[Shugart23]

So Becky ( my wife) and I played very weak NT and hence would not use Jacoby. ( We would in the strong club sequence 1C-1D-NT). My prospective new online partner (someone I know ) is good and plays 2/1. I think we are going to go with a NT range of 12-14. You think Jacoby would be better than double barreled Stayman or 6 of one and half dozen of the other ?

[Douglas43]

Hi Shugart, coincidentally a similar question was raised quite recently in a different BBO forum, although the poster just said "weak NT" without specifying the range. Weak 1NT - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com)
Views were split, partly i.m.o. because discussion branched out into the "mini" no-trump of say 9-12.

In the UK where 12-14 is a really popular range, pairs playing anything other than transfers are rare as hens' teeth. The only real differences from common practice in North America are (a) "garbage Stayman" is standard (it was referenced in print in the late 1940's by S J Simon and was taken for granted when I learned in the 1970's) and (b) Smolen is seldom played. When it was referred to in BBO forums, I had to look it up.

[Shugart23]

Douglas43, on 2022-January-27, 09:10, said:

Hi Shugart, coincidentally a similar question was raised quite recently in a different BBO forum, although the poster just said "weak NT" without specifying the range. Weak 1NT - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com)
Views were split, partly i.m.o. because discussion branched out into the "mini" no-trump of say 9-12.

In the UK where 12-14 is a really popular range, pairs playing anything other than transfers are rare as hens' teeth. The only real differences from common practice in North America are (a) "garbage Stayman" is standard (it was referenced in print in the late 1940's by S J Simon and was taken for granted when I learned in the 1970's) and (b) Smolen is seldom played. When it was referred to in BBO forums, I had to look it up.

Thanks. In Match point , our old range was 10-13 NV, and 13-15 V. (For a while, I also played 9-15 NV if in 3rd seat and it went P-P to me) As a somewhat related question, do people play a kamikaze NT along side 2/1 ? Does anybody have experience or an opinion ? are they compatible ?

[DavidKok]

I play a kamikaze NT (10-13) alongside 2/1 at certain vulnerabilities and positions (NV versus V 1st/2nd/3rd only, to be precise). I like to call this the "chicken NT", since we're too chicken to play kamikaze at any other vulnerability.

2/1 and kamikaze are completely compatible, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Personally I play 2-way Stayman over the 10-13 NT, but that's more because of the wide range (so we need a way to put on the breaks after an invite) than because of its low total number of points. I imagine that regular Stayman and transfers would be as good, if not better, with an 11-13 range (for example). Or just bite the bullet and accept that, as a preemptive weapon, your constructive auctions will not be as accurate with a 10-13 NT.
One obvious change between strong and weak NT on the one hand, and kamikaze on the other, is that playing the 3-level and up 'to play' is (in my opinion) just better for kamikaze. The 'two-way 3NT' is also a nice weapon, though very rare.

I play at IMP scoring almost exclusively though. I imagine kamikaze NT might cause somewhat more frequent losses at matchpoints, where 1NT versus 2M is an important question to get right.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2022-January-27, 10:20, said:

I play a kamikaze NT (10-13) alongside 2/1 at certain vulnerabilities and positions (NV versus V 1st/2nd/3rd only, to be precise). I like to call this the "chicken NT", since we're too chicken to play kamikaze at any other vulnerability.

2/1 and kamikaze are completely compatible, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Personally I play 2-way Stayman over the 10-13 NT, but that's more because of the wide range (so we need a way to put on the breaks after an invite) than because of its low total number of points. I imagine that regular Stayman and transfers would be as good, if not better, with an 11-13 range (for example). Or just bite the bullet and accept that, as a preemptive weapon, your constructive auctions will not be as accurate with a 10-13 NT.
One obvious change between strong and weak NT on the one hand, and kamikaze on the other, is that playing the 3-level and up 'to play' is (in my opinion) just better for kamikaze. The 'two-way 3NT' is also a nice weapon, though very rare.

I play at IMP scoring almost exclusively though. I imagine kamikaze NT might cause somewhat more frequent losses at matchpoints, where 1NT versus 2M is an important question to get right.

good to know that they are compatible. Your chicken NT has some similarities to what we used to do....and we used our version of double barreled Stayman as well. Interesting comment on difference between Matchpoint and INMps ( I mostly play in MP). I have an opinion ( could be wrong) that 1NT down 1, non-vulnerable is usually a top in MP. When we played at Imps, we made a few adjustments in several bidding areas - eg our preemptive style in IMPS was more conservative.
Would you mind describing how you describe all the various NT point ranges...eg. 10-13; 12-14, etc Vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable?

[DavidKok]

To expand on NT ranges and 2/1 (versus, for example, 'standard') - I don't think it matters much/at all. I happen to play an unbalanced diamond and a balanced club, so a large majority of all balanced hands outside my NT range open 1♣. And it just so happens that there's no 2/1 auctions over a 1♣ opening. So to me these system considerations are mostly independent of one another.
If you open open 1♦ with a balanced hand relatively frequently, it is worth discussing what a hand outside your NT range will rebid if partner responds 2♣.

[DavidKok]

Shugart23, on 2022-January-27, 10:30, said:

Would you mind describing how you describe all the various NT point ranges...eg. 10-13; 12-14, etc Vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable?

I play a balanced club, unbalanced diamond. I also play Full Dutch Doubleton over 1♣. I imagine that's a bit different from standard, but I'm happy to describe how opener shows a balanced hand.

At most positions and vulnerabilities (i.e. always except when our kamikaze is in effect) we play a 14-16 NT. We also 'always' open 1M with a 5cM in the NT range, but 'never' 1♦ with a 5c♦ and a balanced weak hand. So the scheme is:

• 11- HCP: pass (if you like to open 11's, just add this to the next range)
  
• 12-13 HCP: With a 5cM, open the major. Without one, open 1♣ (even with 5♦2♣). Over 1♣, partner can bid 1♦* artificial, over which we bid 1♥ (that's part of the Dutch Doubleton). If partner instead responds with 1♥/1♠ (natural, shows 8+ HCP) we rebid 1NT or raise to 2M depending on fit.
  
• 14-16 HCP: Open 1NT.
  
• 17-19 HCP: With a 5cM, open the major. With a 5c♦, open 1♦ and rebid 2NT (coincidentally, even if partner bids 2♦-2♠). Holding neither, open 1♣, then rebid 1NT over the artificial 1♦, or 2NT over a natural 1♥/1♠ (GF, since we show 17-19 opposite 8+).
  
• 20-21 HCP: Open 2NT.
  
• 22-33 HCP: Open 2♣, then use Kokish to describe the range.
  
• 34+ HCP: Invent something on the spot.

At favourable, 1st/2nd/3rd:

• 10-13 HCP: Open 1NT. With 12-13 and a 5cM, suit quality breaks ties between 1M and 1NT.
  
• 14-16 HCP: With a 5cM, open the major. Without one, open 1♣ (even with 5♦2♣). Over 1♣, partner can bid 1♦* artificial, over which we bid 1♥ (that's part of the Dutch Doubleton). If partner instead responds with 1♥/1♠ (natural, shows 8+ HCP) we rebid 1NT or raise to 2M depending on fit. This raise is slightly awkward, since we can now raise on some unbalanced minima with 3-card support as well as 16 HCP balanced hands with 4-card support.
  
• 17 and up: same as before

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2022-January-27, 10:31, said:

To expand on NT ranges and 2/1 (versus, for example, 'standard') - I don't think it matters much/at all. I happen to play an unbalanced diamond and a balanced club, so a large majority of all balanced hands outside my NT range open 1♣. And it just so happens that there's no 2/1 auctions over a 1♣ opening. So to me these system considerations are mostly independent of one another.
If you open open 1♦ with a balanced hand relatively frequently, it is worth discussing what a hand outside your NT range will rebid if partner responds 2♣.

Thanks, I haven't played SA or 2/1 in at least 15 years, so I have some relearning to do

[bluenikki]

Shugart23, on 2022-January-27, 07:47, said:

So Becky ( my wife) and I played very weak NT and hence would not use Jacoby. ( We would in the strong club sequence 1C-1D-NT). My prospective new online partner (someone I know ) is good and plays 2/1. I think we are going to go with a NT range of 12-14. You think Jacoby would be better than double barreled Stayman or 6 of one and half dozen of the other ?

When a Jacoby transfer results in a 2M contract, you are wrong-sided. The weak hand has a range of 0-10, which is well worth concealing. Much more so than the 0-7 of a responder to strong notrump.

But can you effectively cover all of the game-invitational, choice-of-games, and strong 2-suited auctions without Jacoby? I doubt it.

Carl

[helene_t]

The natural weak 2H/S responses put a lot of pressure on the opponents. If you transfer, they can cue-bid the suit you transfer to, or they can double the transfer bid (which doesn't compel their partner to bidding) and they can distinguish between a direct and a delayed action.

So it is nice to play natural weak responses when opponents might have game, and when responder is likely to have less than invitational values.

And as blueniki says, concealing declarer's 0-10 point range makes it more difficult for defenders to place the honours.

The big upside of transfers is for slam explorations where you can for example show a GF hand with 5+ hearts and 4+ clubs very economically, but opposite a weak NT that doesn't come up so often.

[DavidKok]

I think the transfer applies more pressure than the natural bid.

[mikeh]

When responder is weak, with a 5 card major, Helene is, imo, clearly correct.

1N (P) 2D. As a transfer gives 4th seat a lead directing double which 1N (P) 2H does not

It also gives 4th seat a cuebid of 2H on some rare hands, which the direct 2H does not.

In addition, after the transfer, 4th seat can wait with a borderline hand…a good partnership can distinguish between immediate and delayed action. Bidding over 2D can be different than bidding after the transfer is completed.

And, of course, defending after trick one is usually easier when declarer’s strength is known within 1 hcp and dummy is visible than when the 1N opener is dummy and declarer’s hcp is far less certain.

Moreover, for game and slam purposes, transfers will get the frequently stronger responder hand (for slam, the always stronger responder hand) as dummy which will slightly increase the risk of wrong siding the contract. It is usually a slight and sometimes a significant advantage to have the lead coming around to the stronger hand.

Finally, over weak it’s possible to play jumps to the 3-level as ‘to play’, with a very wide range….anywhere from a 6 or 7 card suit with 0 hcp to a hand just short of invitational values. Having to act over 2N (P) 3H when 3H might be 0 or a bad 10 is pretty tough. Of course one can play 3 level bids this way even using transfers, but I’ve not seen many pairs do this. Opposite a strong 1N there’s less gain from preemption and more need to use the 3 level for constructive bidding.

However, a good transfer method can convey more information, on strong hands, than a simple 2 way stayman method can, which should lead to better game and especially slam bidding, which imo outweighs the right siding issue.

In my partnership that plays variable notrump we play a complex transfer method over strong and a complex two way stayman method over weak for those reasons.

I think that 2 way is better, even a simple 2 way, for matchpoints and a reasonable transfer method is better than a simple 2 way at imps, where high level contracts are disproportionately more important than partials, with the opposite being true at mps.