[shugart24]

Why does AWM think HELLO isn't the best defense to NT and what does he like?

[mw64ahw]

shugart24, on 2024-December-12, 09:25, said:

Why does AWM think HELLO isn't the best defense to NT and what does he like?

It may not be the best, but it has a number of strong recommendations from Hardy, Roswell, Soloway etc. I have managed to extended it further which adds utility on shapely hands.

'My search for the best defence against the opponent's notrump opening and overcall came to a successful conclusion she I was introduced to HELLO, which I now use to teach to all of my students.' - Max Hardy

'Max considered HELLO the best overall convention for defending against notrump opening bids ... and I still do.' - Mary Hardy 10 years later.

I also like Multi-Landy because of the 2♣ bid and the Woolsey extension when not playing opposite a weak NT.

Compared to what I see played locally it provides a genuine advantage over the simpler methods and we frequently pick up imps on the field.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

define your objectives, than you know, what is best.

Looking at HELLO
https://en.wikipedia...ello_convention

By design, in many cases, the advancer will become declarer, thus placing the strong 1NT hand on opening lead.


Looking at it, not knowing AWMs points, the following comes to mind, how you rate it, is up to you:

#1 Usage of X as penalty ... you need to decide for yourself, if you need a penalty double, or not
Using X as penalty reduces the number of shapes you are able to show, but you have a penalty X, helping your
constructive bidding, useful, if psyching a strong NT is common, or if you want to play the same defence against
all NT ranges for memory sake

#2 Usage of 2♦ / 2NT as transfer

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

On the most basic level, I think responder will often take a (non-pass) call when we bid over the 1NT opening. I want to make responder's life as difficult as possible.

Transfers as a defense are really poor, because they give responder multiple chances to act. I don't think "putting opener on lead" is nearly enough compensation for making responder's life very easy in the auction. Hello incorporates "2♦ transfer to hearts."

When making a nebulous bid, I've had much better results with bids that show an "unknown two-suiter" rather than including one or more one-suited hands, because partner is able to act with a much wider range of hands. For example, in Hello 2♣ shows diamonds or a major-minor two suiter. This means that if the auction goes (1NT)-2♣-(2♠ to play) then advancer can only act with a fit for diamonds (even that may not be enough). You could easily defend 2♠ with a nine-card heart fit when overcaller has ♥+♦ and advancer has not many diamonds. If (for example) 2♣ showed a major and a minor, then advancer could double on a wide range of hands with hearts (expecting partner usually has hearts and if not opponents may be in big trouble in spades) as well as bidding 2NT on hands with support for both minors.

I also believe it's quite useful to be able to show both majors with 5-4 hands and get to the better fit. This suggests that 2♣ for majors is much better than 2♥ for majors (or some multi-meaning bid that includes both majors). A lot of opponents also don't seem to have the best methods against 2♣ for majors.

Putting this together, what I play against strong notrump is:

X = 5+/4+ with a major and a minor (either can be longer)
2♣ = both majors
2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural

With partners who don't know/like this defense, I'm okay with Woolsey/Multi-Landy.

[shugart24]

awm, on 2024-December-12, 11:18, said:

On the most basic level, I think responder will often take a (non-pass) call when we bid over the 1NT opening. I want to make responder's life as difficult as possible.

Transfers as a defense are really poor, because they give responder multiple chances to act. I don't think "putting opener on lead" is nearly enough compensation for making responder's life very easy in the auction. Hello incorporates "2♦ transfer to hearts."

When making a nebulous bid, I've had much better results with bids that show an "unknown two-suiter" rather than including one or more one-suited hands, because partner is able to act with a much wider range of hands. For example, in Hello 2♣ shows diamonds or a major-minor two suiter. This means that if the auction goes (1NT)-2♣-(2♠ to play) then advancer can only act with a fit for diamonds (even that may not be enough). You could easily defend 2♠ with a nine-card heart fit when overcaller has ♥+♦ and advancer has not many diamonds. If (for example) 2♣ showed a major and a minor, then advancer could double on a wide range of hands with hearts (expecting partner usually has hearts and if not opponents may be in big trouble in spades) as well as bidding 2NT on hands with support for both minors.

I also believe it's quite useful to be able to show both majors with 5-4 hands and get to the better fit. This suggests that 2♣ for majors is much better than 2♥ for majors (or some multi-meaning bid that includes both majors). A lot of opponents also don't seem to have the best methods against 2♣ for majors.

Putting this together, what I play against strong notrump is:

X = 5+/4+ with a major and a minor (either can be longer)
2♣ = both majors
2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural

With partners who don't know/like this defense, I'm okay with Woolsey/Multi-Landy.

And for weak NT defense ? What would you consider to be the strongest weak range ? 13-15 ? eg. where's the switch to go to one or the other NT defense ?

[awm]

What we play is:

X = 15+
2♣ = either a 4-card major and a longer minor, or both majors
2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural
2NT = good with clubs
3♣ = weak with clubs

We use this defense when opener could have less than 14. I'm not actually convinced that it's best (we don't encounter that much weak notrump) but it has worked okay when it comes up.

[ulven]

awm, on 2024-December-12, 11:18, said:

Putting this together, what I play against strong notrump is:

X = 5+/4+ with a major and a minor (either can be longer)
2♣ = both majors
2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural

This is what I play also, but 2♣ is Stayman, so includes 3-suiters with SHO ♣.

[mycroft]

I dislike leaning on the minimum, especially a 14 minimum.

There are too many people playing "14-16" for whom the question: "So, how many 13s do you open 1NT?" has an answer other than "very rare". And now I don't know if we're treating it (or should be treating it) as 13-16 or 14-16.

[johnu]

shugart24, on 2024-December-12, 12:31, said:

And for weak NT defense ? What would you consider to be the strongest weak range ? 13-15 ? eg. where's the switch to go to one or the other NT defense ?

I defend a 1NT with a lower range of 15 HCP as strong.

A 1NT with a lower range of 14 HCP or lower as weak. In my experience, players who play something like 14-16 frequently upgrade 13 counts so that they are really playing 13-16. That means they are more likely to be in the weak (12-14) range than the strong (15-17) range.

[foobar]

awm, on 2024-December-12, 11:18, said:

Putting this together, what I play against strong notrump is:

X = 5+/4+ with a major and a minor (either can be longer)
2♣ = both majors
2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural

With partners who don't know/like this defense, I'm okay with Woolsey/Multi-Landy.

What are the responses over the X to get to the best fit?

[awm]

foobar, on 2024-December-13, 01:22, said:

What are the responses over the X to get to the best fit?

After double (advancer passing):

Pass = 12+ points or similar, we get a fair number of penalties this way
2♣ = "bid your five-card suit" (partner will pass with 5+♣ and a 4-card major)
2♦ = "bid your major"
2M = my own suit (usually six card suit)

We can further scramble if necessary after the rebid (for example 1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2M-P-2NT is "bid your minor" and 1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♥ is pass/correct) but this almost never comes up.

If opponents make an artificial bid over the double (such as stayman or a transfer) then double shows four-plus cards in that suit and desire to compete if it's one of overcaller's suits. So for example:

1NT-X-2♥ (transfer to spades)-X shows 4+♥ and interest in bidding 3♥ if partner has hearts and a minor.

[akwoo]

awm, on 2024-December-13, 01:52, said:

We can further scramble if necessary after the rebid (for example 1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2M-P-2NT is "bid your minor" and 1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♥ is pass/correct) but this almost never comes up.

Surely (1N)-X-(P)-2C-(P)-2M-(P)-2N should be inv+ inquiry (perhaps for shortness?) and (1N)-X-(P)-2C-(P)-2M-(P)-3C pass/correct...

Btw, I have actually heard this defense to 1N called "Meyerson"

[awm]

akwoo, on 2024-December-13, 21:35, said:

Surely (1N)-X-(P)-2C-(P)-2M-(P)-2N should be inv+ inquiry (perhaps for shortness?) and (1N)-X-(P)-2C-(P)-2M-(P)-3C pass/correct...

Btw, I have actually heard this defense to 1N called "Meyerson"

I actually prefer 2NT asking for minor. It's fairly unlikely to have an invite on this sequence, since:

1. Advancer didn't pass the double of 1NT, and instead made a non-forcing 2♣ "bid your five card suit" call.
2. Advancer doesn't have support for both majors (would've bid 2♦).
3. If advancer has a good fit for doubler's major and not a good fit for the other major, then opponents have a pretty big fit in the other major and have been passing through a full round of bidding.
4. Given that opener's partner has passed twice (and opener passed over 2♣) this is not very likely to be a competitive sequence where we need to preempt on just a fit, and 3M by responder can show values.

The idea here is that if advancer has a long club suit, he can bid 2♣ ("bid your five card suit") and then bid his own club suit naturally when partner's five-card suit isn't appealing. This gives an option with (say) 1336 where we can play two of a red suit when partner has five there and pull 2♠ to 6♣ when that's partner's five-card suit (this is probably better than a 5-1 spade fit or a 4-3 diamond fit).

Yes, this defense is called Meyerson. I came up with it originally when I wanted to play Woolsey/Multi-Landy and it wasn't allowed in some ACBL events. But the defense actually has a number of advantages over Woolsey/Multi-Landy (has a way to bid diamonds at the two-level, has a more frequent double that can be converted to penalty, reaches better landing spots when overcaller has 5M-4m and advancer has a long suit of his own).

[Zelandakh]

Against a SNT:
X = 4(+) hearts, generally a longer second suit or a 3-suiter (P/C follow-ups, both majors Asptro-style)
2♣ = 4(+) spades, generally a longer second suit or a 3-suiter (P/C follow-ups, both majors Asptro-style)
2♦ = hearts or spades (multi)
2♥ = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠ = 5+ spades, 4+ minor
2NT = both minors
3m = nat

Against a WNT (gives up on the 4♥+longer minor hands):
X = strength/penalty
2♣ = 4(+) spades, generally 4+ hearts or a longer minor or a 3-suiter (P/C follow-ups)
2♦ = hearts or spades (multi)
2♥ = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠ = 5+ spades, 4+ minor
2NT = both minors
3m = nat

Amongst regular defences I quite like French vs SNT and Asptro vs WNT but mostly just play either out-of-the-box Multi-Landy with X = 4M + longer minor against a SNT, or whatever partner is comfortable with providing it takes care of a few key hand types.

[Kungsgeten]

Zelandakh, on 2024-December-14, 10:46, said:

Against a SNT:
X = 4(+) hearts, generally a longer second suit or a 3-suiter (P/C follow-ups, both majors Asptro-style)
2♣ = 4(+) spades, generally a longer second suit or a 3-suiter (P/C follow-ups, both majors Asptro-style)
2♦ = hearts or spades (multi)
2♥ = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠ = 5+ spades, 4+ minor
2NT = both minors
3m = nat

We play something very similar. I actually suggested to try the Meyerson defense, but partner didn't like the idea of not knowing any suit if we double. We ended up with this:

X = 4+ hearts. Generally a two-suiter, but could be a very strong one-suiter. Could be 5♥ 4+m, or 4♥ 5+m, or 4+♥ 5+♠.
2♣ = 4+ spades. Same principle.
2♦♥♠ = Natural.
2NT = Minors.

After X/2♣ advancer can bid overcaller's major, or make a non-forcing relay (asking overcaller to bid/pass his longest suit).

Compared to Meyerson we can't stop in 2♣ when opener has 4♠ and 5+♣. We also don't have a way to show both majors at the same time. The potential upside is that we know which major overcaller has when having a major + minor hand.

[Zelandakh]

Kungsgeten, on 2024-December-16, 01:56, said:

We play something very similar. I actually suggested to try the Meyerson defense, but partner didn't like the idea of not knowing any suit if we double. We ended up with this:

It's a completely reasonable switch, essentially using the lack of a penalty double to play Asptro, a decent defence on its own, with an extra step in the key auctions, thus avoiding the well-known (1NT) - 2♦ - (P) - 2♥ weakness of the method. It actually surprises me that there are not more defences based around this (fundamentally sound) concept and particularly that more or less zero top pairs use such a scheme.