[whereagles]

dcohio, on 2011-April-22, 06:02, said:

How many people use the weak NT over the strong NT?

The upsides seem to be clarification of the 1D opener. Opener either has real diamonds in an unbalanced hand, or a 14-16 NT. This seems to take alot of ambiguity out of 1D. The obvious downsides are red vs white penalties...

Most of my experience so far has been at club level play and sectionals. Moving higher in tournament play am I going to have problems as a weak NTer?

Thanks for your replies

This is debateable, but I wouldn't play an 11-13 NT vulnerable. In 3rd seat I would even go as far as calling it suicidal; the reason being pard already confessed to have a weak hand (with prec you open on any excuse, so he's more or less broke and so are you LOL).

The ONLY time where I would MAYBE think of playing a weak NT vulnerable would be a 12-14 variant, with 1♦ showing an unbalanced hand 100% of the time. You could then try the following: dump the 2♣ opener into 1♦ and make it a sort of multi for the minors, with 11-15 hcp (the response scheme may include 2/3/4/5♣ responses as distributional pass/correct bids). That would allow you to use the 2♣ opener as a weak 2, a very underrated and very efficient preempt. Trust me on this

[Vampyr]

dcohio, on 2011-April-22, 07:00, said:

We're opening all of our 5c hands either 1D, 1NT, or 2D ((34)15/4405s).

We never sit for 1NTx. Pass by partner forces a XX, it either shows values or no 5 card suit. If partner sits for the XX we're usually scoring a top, if not we scramble.

I don't like any system of runouts that doesn't allow you to play 1NTX. It is often the best spot.

I have played weak NT almost exclusively for over a decade, and have very rarely had anything go wrong with natural runouts. Even the "extra" bids ie redoubling clubs to show a 3-suiter or redoubling diamonds to show the majors almost never come up and we could probably do without them.

[dcohio]

If 1NTX is the best spot, why wouldn't we want to play 1NT XX?

Auction usually goes:

1NT-(x)-P!-(p)
xx-(p)-p-?

This puts the NT doubler's partner in a bad bad situation. with a weak balanced hand what can he do?? They are forced to the 2 level with no idea about suit distribution around the table.

Half the time we get to play 1NT XX, and the other half we double them in some part score. Either way we're usually scoring a top as they go for 200-500 against air quite frequently.

Basically, we play all systems on over the double, so we can transfer to 5 card suits. XX shows a 5 card minor, 1NT opener bids 2C p/c. Pass forces a redouble and shows values or a hand that doesn't have a 5 carder. Over the XX we pass with values (9+) or bid our cheapest 4 carder. Opener will pass with 3 card support or scramble with less.

[Free]

dcohio, on 2011-April-27, 05:02, said:

If 1NTX is the best spot, why wouldn't we want to play 1NT XX?

- 1NTx-1 is cheaper than 1NTxx-1. Also, when we're NV, 1NTx-1 is better than their 2M= or 2m+1. So 1NTx shouldn't always make to get a good score. 1NTxx is top (make) or bottom (down).
- If you manage to make your contract, you'll have a top anyway. 180 is more than enough, no partscore will beat this.
- If you really want to RDbl your opps for penalties, don't give them 20 chances to find a decent spot to run to. 1NT-Dbl-p-p(1);RDbl-p(2)-p-...(3);p/Dbl-...(4). Better in this case is to RDbl immediately for penalties, and use pass to scramble to a decent spot (2X = 5+X to play). Now opener can RDbl without a 5 card suit, or bid his 5 card suit immediately.

I've played the forcing pass in the past and I seldom played 1NTxx. Moreover, my opps usually got to a decent spot and we got more problems than before.
Now I play a style where Pass shows willingness to play 1NTx. With borderline hands where we don't know if 1NT will make, we can just pass and see where it gets us. Contract if fine, one down is fine to if we're NV. With your method you need to decide if you're going to gamble 1NTxx or run away to a spot which may be even worse.

[mycroft]

In addition to Free's comment, of course, 1NTx-2 (making 5 tricks, with Declarer's advantage) beats 3NT= their way, and 1NTx-3 NV beats 3NT= V. 1NTxx-2, of course, not so much.

I actually play currently "we can't play 1NTxx", which does have two problems (380 loses to 400, for one, and we don't have a way to set a force).

If I have both of them available, then yes, 1NTx means "we think this is going to be our best minus score, and who knows, it might make" and 1NTxx means "unless the double is 'I have seven tricks', we're making this"

[benlessard]

IMO direct runout are WAY better than forcing pass/delayed methods. For me pass show desire to play 1NtX (3334) or pts. Opener will XX anytime hes got a 5 card suit. As for the rest i prefer a direct bid to show 5 and XX to show at least 4/4.

Transfers and gadget are ways to help the opponents show strenght on both side of the table wich lead them to double you more often.

[zhams]

I use 12-14 1nt.

[Vampyr]

dcohio, on 2011-April-27, 05:02, said:

Half the time we get to play 1NT XX, and the other half we double them in some part score. Either way we're usually scoring a top as they go for 200-500 against air quite frequently.

I don't think that your experience is typical. Unless your opponents tend to double weak NT with "top of their range".

Free, on 2011-April-27, 06:09, said:

- 1NTx-1 is cheaper than 1NTxx-1. Also, when we're NV, 1NTx-1 is better than their 2M= or 2m+1. So 1NTx shouldn't always make to get a good score. 1NTxx is top (make) or bottom (down).
- If you manage to make your contract, you'll have a top anyway. 180 is more than enough, no partscore will beat this.
- If you really want to RDbl your opps for penalties, don't give them 20 chances to find a decent spot to run to. 1NT-Dbl-p-p(1);RDbl-p(2)-p-...(3);p/Dbl-...(4). Better in this case is to RDbl immediately for penalties, and use pass to scramble to a decent spot (2X = 5+X to play). Now opener can RDbl without a 5 card suit, or bid his 5 card suit immediately.

I've played the forcing pass in the past and I seldom played 1NTxx. Moreover, my opps usually got to a decent spot and we got more problems than before.
Now I play a style where Pass shows willingness to play 1NTx. With borderline hands where we don't know if 1NT will make, we can just pass and see where it gets us. Contract if fine, one down is fine to if we're NV. With your method you need to decide if you're going to gamble 1NTxx or run away to a spot which may be even worse.

For these reasons and others mentioned above, it is better to have no way to play 1NTXX than to have no way to play 1NTX. I can play both, but only redouble if game is likely to be cold, so that we don't end up defending some 2-level contract (and remember that a double is sometimes based on a long suit) that is maybe down one.

[wclass___]

Having played really ''mini'' NT and frequently changing run-out methods to what i found are better i can say that playing Pass to be NF is just not serious.

[Cyberyeti]

One thing you should consider if you're going to play a weak no trump is the arrangement that 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ is always pulled to 2♠ if 3-2 in the majors, this allows you to do it when 4-4 (particularly useful on 4441s where 1N may not be great) and the 4-3 fit often plays at least as well as 1N if you don't find partner at home with a 4 card major.

We actually played a wide range no trump in precision which works particularly well in that your 1♦ opener is now essentially natural.

[dcohio]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-28, 05:26, said:

One thing you should consider if you're going to play a weak no trump is the arrangement that 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ is always pulled to 2♠ if 3-2 in the majors.

We do have that agreement. It is quite useful.