[Dinarius]

I am curious to know what readers are playing against the 1NT opening, strong or weak.

I guess you might call it a poll of sorts.

The choice is manifold, indeed mind-boggling, you might say.

I've looked at...

Anti
http://www.bridgeguy...t_no_trump.html

Landy and Astro
http://www.bridgeweb...eden/1NTDEF.pdf

Multi-Landy
http://www.glasnevin...d-26/index.html

Cappelletti
http://www.bridgeguy...appelletti.html

Modified Cappelletti
http://www.bridgeguy...tiModified.html

Acol 2NT
http://www.bridgeguy...nse_method.html

These are the handful I've read up on.

There a loads of them listed here> http://www.bridgeguy...se_methods.html

So, which do you play and why?

Do you use any tweaks?

What part does point count/losing trick count play?

How do you vary it for vulnerability and weak or strong NT?

Any other comments?

Thanks.

D.

[mikeh]

Against strong 1N, I play different methods according to what my partner prefers, but in descending order of preference, with preferred at the top:

- multi-landy
- Molson (see below)
- suction

Molson:

Double: either clubs, or a major or both majors. Partner will usually bid 2♣ to find out
2m = 4+ in the minor and 5+ in a major
2M = 4 cards in the major and a longer minor.

When I first played Molson, my thought was that the 2M is very dangerous, since it forces to the 3-level when responder can't fit the major. I still see that as a big issue, but in real life (admittedly not against top-level opps playing together) it works remarkably well and I can't recall going for a number. I wouldn't play it against a WC partnership, because I do think it is disaster-prone, and it would drop to the bottom of the list in that scenario.


Against weak Notrump, I like:

double: almost any 15+, and some 14's with a good lead
2♣: majors
2♦/♥: transfers
2♠: both minors
2N: good 6+ minor, solid opening values, usually no more than 13 hcp
3 bids: natural, semi-preemptive, good suit

I really think that against strong 1N it is important to be able to bid as many 2-suited hands as possible, to maximize the chance of being able to interfere with what is, for most players, their most comfortable constructive beginning. Multi landy isn't that strong in that area, but the ambiguity of the 2 diamond overcall offsets that to some degree. Any time one can create doubt in the minds of the opps, after a strong 1N, without creating excessive risk, one is ahead.

Against a weak notrump, it is more important, than against a strong one, to have the ability to play for a penalty. It is also less important to disrupt their auctions, and more important to be able to have constructive values. I have bid a slam after a weak 1N opening against us: I have never so much as tried for slam after a strong 1N. What's true for slams is even more true for games.

Thus, my view is that the values for overcalling a weak notrump are never less than the values for overcalling a strong 1N. As a player who plays a lot of weak 1N, I enjoy opps who stretch to overcall. When their partner has values, he or she is now guessing: if partner has a real overcall, they need to move towards game, but if he or she has stretched, they need to stay low, and on average they will guess wrong 50% of the time. I like those odds, since the 1N opening is so well defined that responder is rarely guessing to anything like the same degree.

[cherdano]

I like Landy (2C = majors) and penalty double better than many artificial systems.

[manudude03]

I prefer multi-landy against weak NT. I tend to play the same against a strong NT except double is either a single suited minor, or a 5m/4M (Woolsey) depending on partner. A common defense here is 2C= clubs or clubs/M, 2D= diamonds or diamonds/M, but I don't like it since advancer can't really find out about the major without some semblance of a fit in the minor.

[akwoo]

My preference is Meckwell against strong NT and Aspstro against weak NT.

(Meckwell is 2M=natural, 2m=minor+some major (5/4 either way), X=one minor or both majors)

Against strong NT, I want to be able to bid 2♠ (and to a lesser extent 2♥) as often as possible. Yes it's true that 2 suiters are more common than 1 suiters, but you need a good deal of strength to bid 2M on a 2 suiter. NV, I would be happy to bid 2♠, natural, on ♠KQTxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxx, but reluctant to bid 2♠, showing a 2 suiter, on ♠KQTxx ♥x ♦QJxx ♣xxx. With the strength restriction, I think natural shows up more frequently.

Probably the value of a weaker 2♠ natural bid is diminished if opps play Lebensohl or some such, but that's a minority, even among the better players, around here.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-August-26, 10:02, said:

I like Landy (2C = majors) and penalty double better than many artificial systems.

I know some other good players who agree with you. Anecdotal information is of little statistical relevance, but I still distinctly recall playing in the CNTC round-robin back in 1995. Our team-mates played as you prefer....Landy and penalty doubles. Faced with a reasonable 5=5 spades and a minor, but with a much better minor than spades, our teammate passed red v white. The opps bid to 3 of the other minor, to play, and went -50. At our table we didn't find the -500 save against their cold 4♠, reached easily after a 2♠ call showing spades and a minor.

While that one was frustrating, it is far from the only hand on which landy is simply giving up. It isn't as if playing 2♣ as natural has much disruptive value...it is trivial to double as stayman, and one can either use 2 level suits as natural or play system on, depending on preference. Bidding over strong notrumps should, imo, be as much about causing them problems as it is about finding our contract. Imo, Landy is probably the least disruptive defensive convention of all time

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-August-26, 12:11, said:

I know some other good players who agree with you. Anecdotal information is of little statistical relevance, but I still distinctly recall playing in the CNTC round-robin back in 1995. Our team-mates played as you prefer....Landy and penalty doubles. Faced with a reasonable 5=5 spades and a minor, but with a much better minor than spades, our teammate passed red v white. The opps bid to 3 of the other minor, to play, and went -50. At our table we didn't find the -500 save against their cold 4♠, reached easily after a 2♠ call showing spades and a minor.

While that one was frustrating, it is far from the only hand on which landy is simply giving up. It isn't as if playing 2♣ as natural has much disruptive value...it is trivial to double as stayman, and one can either use 2 level suits as natural or play system on, depending on preference. Bidding over strong notrumps should, imo, be as much about causing them problems as it is about finding our contract. Imo, Landy is probably the least disruptive defensive convention of all time

I agree with you that it is worth having a way to show 2-suiters. But IMO opinion it is very questionable if that means long-winded auctions for our most frequent and effective action, showing a single major. I hate auctions like

(1N) 2D = one major (2N = some sort of Lebensohl or transfer to clubs)

Now advancer cannot compete unless he has a fit for both majors.

I also hate transfers, especially against strong NT - good partnerships will be able to make both takeout and penalty doubles (plus have various options to compete).

Finally, I think 2-suited bids showing a major + a minor are overvalued. Take 2M = 5-card major with a 4+card minor. How often will you play in the minor after that auction? 10% of the time? I'd rather optimize my agreements for the frequent case, namely the 2M overcall.

P.S.: When I have no way to show a 2-suited hand, I will often bid 2M with just a 5-card suit. It's no big difference to 2M = 5/4+ minor anyway (see above).

[rmnka447]

I play with several partners and have different agreements with each.

Maybe I'm the iconoclast here, but I think it's just as important to learn when to compete as to worry about how to compete.

Against Strong NTs, I play DONT, Capelletti, or all natural depending on the partner.

Against Weak NTs, I play Capelletti or all natural depending on the partner.

Frankly, I don't see much difference in results whatever method you use. So I'd advise selecting something you feel comfortable playing and just use it.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-August-26, 12:27, said:

I agree with you that it is worth having a way to show 2-suiters. But IMO opinion it is very questionable if that means long-winded auctions for our most frequent and effective action, showing a single major. I hate auctions like

(1N) 2D = one major (2N = some sort of Lebensohl or transfer to clubs)

Now advancer cannot compete unless he has a fit for both majors.

I also hate transfers, especially against strong NT - good partnerships will be able to make both takeout and penalty doubles (plus have various options to compete).

Finally, I think 2-suited bids showing a major + a minor are overvalued. Take 2M = 5-card major with a 4+card minor. How often will you play in the minor after that auction? 10% of the time? I'd rather optimize my agreements for the frequent case, namely the 2M overcall.

P.S.: When I have no way to show a 2-suited hand, I will often bid 2M with just a 5-card suit. It's no big difference to 2M = 5/4+ minor anyway (see above).

Valid points, especially the problem that arises if they bid over our 'multi' 2♦ overcall.

In response, my views are:

1. it isn't that often that they will compete with 2N or a 3-level method of showing a minor without having to have gf strength. It happens, but not most of the time. For example, they may have the other major and show it, or they may have a stayman hand, even with a longer minor, and use double as stayman. When they do have a gf hand, we may well not have a viable save anyway so haven't lost much, if anything.

However, these arguments serve only to reduce the downside, and are of no value unless we see an upside

2. There is strong reason to think that creating ambiguity for the opps can cause some discomfort a lot of the time and a huge problem a small percentage of the time. Both are desirable: witness the occasional humorous (for observers and one of the pairs at the table) problems that arise after a multi 2♦ opening, when the majors are split something like 6=5=1=1, with each player holding a long major being convinced that the opps hold the other.

3. Given my view that the primary objective over a strong 1N is to cause the opps problems, rather than to bid constructively, it follows that I'd give relatively more weight to the positives in 2 than the negatives in 1.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2015-August-26, 12:11, said:

I know some other good players who agree with you. Anecdotal information is of little statistical relevance, but I still distinctly recall playing in the CNTC round-robin back in 1995. Our team-mates played as you prefer....Landy and penalty doubles. Faced with a reasonable 5=5 spades and a minor, but with a much better minor than spades, our teammate passed red v white. The opps bid to 3 of the other minor, to play, and went -50. At our table we didn't find the -500 save against their cold 4♠, reached easily after a 2♠ call showing spades and a minor.

While that one was frustrating, it is far from the only hand on which landy is simply giving up.

It sounds to me as though your teammates gave up. Once responder signed off in three of a minor, couldn't your guy bid 3♠, which obviously shows spades and the other minor?

[kenrexford]

I obviously prefer my "Overcalling Opponent's 1NT" methods (see MPP Honors or Amazon). Different options therein for different ranges.

[apollo1201]

I currently play sth close to multi Landy against strong NT with X being a minor one-suited. Same against weak except that X is now penalty and minors are shown at the 3 level (or I strech a little and X after all I have a good lead). I used to play DONT and had lots of fun with it but it is a bit imprecise and you can't have very constructive auctions (and the X for one suited gets easily overbid when respondent moves while advancer does not know the suit). It has a great advantage though against strong NT: high frequency and you find an acceptable spot (not necessarily the best, though) at the 2 level which limits the risks against an opponent who has 15-17.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2015-August-26, 14:49, said:

It sounds to me as though your teammates gave up. Once responder signed off in three of a minor, couldn't your guy bid 3♠, which obviously shows spades and the other minor?

I don't remember the hand, but I think it was a case in which responder didn't announce weakness. As I say, I don't recall, but it may well have been a transfer by responder, dropped after completion. (1N) P (2N) P (3♦) is not exactly an auction one wants to come in on red v white on a hand unable to risk a 2-level action.

Plus, and this is not based on any data, merely a suspicion, that there is a correlation, not a 100% correlation, between willingness to play complex methods over 1N and aggression, and a corresponding correlation between wanting to keep it simple and being conservative. I ask Arend not to take offence...I do not include him in my database And I am generally conservative, but like gadgets over their notrump (and that is actually an area where I am more on the aggressive side, I think).

Btw, I am not entirely convinced that a delayed 3M in that sequence 'obviously shows the major and the other minor. Maybe it shows Jxxxxxx(x) and not much outside, placing hcp in partner's hand, assuming that responder has had a chance to evince weakness. In my experience, it is dangerous to make bids on the assumption that partner must be able to work things out. We tend to allow what we hold to influence how obvious something is. The longer one has played with a partner (or played against him) the safer the assumption, but rarely does it become risk-free.

[Vampyr]

With my regular partner I play Multi-Landy against weak NT and X=mm, MM or ♦ against strong.

[Trick13]

HELLO. You have a penalty double, and can show all 1-suited and 2-suited hands. With a M/m 2-suiter you sometimes end in 3m when you would have preferred to be in 2m. If a passed hand or under a strong NT, the double is no longer penalty and gives you better definition.

[helene_t]

Meyerson against strong and Multi-Landy against baby, but I would treat 13-15 as strong and quite possibly also 12-14.

I know this sounds crazy but my experience from playing lots of club bridge (mostly 3x per week) over the last eight years in an almost exclusively weak-nt country is that the penalty double is not very succesful. It doesn't come up very often and when it comes up I don't think it works much better than just passing with the strong balanced hands. On the other hand, not having double available to show two-suited hands more accurately costs tons of mathcpoints.

Also, if you want to keep things simple, please don't play different systems depending on opps range. Besides, as a passed hand you obviously don't play penalty doubles so you might chose something that makes sense by a passed hand and then just play that system throughout.

If you play multi/muiderberg, you may consider playing a passed-hand structure that catters to the nice shapely hand which you can have as a passed hand, for example:

x=clubs or 5d/4M or 4H/5S
2c= 5c/4other
2d=5d/4+c
2H=5H/4+S

But of course you don't want to play this as an unpassed hand as it doesn't have a way to show major one-suiters.

[Zelandakh]

I have played a lot of different NT defences over the years but mostly Multi-Landy and Asptro in recent times. My favourite as a junior over a weak NT was an unusual variant of Cansino and Sharples - probably not sound but it worked surprisingly well:-

X = penalty
2♣ = ♥+♠ or ♦+♥+♠
2♦ = 3-suited with clubs
2M = natural

My current favourite is a mix of Multi-Landy, Asptro and French:-

X = vs weak, penalty; vs strong, ♥+♠+♣ or ♥+♠ (longer/better ♠) or ♥+longer minor (NB: always ♥)
2♣ = ♦+♥+♠ or ♥+♠ (longer/better ♥ when vs strong NT) or ♠+longer minor (NB: always ♠)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2M = 5M and 4+ minor

I tend not to be a fan of 2-suited schemes that sacrifice the ability to differentiate between 5M4m and 4M5m and you should be wary of statements to the effect that a defence can "show all 2-suited hands" without this differentiation. Being able to show some 3-suited hands can also be useful if there is spare capacity in the structure. In terms of being able to show everything, the best method is, for me, the strong NT version of French but that suffers from the same issue - hence my modifications.

Some other unusual ideas for mainstream methods are adding strong 2-suiters to the multi-2♦ overcall of Multi-Landy or "Middlesexing" Asptro so that 2m shows 4M5+m, 4M4♦4♣ or 6+M and 2M is 5M4+m. Obviously both of these have significant downsides but the point is to show that there is still space for plenty of creativity in this area.

My suggestion is to write down priorities in 2 lists, one for weak NT and the other for strong, and then try to match existing system to those lists. If you can find one method to use against both then you are done. If not but you find a strong preference for one then consider playing these two with clear rules as to when each applies. Or if you find 2 candidate systems for a given category, either choose one or think about how you could adapt the best parts of both together into one method.

As you can tell from the discussion, even amongst good players there are different opinions on the relative importance of various factors and that is part of the reason why there is such a wide range of options to choose from. It is therefore something of a personal choice in which direction to go. As a default, I would suggest Multi-Landy has the best balance of simplicity and activity for intermediates-advanced players. Beginners are probably better off sticking to Landy or natural and experts ought to be able to decide for themselves!

[Dinarius]

Thanks for the replies. Obviously, much to ponder.

A few observations....

Playing two systems, mostly to preserve the Dbl against 12-14, and make better use of it against strong NT, is interesting, if complicated. But, it appears to have quite a few advocates.

In the first reply, Mikeh mentions a defence called Molson. This is the one defence not listed in the Bridgeguys very extensive list. Does it go by another name that might be listed there?

Finally, Multi-Landy appears to have a lot of advocates, and this concurs with feedback I have received when posing the question in other circles - but, this is totally un-scientific in survey terms.

Keep them coming!

D.

[mgoetze]

I like to play Multilandy against weak NT and Woolsey (also known in Poland as Jassem) against strong NT - the main advantage being that all the bids except double have the same meaning so there is less to discuss. I do have sympathy for cherdano's objections but have not run into enough problems in practice to want to change.

You'll also find this thread from 2008 interesting: http://www.bridgebas...ions-to-woolsey
(Found via my Systems Index: http://bridge.mgoetze.net/bbf.html )

[fromageGB]

I'm happy to play suits natural (5 cards expected) and double for majors, 2NT for minors. Double is much better than 2♣ for majors because it always enables the best fit to be found. Like Helene I play mainly against weak NT and do not miss a penalty double. Having played M+m methods, I find they have a disadvantage in that they are too descriptive when you don't buy the contract, and that bidding the longer works OK. As well as this, having to not show a long minor grates, when you don't want to bid at the 3-level.

A point to make with regard to weak NT is that it is THEIR hand more often than yours. All very well finding games and slams, but obstruction rather than construction is certainly better at matchpoints. Overcalls do therefore not guarantee particular strength, but show length and a suit that can be used for attack. Maybe a different approach in IMPS, and then 2m = that m + any 5M is preferable, together with a minimum point count in the immediate overcall position.

A different system for different scoring methods, not a different system for different vulnerabilities.