[benlessard]

Im not going to find a lot of expert player who are showing both M with Kj98,AQJTxx , a 6-1 or even 6-0 fit rate to play better than a 4-3 S fit.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Im not going to find a lot of expert player who are showing both M with Kj98,AQJTxx , a 6-1 or even 6-0 fit rate to play better than a 4-3 S fit.

Yes, that's why it's good to have 2C as majors then with 3-2 majors responder bids 2D to ask for longer.

[benlessard]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-24, 20:25, said:

Yes, that's why it's good to have 2C as majors then with 3-2 majors responder bids 2D to ask for longer.

I meant im not going to find many experts that wont treat their hands like single suiters. I think its a joke not wanting to play in H here. Only whan partner has 4S or more S and 0-1H ...S will be better than H. Asking for major with 32 mean your going to play into 5-2 fit rather than 53 fit so its not perfect.

[benlessard]

If you have 3S2H and you choose 2S you may be playing in 43 rather than 62. If you bid 2D and partner has 5/5 wich one he pick ? If he choose H you are playing 52 rather than 53 if he alway choose S when 55 then its when you have 2S3H that there is a problem. Im not saying you shouldnt ask for a M when 32/23 but im saying it doesnt always give good result.

[kenrexford]

This is a reason why Overcaller stating his prefedrence immediately works better. With for example the flannery version, you know partner has 4S/5-6H and know what to do. If partner instead bids 2C for one or both majors, spades equal or longer, you might zstill end up with a problem with 3-2, but at least you know partner is 5-5, 5-4, 6-4 or 6-5 and probably OK.

You could get silly with it, but too much decf leaves other stuff not handled.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Asking for major with 32 mean your going to play into 5-2 fit rather than 53 fit so its not perfect.

It's not perfect but it's right on frequency basis.
With 6-4 you gave, especially at imps 2C is mandatory because the most likely game is in spades.

[bluecalm]

I just thought that you might be right about this 6-4 hand. While game, if available is often in spades the 4-3 partscore is silly comparing to 6-1 partscore and that is what we will get if responder is 3-1 in majors.

[32519]

wank, on 2012-February-22, 18:17, said:

it's all about the majors. bugger showing these other random combinations

awm, on 2012-February-24, 16:18, said:

Most methods do not have a specific way to show 6-4 hands. There is not really a way to have such a method without sacrificing results on the (much more common) 5-4 hands.So on both examples #1 and #2, overcaller must decide whether to show hearts or show both majors. On #1 game is quite biddable if he shows hearts; not so much if he shows majors. On #2 it is basically the opposite since the fit is in spades. Note that vertigo gives you no chance on #2, without a clean way to show majors.#3 is easy after 2nt for minors in basically any method. #4 I would very much prefer PASS over a penalty double; pass and they go -2; double and they run to 2M and make.I will note that the examples are not very representative. Far more often interference over 1nt is about a competitive scramble for a partial, not game bidding for the interfering side.

Can we steer this 1NT discussion into a new direction? Before discussing the merits or demerits of the various defences to a 1NT opening, what are YOUR primary objectives?
1.) Effectiveness accompanied with ease of memory?
2.) Showing your distribution satisfied to compete for a part score?
3.) Showing your distribution WHILE AT THE SAME TIME announcing values good enough for game when held in the right combination with partner?
4.) Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others?
5.) Disrupting the opponents 1NT sequence while at the same time giving partner a lead indicator?
6.) Assisting the opponents in reaching a thin game in the majors? Yes, you read that correctly. I place 2NT over 1NT promising 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP into this category. For the 1NT bidder to make a thin game in the majors, his RHO is now marked for any required finesses. This must surely be one of the poorer choices for interfering over a 1NT opening. Defending against it is easy via cue-bids: 3♣ = both majors, longer ♥; 3♦ = both majors, longer ♠. This is nothing more than showing a Smolen type response over a 2NT interference. X of the 2NT bid can be used as a replacement for Stayman after the interference promising only one 4-card major and game going values. Opener can choose to convert or leave the X in to see where the doubler runs to in the minors if his partner doesn’t have any preference for either minor. Opener has been given some free additional information as to suit strength and hand layout of the opponents. Now opener has some more choices: (1) X again, this time for penalty, (2) convert to game in the best known major suit fit, (3) convert to 3NT with the right sort of hand.

MY OBJECTIVES are:
1.) Effectiveness accompanied with ease of memory.
2.) Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others.
3.) To show my distribution, differentiating between constructive values competing for the part score and game invitational values.
4.) To show my distribution while at the same time announcing values good enough for game when held in the right combination with partner.
5.) To show a 4+/5 card holding in the 5-10 HCP range which always promises a major as the 5-card suit. Probing further with these hand types reverts to partner when he has some values and a fit is found.
6.) If the hand I am dealt has some values but doesn’t meet any of the above requirements, I choose to pass rather than give the opponents information which will assist them in bidding thin games e.g. 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP.

I’m still busy optimizing my defence against a 1NT opener, but in line with wank’s statement above “it’s all about the majors,” my defensive agreements can currently differentiate between the following major suit holdings:
1.) A 6-4 holding and 10-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner
2.) A 5-5 holding and 10-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner
3.) A 4-5 holding (Flannery) and 11-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner
The rest of the structure currently looks like this:
4.) A constructive 2♥ or 2♠ showing 8-12 HCP. Based purely on frequency of occurrence, this is a big winner when measured against Muiderberg which promises 5-cards in the suit bid and 5-cards in an undisclosed minor. The probability of being dealt a hand in this range is 4.76%. The probability of being dealt a Muiderberg type of hand in the 8-12 HCP range is 1.72% (1.80% in the 5-10 HCP range, but how effective this is sitting behind a 1NT opening is questionable).
5.) There are two bidding sequences employed in my structure to show 5-5 in the minors. The first one promises real values, 14-18 HCP. The frequency of occurrence within this range is low at only 0.16%. However those pesky opponents are less likely to get to game in either NT or a major after showing real values. I may lose the part score battle, but not the game battle.
6.) The 2♣ bid is the catchall bid, used to show (a) all 2-suited 4+/5 holdings and 5-10 HCP, the 5-card suit is always one of the majors, or (b) 5-5 in the minors and 11-13 HCP. The frequency of occurrence for these hand types are quite high, standing at 7%. The 2♣ bid will probably not be allowed in ACBL land is there is no anchor suit.
7.) With a minor suit orientated hand and 5-10 HCP, I choose to pass cutting my losses.

People are forever naming conventions after themselves. This is no different. I have named it "Lee Defence over 1NT" after myself.

[kenrexford]

Two Clubs need not have any anchor. Only Two Diamonds and higher must.

Your goals are very similar to mine, btw.

[32519]

Here is another defence to a 1NT opening that I stumbled across. It is called MONK (Major Orientated NT Killer). You can read more here http://www.bridgebuff.com/monk.html

[awm]

I disagree with some of the priorities expressed above.

First, over a strong notrump I think partscore bidding is far more essential than "showing points for game bidding;" you might have a game, but usually it will be based on fit and not power, so points are not the most essential thing here. You want to have ways to bid as many shapely hands as possible in direct position; for example I think being able to show "14-18 with minors" is kind of ridiculous, this will virtually never come up and most of the time partner will be broke or not enough well-fitting to make game when you have it. It would be much better to play wider ranging calls with both minors so that you can get in on a wider range of shapely hands (yes, it does sacrifice your ability to bid game "on values" when you don't have a huge fit). It's also good to have a way to show 4M/5+m because this hand is fairly common, you might have a game if there is a major suit fit, and you can very often compete for the partial in 2m or 3m.

I also disagree with trying not to bid on weak shapely hands. If the opponents let you push them to thin games, they will often go down because of bad breaks. It's true that occasionally opponents can play their game contract better because of their knowledge of your shape, but at the same time you may be able to push them into the wrong game (due to lack of space) or find a good sacrifice against their game, or just get them to play their game from the wrong side with partner knowing what to lead. Passing just because you "don't have points" is way too timid; in fact it is often better to bid on bad hands because you have two ways to win (make your contract, or sacrifice against their contract) whereas bidding with good hands you more or less need to make what you bid!

Another important priority is to maximize partner's opportunities to raise or compete. Calls that show an unidentified one-suiter (for example) are quite bad in this regard because partner won't know what to do if responder acts. Very nebulous bids (i.e. showing one of several possibilities) often have issues here, although I've found that "unknown two-suiters" do often fare better than "unknown one-suiters."

[32519]

32519, on 2012-February-25, 08:22, said:

MY OBJECTIVES are:
3.) To show my distribution, differentiating between constructive values competing for the part score and game invitational values.
4.) To show my distribution while at the same time announcing values good enough for game when held in the right combination with partner.
5.) To show a 4+/5 card holding in the 5-10 HCP range which always promises a major as the 5-card suit. Probing further with these hand types reverts to partner when he has some values and a fit is found.

awm, on 2012-February-26, 20:52, said:

I disagree with some of the priorities expressed above. First, over a strong notrump I think partscore bidding is far more essential than "showing points for game bidding;" you might have a game, but usually it will be based on fit and not power, so points are not the most essential thing here. You want to have ways to bid as many shapely hands as possible in direct position; for example I think being able to show "14-18 with minors" is kind of ridiculous, this will virtually never come up and most of the time partner will be broke or not enough well-fitting to make game when you have it. It would be much better to play wider ranging calls with both minors so that you can get in on a wider range of shapely hands (yes, it does sacrifice your ability to bid game "on values" when you don't have a huge fit). It's also good to have a way to show 4M/5+m because this hand is fairly common, you might have a game if there is a major suit fit, and you can very often compete for the partial in 2m or 3m.I also disagree with trying not to bid on weak shapely hands. If the opponents let you push them to thin games, they will often go down because of bad breaks. It's true that occasionally opponents can play their game contract better because of their knowledge of your shape, but at the same time you may be able to push them into the wrong game (due to lack of space) or find a good sacrifice against their game, or just get them to play their game from the wrong side with partner knowing what to lead. Passing just because you "don't have points" is way too timid; in fact it is often better to bid on bad hands because you have two ways to win (make your contract, or sacrifice against their contract) whereas bidding with good hands you more or less need to make what you bid!Another important priority is to maximize partner's opportunities to raise or compete. Calls that show an unidentified one-suiter (for example) are quite bad in this regard because partner won't know what to do if responder acts. Very nebulous bids (i.e. showing one of several possibilities) often have issues here, although I've found that "unknown two-suiters" do often fare better than "unknown one-suiters."

Adam, I appreciate your sentiment here, but my defensive agreement is currently able to differentiate between a part score battle and values invitational for game when held in the right combination with partner. Revisit the 4 example hands I posted higher up in this thread. They weren't randomly chosen. They were chosen because my agreement is able to show the values to make the bids advertised.

The 14-18 HCP 5-5 minor suit hand will seldom occur as you rightly say. Bur when it does, bingo, partner is well placed to pick a minor suit game. With these sorts of hands people quite happily bid 4NT over 4 of a major as "two places to play." I'm just making the announcement at a lower level.

I lump all the distributional hands with 5-10 HCP into the 2♣ bid. So I'm still competing for a part score battle. If a fit is found and partner has some values, probing further reverts to partner. With these sorts of hands I can still push the bidding up. As there is no anchor suit, nothing prevents me from bidding 2♣ holding 5/4 in the majors.

[fromageGB]

awm, on 2012-February-23, 22:13, said:

... Another: suppose I have a 4315 hand and partner doubles with a 5431. You've suggested that since I don't want to play in diamonds opposite partner's 4M/5♦, I should make the 2♥ call that ostensibly shows four hearts. But partner is passing that right? In a system where 2♣ showed majors this would never happen ...

You are correct. In this and in the other major/minor instances you can't be assured of getting to the best fit, but you normally get to a reasonable contract. Sometimes you don't, and with one partner I play the Vertigo X as just majors for that reason. This gives up on the 4M5m hands, but the 5M4+m hands still start with 2 of the minor, and I really like that aspect of the defence, it works well and has good obstructive value, particularly, perhaps, as the major is unknown.

[benlessard]

fromageGB, on 2012-February-27, 03:49, said:

You are correct. In this and in the other major/minor instances you can't be assured of getting to the best fit, but you normally get to a reasonable contract. Sometimes you don't, and with one partner I play the Vertigo X as just majors for that reason. This gives up on the 4M5m hands, but the 5M4+m hands still start with 2 of the minor, and I really like that aspect of the defence, it works well and has good obstructive value, particularly, perhaps, as the major is unknown.

Why with 5S/4H you would pass 2h ? 2H should show willingness to play in the M so with both M you just pass or bid S if S is longer.

[glen]

32519, on 2012-February-26, 23:08, said:

... The 14-18 HCP 5-5 minor suit hand will seldom occur ...

Your priority 4 is "Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others", and if you start allocating bids to "seldom occur" and "The frequency of occurrence within this range is low at only 0.16%" it seems be in the wrong direction.

[gwnn]

Ordered Ken's 1NT book. Will review it in a week or two.

[32519]

glen, on 2012-February-27, 06:17, said:

Your priority 4 is "Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others", and if you start allocating bids to "seldom occur" and "The frequency of occurrence within this range is low at only 0.16%" it seems be in the wrong direction.

Wouldn't you also like to have the ability of bidding that "impossible slam" in any tournament which would mean the difference between winning and just placing. I have constructed such a hand below after the opponents have opened 1NT:

---

Once dummy appears, declarer knows that North has a maximum of 2 HCP. The ♣ finesse becomes a no-brainer. 12 tricks are there for the taking.

When I show a minor 2-suited hand, I am showing real values. Granted this hand was constructed and the probability of it occurring at the table is so small as to be negligbile. But when it does, won't it be nice to be able to explore for that impossible slam! I use Minorwood for the suit bid by responder with these sorts of hands.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-February-27, 07:13, said:

Wouldn't you also like to have the ability of bidding that "impossible slam" in any tournament which would mean the difference between winning and just placing. I have constructed such a hand below after the opponents have opened 1NT:

I'd like a pony...
(Doesn't mean that I am willing to pay for one)

Simple piece of advice: Consider what the acronym "DONT" stands for: Disturbing the Opponent's NT

If you're competing over a strong NT, don't waste time trying to bid that impossible slam...
On a practical basis, those hands don't come up often enough to worry about
(For that matter, hands where you want to bid game don't come up often to worry about)

Personally, I want

1. A system where I can overcall frequently
2. The puts maximum pressure on the opponents
3. That is hard to penalize

For this reason, I prefer Lionel

3♣ = both minors, weak
2N = various big two suiters
2♠ = spades
2♥ = hearts
2♦ = Diamonds and Hearts
2♣ = Clubs and Hearts
X = Spades and another

Almost all of the bids are non-forcing. They show length in the suit being bid and will often be passed.
This means that LHO needs to immediately decide whether or not to take action (Much more pressure on the opponents)

When I show a two suited hand, my partner will often know precisely which two suits I am showing.
Partner is a bit more in the dark when we hold the master suit, but you can afford not to preempt as much when you hold Spades.

[fromageGB]

32519, on 2012-February-26, 23:08, said:

I lump all the distributional hands with 5-10 HCP into the 2♣ bid. So I'm still competing for a part score battle. If a fit is found and partner has some values, probing further reverts to partner. With these sorts of hands I can still push the bidding up. As there is no anchor suit, nothing prevents me from bidding 2♣ holding 5/4 in the majors.

I agree with Adam. I am not concerned about the game hands, let alone the slam hands. I want multiple bids that show the hand types I have, and my objective is to compete the part scores. Admittedly I have a lousy memory, but I can remember only one time there was a possible (missed) game our way, and many, many times there wasn't. This may be a matchpoint opinion, but I value frequency more than game tries.

If you lump ALL "competitive" hands into one bid, yes you "compete" but you have no hope of reaching a sensible contract.

[fromageGB]

benlessard, on 2012-February-27, 05:05, said:

Why with 5S/4H you would pass 2h ? 2H should show willingness to play in the M so with both M you just pass or bid S if S is longer.

When I play Vertigo X as 4M5m or both majors, my advancer bids are (in simple form)
2♣ = denies a 4 card major
2♦ = 4 spades denying 4 hearts
2♥ = 4 hearts and NOT denying 4 spades, but equally can be void in spades.
2♠ = to play, at least 5 spades.
So as doubler if I have 54xx I have to pass 2♥.

In a more complex statement, as advancer has to cater for all possible doubler shapes, the replies given above are not absolute. 2♣ effectively means "bid your 5 card suit (pass if clubs)", so does not categorically deny a major. I gave an example earlier where the sequence is (1NT) X (p) 2♣, (p) 2♦ (p) 2♥. As the 2♦ bid guarantees a 4 card major, the 2♥ is to play in the major, such as a (43)15 advancer shape opposite a (4x)5x doubler.

Ben, I am interested in your reversed Vertigo, where 2m is 4M5m, and X is 5M4other.
What are your advancer's replies to this double?