tend to think it's a plus but the business case is less clear.

Maybe it depends on what you use the bid for. I now use 1♠ as a relay for opener to describe his hand, and this is often the starting point for a NT contract at any level, and also used to show minors as weak or invitational. While it usually is no benefit, sometimes it is (eg right-siding NT, or for responder to make a game invitational hand with a long minor where opener can decline and play in either 2NT or 3m), and very rarely does it seem to lose out to the rest of the field. However, the main advantage in transfer responses for me (particularly at matchpoints) is the ability for responder to show his exact length in his majors, and his strength band of weak/invitational/game, with often the ability to play in a fitting 2M when the game invitation is declined. This has found good contracts others don't reach, and occasionally you get 2M tick while others are 3M-1.

1♣ 1NT as a weak {54} in the majors has proven very effective. (Opener bids 4 card major, else responder transfers to the 5)

On other things that seem to work well :
- I like 2♦ open as 4+4+ both majors, usually weak. These keeps 2M as natural, and 2♦ has also been passed successfully
- 1NT = 15/16 (17 goes via 1♣), which gives extra space because responder does not need an invitation

[Cthulhu D]

fromageGB, on 2013-April-23, 06:51, said:

Maybe it depends on what you use the bid for. I now use 1♠ as a relay for opener to describe his hand, and this is often the starting point for a NT contract at any level, and also used to show minors as weak or invitational. While it usually is no benefit, sometimes it is (eg right-siding NT, or for responder to make a game invitational hand with a long minor where opener can decline and play in either 2NT or 3m), and very rarely does it seem to lose out to the rest of the field. However, the main advantage in transfer responses for me (particularly at matchpoints) is the ability for responder to show his exact length in his majors, and his strength band of weak/invitational/game, with often the ability to play in a fitting 2M when the game invitation is declined. This has found good contracts others don't reach, and occasionally you get 2M tick while others are 3M-1.

1♣ 1NT as a weak {54} in the majors has proven very effective. (Opener bids 4 card major, else responder transfers to the 5)

On other things that seem to work well :
- I like 2♦ open as 4+4+ both majors, usually weak. These keeps 2M as natural, and 2♦ has also been passed successfully
- 1NT = 15/16 (17 goes via 1♣), which gives extra space because responder does not need an invitation

Yeah, I use it for diamonds, and 1NT is to play opposite a weak NT.

[Cascade]

1.
1♠ 2♣/♦
1♥ 2♣/♦
1♦ ♦

Natural and non-forcing, weak 6-9 by a passed hand.

2. 1m 2M fit jumps, 4+m 4+M 10+ hcp

3.
1NT 3m 4+m 0-1 om GF
1NT 3M 4M 0-1 oM GF

We also use these over 2♣ 18-20 Bal and 2♦ 23+ Bal or nearly

4. 1x 1/2y; 2x 2NT Artificial GF

5. Herbert Negative after a reverse

6. Cheapest suit the default response to 4th suit.

Also raise of 4th suit to show no additional feature but with extra values

[MickyB]

2D bad multi 1st NV. We open it on complete rubbish and pass 2D frequently. Perhaps not a method for anyone who wishes to avoid director calls - I'm still somewhat in shock about a hand from August where 2D-P-P-3C was ruled "evident" on a 2335 10-count after direct seat had tank-passed a flat 14-count.

1C:2C showing 5+S,4+H [in conjunction with transfer responses to 1C]. So much better than using jumps to show this hand - you can stop in 2C, you can invite and stop in 2M, you can set up a cheap force and relay.

2C overcall of 1NT showing 3+spades,4+hearts [never 3433 or 3424]. Gets all three suits into play on 34(15), 35(14) and 4441, even 3442 when the conditions are right. Oppo seem to struggle to cope with it too.

[fromageGB]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-April-23, 17:43, said:

Yeah, I use it for diamonds, and 1NT is to play opposite a weak NT.

If you have another bid for weak long clubs, think about trying 1♣ 1♠(relay) 1NT(12-14) 2♣ as transfer to ♦ either to play, or follow with another bid if invitational+. Obviously transferring the NT is better than responder playing NT. This frees up 1♣ 1NT for whatever you can't normally show. For me, that is {54} both majors less than invitational.

Of course if opener has a 6+ card club suit rather than the normal (semi)balanced hand, then it starts 1♣ 1♠ 2♣, and then you don't need to show a weak diamond hand. And 1♣ 1♠ 2NT is stronger than your opening 1NT, anything else a normal reverse.

[Lord Molyb]

32519, on 2013-April-22, 04:35, said:

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?
1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?
2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?
3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

I use this:
http://www.bridgebum...ate_preempt.php

[aguahombre]

After Opening 1NT with 10-12, our bidding structure would be the same as the continations to a strong NT; and then afterward I would apologize for miscounting by hand by 5.

[rhm]

MickyB, on 2013-April-23, 18:36, said:

2C overcall of 1NT showing 3+spades,4+hearts [never 3433 or 3424]. Gets all three suits into play on 34(15), 35(14) and 4441, even 3442 when the conditions are right. Oppo seem to struggle to cope with it too.

This sounds interesting.
Can you elaborate a little bit about continuations
My guess is responses below 2NT are not forcing, but under what conditions does overcaller pass 2♦.
I guess overcaller continues with shortage in diamonds but does he pass with 3 diamonds and shortage in clubs?

Also where do you draw the line between overcalling 2♣ and showing a one-suiter?
I guess you bid 2♣ with 5 hearts and 3 spades. What about 6 hearts and 3 spades?
What about 6 spades and 4 hearts?

Thanks
Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2013-April-25, 02:23, said:

Can you elaborate a little bit about continuations

Some discussion of the defence was made in this thread, although probably not in as much detail as you would like.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-25, 02:33, said:

Some discussion of the defence was made in this thread, although probably not in as much detail as you would like.

Thanks
Rainer Herrmann

[32519]

Can 4♠ make on this hand? Or was 5♦X a phantom save?

---

This was a totally random deal from our local club last night. E/W are ok players but far from great. Sitting North I took a stab at 4♠ hoping for 1 of the following -
1. Something extra from partner (a good ♠/♥ holding), and/or
2. For E/W to botch the defence.

Even looking at the hands double dummy, can 4♠ make? Anyway we still scored a top on this board when E/W were allowed to play in 4♦. One East player was allowed to play in 3NT which easily made after a ♣ lead.

[32519]

This gem was also a completely random deal from our local club last night. Playing double dummy, is there any way that the contract can make?

---

East led the ♣K and then switched to a small ♠. West won with the ♠K and returned a small ♥ to East's Ace. East player her last ♥, low by West, won with the ♥8. What now?

All played either in 2NT or 3NT.

[manudude03]

On the first one, I think it can be made, 2 rounds of diamonds, ruffed in dummy, queen of spades to the K,A,diamond. Ace and another heart. Club switch, win the ace, lead a low spade, win cheaply. Ruff a heart high and another spade off the table. Defense only wins 1 diamond, 1 spade and 1 heart. Maybe the defense giving a ruff and discard leaves you with too much work. You should get to 4S (or defend 5D) anyway via 1S-(2D)-4S.

On the second it still takes further misdefense to even come to 7 tricks I think. Maybe you can force them to give you an extra spade to ensure you never get to dummy. You should be able to get into a minor if North initially passes (this is a fair bit worse than the first).

[Raff90]

My partner and i came up with a new conenvtion when we we're drinking so its not perfect yet:

2♣ = weak with ♥, weak 2 suiter with ♥ or semi forcing + with ♥
2♦ = weak with ♠, weak 2 suiter with ♠ or semi forcing + with ♠
2♥ = bad preempt in ♣, weak with minors or GF with clubs
2 ♠ = bad preempt in ♦, gf with ♦ or some strong NT

We only play this for fun and only tried it at one serious tournament.
But it got us some good scores .

When we open 2♣ opps never ask what it means cause they think its semi forcing + opening.
And last time one opponent overcalled 2H with AQ109x because he didnt ask.
After i doubled and my partner converted it to a penalty double he asked what it is.
You should have seen his face