[jillybean]

I'm playing a few hands with Mike777 and want to exchange our defence to NT.
Here's mine, I was always like to post these on forums to have them critiqued by bbfers.

(1nt)
X - clubs or both majors, Forces partner to bid 2♣ if followed by 2♦ we are showing both Majors
2♣ transfer ♦
2♦ transfer ♥
2♥ transfer ♠
2♠ unused or transfer to 3♣

Transfers at any level

[mikeh]

Not enough two suiters. When defending a strong notrump, it’s useful to introduce two suiters. It’s also useful to introduce ambiguity.


One suited transfer overcalls (which I currently play v weak notrump, more from habit than otherwise, are extremely easy to defend against, and that’s a serious problem. The starting premise against a strong notrump is that the hand usually….by no means always…belongs to the opps and one of your goals is to make it difficult for responder to describe his hand or to ask opener to describe hers.

Having 2S unused or having it as clubs is also a bad idea.

I’m not a huge fan of Meckwell but it does include ambiguity. I like what I currently play (known, I think, as multi landy or perhaps woolsey). Double is 4M plus longer minor, so right there is ambiguity. 2C, the modified way we play, is diamonds or majors….more ambiguity altho pass usually results in it being resolved. 2D is a major…ambiguity again.

Double as clubs or majors is ok..ambiguity….but you can improve it to be ‘clubs or both majors or one major’. After advancer bids (usually) 2C, doubler can bid 2D both majors or 2H/S single suiters…this is part of the rarely used Molson defence.

Again, i stress: when interfering over a strong notrump, you want to create ambiguity. Since the opps often own the hand, casting doubt is more often good than bad.

[jillybean]

modified meckwell

X=long minor or both majors. (can improve by adding or one major)
2C=Clubs and higher
2D=Diamonds and higher
2H=Hearts
2S=Spades.

If we roll one major into X, how do you unravel if it's one or both?
X forcing 2C, pass with clubs, 2D/2H/2S to play , 2N both majors?
And what do you do with 2H 2S

I gain some ambiguity but lose transfers at the 3 level +

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry but I disagree that the ambiguity is vital. Instead I find other aspects equally if not more important. In particular, frequency of the bids and ability of partner to pass. Giving the opponents an extra round after they have already opened 1NT is dangerous. The ambiguity partially compensates, because now the opponents need to account for multiple possible scenarios. However, all the double-then-bid or pass-then-bid sequences created more than make up for it, in my experience. This is why transfer overcalls are worst of all worlds and comfortable to play against - we get two rounds, no guessing and low frequency.

I've played several NT defences, incidentally this came up elsewhere yesterday. The list includes Woolsey, Landy, Multi-Landy, Lionel, DONT, Meckwell and some Asptro variations. While I like some (significantly) better than others, I believe most effort should go into discussing how to play any of these agreements, not which to play. What are your length/strength/suit quality requirements? What are your competitive continuations, especially if they double?

I wrote up a short list of desirable properties of a 1NT defence the other day, if there's interest I could find and extend it to share here.

[helene_t]

2s could be 4sp and longer minor. Other twosuiters can be handled with the transfers.
X followed by 2d should be longer hearts. With longer spades, x followed by 2h.
I am not a fan of transfers for the reason stated by David.

[mw64ahw]

Playing transfers, gives you the freedom to include some 2-suiters and extend the structure to show various strengths of long suits.

For example, taking some bids from the modified Hello structure that I play
2♣ is a transfer to ♦ or 5M4+m. In 4th seat X becomes ♣ rather than penalty (I play a lot opposite weak NTrumpers) so now you get to specify both suits.
There's plenty of ambiguity here, but partner has been known to forget the 2-suited option and pre-emptively raise the transfer suit.

For long suits I get to show 4 strengths
1. Preempts go via 2N
2. Simple: red suits via a transfer or 2♠
3. Non-club intermediates are bid at the 3-level
4. Strong suits are bid via 2m.

[awm]

I am also not a huge fan of ambiguity. I’ve found that it’s not unusual for opponents to bid on after our overcall and it’s hard to know whether to compete when partners hand is ambiguous. Opponents usually know what you have by the time dummy comes diwn anyway, and if it matters to them in the auction they can usually pass or double the ambiguous bid and our side will usually have to clarify.

My preference is to have a lot of natural bids to maximize pressure and allow us to compete when we need to, while also making sure we can show majors unambiguously (this is where we are most likely to have game). Usually I play:

Double = one major and one minor (5/4 either way)
2♣ = majors
Other 2x = natural

We try to keep some minimum strength for the double so partner can pass sometimes, which is normally a win when it happens.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-07, 01:41, said:

I wrote up a short list of desirable properties of a 1NT defence the other day, if there's interest I could find and extend it to share here.

Yes, please share the list. Perhaps in a new thread. thanks

[DavidKok]

• Forcing yourself to the 3-level is very risky, which is a serious weakness of the As(p/t/r)o variations. As a result, if you are going to show 2-suiters, it should ideally be below 2-of-those-suits.
  
• Against a strong NT I like bidding often, so having a structure that can bid 5-4 pattern hands and escape at the 2-level in the best fit is nice.
  
• In general, having good discussions on how you play a certain convention, i.e. requirements on strength, shape, suit quality etc., is arguably more important than choosing which convention to play.
  
• Against a Kamikaze NT I prefer that bidding is constructive, aiding in finding our games. Against both WNT and SNT I think this is less of an issue.
  
• Showing minor suits is not as important as showing major suits, as when it becomes a partscore battle the majors outrank the minors. The minor-suit-showing bids therefore win less often when they come up.
  
• Having NF overcalls (and double) makes it more difficult for the opponents. By contrast, forcing overcalls give LHO two opportunties to act, allowing for pass-then-pull strategies and the like.
  
• Having a way to show both majors is good.
  
• The classical advice is that a penalty double of a WNT is mandatory. By frequency, I now believe this to be false. However, the attitude is still very popular, which may limit your options.

Note that these desires are not all compatible, and any particular defence will have to compromise on some or even all of them to partially achieve the others.

[apollo1201]

I like multi.

2C majors allows you to play in the best fit (53 vs 43 or even 52 vs 43). Using something else for both M loses that.

But the multi 2D faces the same weakness as multi: partner does not know the suit. Reminds me of a deal where partner had opened (with a 5-cd S!) and RHO bid 2D. I bid 2NT, transfer to my 6-cd C as I wanted to compete with KJTxxx. LHO had only 2 S and did not want to go above the law so it went pass, 3C, all pass. It quickly turned out that overcaller had H and when the smoke cleared, partner had made 9 tricks while 9 trucks were doable in H as well.

So awm method avoids this at the cost of not knowing which suit is 5 and which is 4, which you get in ML.I literally loved dont as junior but 45 either way does not always get you to the best fit (42 when 53 is available). And X one suiter is even more vulnerable to interference than 2D multi.

I read an interesting X same color, 2C majors, 2D same shape (minor 5+, M can be 4…), and 2H/S nat (but can be 5431). At least when there is interference you can guess what partner has.

One cannot have it all.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-07, 09:16, said:

• Forcing yourself to the 3-level is very risky, which is a serious weakness of the As(p/t/r)o variations. As a result, if you are going to show 2-suiters, it should ideally be below 2-of-those-suits.
  
• Against a strong NT I like bidding often, so having a structure that can bid 5-4 pattern hands and escape at the 2-level in the best fit is nice.
  
• In general, having good discussions on how you play a certain convention, i.e. requirements on strength, shape, suit quality etc., is arguably more important than choosing which convention to play.
  
• Against a Kamikaze NT I prefer that bidding is constructive, aiding in finding our games. Against both WNT and SNT I think this is less of an issue.
  
• Showing minor suits is not as important as showing major suits, as when it becomes a partscore battle the majors outrank the minors. The minor-suit-showing bids therefore win less often when they come up.
  
• Having NF overcalls (and double) makes it more difficult for the opponents. By contrast, forcing overcalls give LHO two opportunties to act, allowing for pass-then-pull strategies and the like.
  
• Having a way to show both majors is good.
  
• The classical advice is that a penalty double of a WNT is mandatory. By frequency, I now believe this to be false. However, the attitude is still very popular, which may limit your options.

I agree with all of that but also think it fits the bill of mikeh and Multilandy quite well, maybe it's a question of the right dose of ambiguity rather than whether it is good/bad.
I would be interested to know what you think about a penalty double of Strong NT, which I soon learned could be painful and now much prefer 4M+5m (as per your point 2).

[mycroft]

I like the Woolsey defence, which as people are saying ranks highly on David's list. I very much like the 2M being 5M, thus resolving the "do I risk passing with 2, or go to the 3 level on maybe a 4=3?" issue very well. I even like the ambiguousness of the double, which is unresolved if they "ignore it", and usually resolved by a P/C call if they don't (and frequently the P/C call is "show your minor", which still leaves their potential major fit up in the air (and maybe with a 4-1 break if they find it).

I played transfers, as I've said before, for a number of years (strong NT only, direct seat only). Yes, giving them multiple opportunities to come in (and a cue-for-takeout, and a cards vs suit double), but we played it *very aggressively*, and *frequently* chose to pass the transfer. "What does that mean?" "It means his diamonds are better than my hearts". Never tried it with "-7 undoubled is good bridge", but I guess it could mean that too. The thing was, you "got" two shots at it, except when you didn't.

Why only "strong, direct", though? Because it puts the big hand on lead, the 90+% of the time we take the transfer. "Endplayed on trick 1" is frequently worth something! I understand the reason to play it vs weak NT (good way to "compete" and also "show game-try hands", as well as at least some two-suiters), but that was our style.

I used to like DONT, too, when a young lad, but then I realized that it's main job was to stop them playing 1NT. Decent goal, but it didn't disturb their auctions most of the time, if they weren't going to pass (ignore the double and use it in the play, ignore half the two-suiters (which bid 2♣), doubling for Stayman), and it gets to the "cheapest, safe contract", which scores MP badly if it's not the best contract (either a better fit in the second suit, or both contracts make, but we're scoring +90 when others get +110 in the major). In exchange, you compete on many more hands than other systems, because it does get you to "a safe contract" if one exists. Except that no, the players expect 5-4 (and not 5422), decent strength, all the things that a non-disturb defence wants. Let's play something better if you don't need safety? And with IMP games becoming scarce (and me directing most of them when they happen), there's just too much downside.

Woolsey does have several complicated sequences that need to be understood to be effective (something that many other systems don't have), so not great for pickups, unless they already play it. But I chose to play the system that the pros petitioned for a specific exemption from the GCC restrictions to allow their clients to play with them, the day it became legal. If it was good enough for them to go to that much work, there had to be something there. And I have not been disappointed.