[eagles123]

Hi all,

So I know this is a very general question, but

1 - what defence would you recommend to 1NT and why
2 - what defence would you recommend to 1NT DBL and why

Thanks,

Eagles123


edit meant DBL not RDBL sorry

[the_clown]

Hi,

1. I would recommend using 2♣ to show both majors 2NT to show both minors, DBL to show 15+ HCP, and all other bids are natural. After 2♣ your partner may bid 2♦ to ask for your better major. This is very simple defence which will work very well most of the time.

2.If I understand correctly partner open 1NT and they doubled. I would suggest that all your bids now are natural and weak. With a good hand you can redouble or pass 1NTX.

[daveharty]

I second the_clown's recommendation for playing what is basically the "Landy" convention over the opponents' 1NT. 2C to show both majors is, IMO, much better than using 2D for the same purpose as in Cappelletti/Hamilton; and using a direct 2M overcall as natural can be very disruptive to the opponents' bidding machinery. If you live in the land of strong NT like I do, and would prefer to have a different use for double (since the frequency of having a 15+ hand will be pretty low), you might consider having double show a major/minor two suiter.

Not sure I agree about what to do if the opponents double our 1NT. Easiest would be to simply ignore the double and play systems on, with the following addition: redouble asks partner to bid 2C, either to pass or correct to 2D. That way any weak one suited hand can get out at the two level.

[Cthulhu D]

Its really helpful to state if you play in a jurisdiction with weak or strong NTs, and whether you play a weak or strong NT.

On the basis that you're English, and thus the weak NT abounds:

Defence to opponents 1NT: I'd second the clown's recommendation of 'Landy' - X = Strong, 2C = both majors, 2NT = minors, else as natural. Alternatively, consider playing Multi Landy, which is X = Strong, 2C = Both majors, 2D = Hearts or Spades, 2H = Hearts + a minor, 2S = Spades + a minor, 2NT = both minors, 3C/D/H/S = natural. Multi Landy is probably a bit more to remember, and the gains in practice are not huge, so there is a good case for simple Landy being all you need.

Runouts from 1NTx: This is a bit harder, a simple natural system is probably not ideal. Pass = To play, and if responder bids/doubles again it's forcing, 2C = majors, 2D/H/S natural, XX = Clubs or diamonds is probably a good system.

If you want to do some more reading/research, David Stephenson's site has an excellent library of options:

Defence to opponents 1NT: http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm
Escapes from 1NTx: http://www.blakjak.d...uk/dbl_1nt0.htm

[Zelandakh]

My basic recommendations, at least against a weak NT tend to be:
Novice and Beginner: natural
Better Beginner/low Intermediate: Landy
Better Intermediate: Multi-Landy
Advanced: You should be able to choose your own by this stage! (but I usually plug my method if someone asks )

For reference, Landy is as described above, a 2♣ overcall shows the majors and otherwise natural. Multi-Landy keeps the same 2♣ overcall but adds an artifical 2♦ overcall to this showing either major. That frees up the 2 of a major overcalls to show 2-suiters of the major bid plus a minor. You can play these bids in various ways but my recommendation is to keep the major suit length at 5 (with 4+ in the minor). Playing it as 4+ in the major is just too difficult and awkward.

Against a strong NT it is a little more difficult to give recommendations since the choice is wider but I would suggest keeping things exactly the same for N/B/low I for simplicity. Those playing Multi-Landy could also continue with a penalty double but another decent option is to use it for the 4 card major with longer minor hands that I suggested excluding from the 2♥ and 2♠ overcalls.

Options for when we open 1NT and they double is a common theme for threads on BBF. My favourite method is Spelvic, which is comparatively complex and aimed at Advanced players. For Novices I think the best is just to play natural. A reasonable upgrade on this for Beginners that usually works is to give up the XX to show a weak hand with no suit to show, followed by naturla run-outs. It is not what one would call a good method but it is simple. Better is to play XX as showing a 1-suiter and direct bids are 2-suited...but this is also more open to a misunderstanding. Another option here would be to play complete system on but sacrifice the XX to show a weak hand with a minor. Again, this is a difficult area to give advice for to inexperienced players because what matters most is what you find logical and therefore will not forget!

The next stage up from these methods is the class of methods where pass forces a redouble. Many players do not like these because they do not allow you to play 1NTX, which might be your best option. On the other hand, these methods make it more likely that you will find the best suit contract at the 2 level. It is often a wash but my experience (with a weak NT) is that the suit run-out is better more often than 1NTX. Spelvic is a method from this class, as is the more popular Helvic. The majority of these methods are aimed at high Intermediates and above. It is ok to consider them but do not do so at the expense of more fundamental improvements.

[Free]

Defense against 1NT: this is difficult and depends a lot on what the players are capable of. It doesn't matter much as long as you have a way to show both Majors (preferably 2♣).

Defense against 1NT-(Dbl): I'm convinced that this is the best approach:
pass = suggestion to play
RDbl = SOS, bid something (scrambling to a 4-3 or better fit)
2X = natural and NF

[steve2005]

 Free, on 2013-March-05, 05:07, said:

Defense against 1NT-(Dbl): I'm convinced that this is the best approach:
pass = suggestion to play
RDbl = SOS, bid something (scrambling to a 4-3 or better fit)
2X = natural and NF

This is pretty well the only method listed, where you can be weak and try to find a 4-4 fit. This is an important method to escape.

Zelandakh gives "Better is to play XX as showing a 1-suiter and direct bids are 2-suited...but this is also more open to a misunderstanding" yes, playable but i would think prone to a mistake where opener forgets and think responder a 1-suiter

What if the double is artificial? Then I still want to play normal system, but double could be converted for penalty. So, I think you need a system which can escape using extra bids of pass and redouble while other bids retain their normal meaning.

Redouble->puppet to 2♣ to escape to long minor
Pass->asks opener to show a 5-card suit, with none opener redoubles
After redouble-> responder passes to play in 1NXX
-> responder bids 4+ card suits up the line till a 4-3 or better fit is found

by no means perfect but relatively simple.
doesnt handle weak 4333 hands very well
unable to penalize opponents with 1N opener having 5 card suit and responder strong

[Free]

 steve2005, on 2013-March-05, 08:41, said:

This is pretty well the only method listed, where you can be weak and try to find a 4-4 fit. This is an important method to escape.

Zelandakh gives "Better is to play XX as showing a 1-suiter and direct bids are 2-suited...but this is also more open to a misunderstanding" yes, playable but i would think prone to a mistake where opener forgets and think responder a 1-suiter

What if the double is artificial? Then I still want to play normal system, but double could be converted for penalty. So, I think you need a system which can escape using extra bids of pass and redouble while other bids retain their normal meaning.

Redouble->puppet to 2♣ to escape to long minor
Pass->asks opener to show a 5-card suit, with none opener redoubles
After redouble-> responder passes to play in 1NXX
-> responder bids 4+ card suits up the line till a 4-3 or better fit is found

by no means perfect but relatively simple.
doesnt handle weak 4333 hands very well
unable to penalize opponents with 1N opener having 5 card suit and responder strong

Forgot to mention this apparently. The runout system I suggested is only valid after a strong Dbl. Whenever opps play an artificial Dbl we try to play system on (unless Dbl is very specific and we have a certain defense against that).

The point of a runout system is to find a playable spot and put pressure on opps so they have a hard time deciding if they have to penalize us, let us play or fight the part score battle. Let us compare:
Pass = suggestion to play: puts tremendous pressure on 4th hand. Responder can pass hoping to go -1, make the contract or even make overtricks. 4th seat can sit when we make or bid when we would go down. And if he bids we may have some juicy penalty.
2X = natural, non forcing: again puts pressure on opps. Although the doubler can also bid in this case, we're in a situation similar to a weak two, while everyone knows we have at least a 7 card fit.
RDbl = sos, scramble into a fit: this is the most flexible way to find a playable spot. It not only suggests spots of our own, it allows opener to show his suit first. Moreover, a 4333 doesn't have a bidding problem (as opposed to systems where 2X shows some 2-suiter, which is played by many pairs).

Compared with:
Redouble = puppet to 2♣ to escape to long minor: this gives opps lots of room to investigate if they have to penalize or to find their best contract. Opps have several occasions to bid, while we can only signoff in a minor (which usually means they have some fit in the Majors).
Pass = asks opener to show a 5-card suit, with none opener redoubles: this gives you the opportunity to play 1NTxx, however in my experience opps will run away. Also it's not possible to play 1NTx. If you have the impression that 1NT will be borderline, then playing it redoubled is a huge gamble, while playing 1NTx-1 is usually acceptable. The obvious flaw is when opener has a 5 card suit while responder wants to play 1NTxx. Scrambling into a fit is similar to my immediate RDbl, however you know that opener doesn't have a 5 card suit, which is a plus.
Transfer to Major: instead of signing off in 2M, again you give opps extra space by having to transfer
Note: you have your entire system available. This could be useful on occasion, although I haven't invited or bid games a lot after opps Dbl.

[Vampyr]

 Free, on 2013-March-05, 09:05, said:

Also it's not possible to play 1NTx.

I agree that not being able to play this contract is a huge flaw in any runout system.

[eagles123]

Thanks guys some very useful advice here

One bit I don't understand:

Quote

It's not possible to play 1NTx

I'm not sure why this matters: surely you won't play 1NTx as some kind of sacrifice? So if you expect it to make then why does it matter if X or XX?

Thanks

Eagles123

[mycroft]

My response to that is I'm sure reasonably easy to find, but the short:

Yes, I use 1NTx as a sacrifice. -100 is a *great* MP score, and even if they *could* take 8 tricks, they likely won't. -200 less so. Similarly, -300 vs game is pretty nice, at both vul even -500; -600 less so.

Defences where I can't play 1NTxx but can play 1NTx I don't like; but I'm willing to, especially at MPs where there is likely to be little difference between +380 and +760.

There are pluses and minuses in all defences; forcing them to defend perfectly to get a good score, any slip gets a horrible one is usually in our favour.

[steve2005]

the reason you want to play in 1N XX is: if responder has a big hand so that 3N or some other game contract make 50% of time or more you may have to blast to a 50% game rather than playing in 1N X for 380 losing MP's to a game if it makes.
A sure 1N redoubled will give a top board, but maybe thats a pipe dream. Will opponents actually sit for double? it has happened.

[Cthulhu D]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-05, 12:00, said:

Thanks guys some very useful advice here

One bit I don't understand:



I'm not sure why this matters: surely you won't play 1NTx as some kind of sacrifice? So if you expect it to make then why does it matter if X or XX?

Thanks

Eagles123

It's a good sacrifice against a part score board making at MPs, but also if I think the HCP are split relatively evenly, I'm much more comfortable playing 1NTx than 1NTxx at IMPs. It means that if XX is penalties or something you can also bid with more confidence in auctions starting 1NT-X-XX rather than if Pass forces XX. I also like that frequently the opponents will let you off the hook after an auction like:

1NT (11-13) - X - P (Alert!) - ??

RHO will ask about the alert (promises some values, but not enough to force to game), tank for ages and then run out somewhere.

[Vampyr]

 steve2005, on 2013-March-05, 16:07, said:

the reason you want to play in 1N XX is: if responder has a big hand so that 3N or some other game contract make 50% of time or more you may have to blast to a 50% game rather than playing in 1N X for 380 losing MP's to a game if it makes.
A sure 1N redoubled will give a top board, but maybe thats a pipe dream. Will opponents actually sit for double? it has happened.

I like to be able to play in 1NTX and 1NTXX, so I just play natural runouts over weak NT (I do prefer strong NT in third at teams). I have only played 1NTXX once; the real advantage of redoubling for blood is that you can get juicy penalties when they run -- players who might be content to defend 1NTX sometimes lose their bottle when the blue card appears.

If I had to choose, though, I would choose being able to play in 1NTX on grounds of frequency, and on the fact that when the contract is not making you may get a good, OK, or at least not disasterous score.

[eagles123]

Thanks guys makes sense now

[Zelandakh]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-05, 12:00, said:

I'm not sure why this matters: surely you won't play 1NTx as some kind of sacrifice? So if you expect it to make then why does it matter if X or XX?

I tried to deal with this a little in my earlier post (#5). 1NT going down can still be your best contract here. It does happen that you can make 5 or 6 tricks both in NT and your best suit contract. More often you take precisely one more trick in the suit contract than 1NT and it makes no difference. My experience is that the suit runout is better than 1NTX more often than 1NTX is better than the suit runout but I can easily understand those who find the reverse is true.

Incidentally, Free mentioned that weak 4333 hands have a problem in the 2-suited methods. There is a simple solution to this which I have incorporated into my version of Spelvic. If you have such a weak 4333 hand then you treat it as if it had one club extra. Then you redouble if 2♣ comes back doubled. You give up on the SOS Redouble (showing ♦, ♥ and ♠) this way but that hand can be shown a different way so it is not a major loss (in Spelvic one bids 2♦ to show diamonds and spades, then corrects 2♦ to 2♥ if 2♦ comes back doubled).

What Cthulhu says is correct, in as much as weak players will let you off the hook no matter which defence you are playing. You cannot rely on this against better players though. Also, the proposed defence, playing Pass as values and XX as more values, does not seem to address any of the problems. You still have to run with a weak 4333 hand and now you do not have the tools to deal with it at all. If you are going to play a method where both Pass and XX are natural then I think that Pass should merely be that you think 1NTX is likely to be the best spot.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-March-06, 02:41, said:

You still have to run with a weak 4333 hand and now you do not have the tools to deal with it at all. If you are going to play a method where both Pass and XX are natural then I think that Pass should merely be that you think 1NTX is likely to be the best spot.

If your methods are that Pass is to play you don't run with a weak 4333.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-06, 09:33, said:

If your methods are that Pass is to play you don't run with a weak 4333.

I was responding to this:

 Cthulhu D, on 2013-March-05, 23:10, said:

1NT (11-13) - X - P (Alert!) - ??
RHO will ask about the alert (promises some values, but not enough to force to game), tank for ages and then run out somewhere.

If you are not running with a weak 4333 hand then the alert and description would represent MI.

[mycroft]

The correct explanation is "partner believes that our best chance for a good score is to (attempt to) play 1NTx." Here's a situation where not having a natural XX is helpful; partner *could* have a hand that expects to make it - with overtricks - as well as one that expects/might to go down less than their score, and of course the one where we hope the opponents will save us from 500 and up in anything.

And yes, I've had 1NTxx (to play) sat for: I have several +760s and 1160s, and even one 2360 (and we needed that last overtrick; with flat 13 opposite flat 11, somebody bid and made 6Mxx!) We've also gone -400 on a combined 27-count; missing ♠AKQJxxx, though...