[sceptic]

Hi, what is the best alround defence over NT.

and what is the worst defence over NT.

A/. any range?

B/. 10-12

C/. 12 14

D/. 14 16

E/. 15 17

F/. 16 18

and can you quantify the pros and cons of your choices please

[Blofeld]

I'm afraid that I haven't played enough different defences to be able to comment constructively, but "worst defence" seems a little silly, as it's easy to come up with some truly terrible defences (a pathological example would be to bid 7NT regardless of your hand).
Presumably you mean "worst defence that's widely used", which would at least be beneficial in terms of avoiding playing that defence, and opening 1nt whenever possible if your opponents play it.

[Chamaco]

Other better players than me will for sure describe the pros and cons of defenses vs weak and strong NT.

But I am really looking forward to their opinion of what's best vs 14-16 NT: will you use a defense that allows constructive bidding (as is common vs weak NT, e.g 10-12, 12-14 or 13-15) or a disruptive defense (as is mostly played vs strong NT) ?

[pbleighton]

Chamaco:

I played 14-16 for a while. IMO it is a strong NT, so treat it like 15-17.

Against a strong NT, I like Meckwell better than DONT.

Peter

[Echognome]

We play the same meanings for 2 level bids over 1NT as what we open. We consider this "best defense" because we don't have to memorize two sets of follow up responses. Of course our overcalls are stronger than our weak preempts.

2♣ = Majors
2♦ = single-suited (in lieu of multi)
2♥ = Hearts + minor
2♠ = Spades + minor
2NT = Minors

A simple defense that our usual teammates play seems to work well. That is:

2♣ = 5+ hearts
2♦ = 5+ spades
2♥ = 4 hearts and longer minor
2♠ = 4 spades and longer minor

I think the main thing is memory. We try not to play different defenses to weak or strong NT. Although X is penalty over both, in the case of strong NT this is based on a running suit.

[Free]

Against strong NT I like Meckwell:
Dbl = 5+m OR 44+♥-♠
2m = 4+m & 4+M
2M = 5+M
2NT = both minors (54+)

Against weak I like multi-landy, but I guess there are better ways... I haven't played much against weak NT, so I don't have much experience there.

[MickyB]

My favourite is Lionel (X ♠+another, 2m that suit and hearts, 11+, frequently 4-4 shape). It focuses on the majors but has the flexibility to play 2m when it is right or penalise the opps in 1N X when they aren't expecting it.

Asptro is pretty good. It lets you get in on 5-4s without making partner guess between your two suits, and keeps the penalty double. It can land you in the wrong fit on occasions though.

I also like Echognome's defence, except for the fact that it is quite similar to Capp 2♣ majors leaves room to ask which is longer, 2♦ a major stands up better to interference than the Capp 2♣. This is ok against a weak NT, but its greatest virtue IMO is that it can easily be modified into Woolsey for use against a strong NT - just make X show 5m4M. Woolsey lets you find your best fit, usually at the 2 level, at the expense of the penalty double. Unlike Lionel, its double isn't frequent enough to justify using it against a weak NT in the hope of catching penalties on the side.

DONT has to be one of the worst. It is far too orientated around the minor suits - fairly often, good opps will be "disturbed" from 1N tick to 2M tick. The 2♣ overcall in particular is awful - if you are 4243, you could pass 2♣ only for pard to have 5♠4♣, or bid on only for him to be 4♥5♣. The double also has the same preemption problems as the Capp 2♣ - 1N-X-2S-find your 6-3 heart fit now!

I think my candidate for worst defence is called Roche. Its main feature was a 2♣ overcall showing a weak NT...

[MickyB]

Forgot to talk much about ranges - I'd say that:

Asptro gets better as the 1NT opener gets weaker
Lionel is best at a certain point - against 16-18 you won't pick up many penalties with the double, against 9-12 a straight penalty double is much more frequent and much more useful than against a 12-14 NT
When playing Woolsey, I used a penalty double against a 1NT that could have 13 or less points

[han]

These are features that I want a good structure to have:

1) Being able to bid 2M immediately with a 1-suiter.

2) Being able to show many kinds of 2-suiters at the 2-level.

3) Being able to show strong hands over a weak or mini notrump.

Since (3) seems to contradict with (2), I prefer different structures over strong or weak notrumps. DONT clearly satisfies (2) very well. So does Meckwell, and this does better on (1), a clear improvement imo. Lionel (similar but better than Brozel imo) has the advantage of showing the major immediately, but the cost is that you are forced to the 3-level with some hands. Woolsey treats 2-suiters very well (differentiating between longer minor or longer major), and it can be modified so that it doesn't violate (1). Again you are forced to the 3-level on some hands. Cappaletti (Hamilton) does poorly on (2), but it satisfies (3), and it can also be modified so that it satisfies (1).

OK, that's enough for now.

I also play a 14-16 notrump with most partners, and I would also recommend treating it as a strong notrump. With 13-15 you can go both ways I think, I treat it as weak.

[Echognome]

My biggest point was that including as much parallel structure into your system as possible can only be a good thing. This works really well as defense to 1NT if you play 2 suited weak twos.

For example, our opening weak 2's, our defense to 1NT, and in the sequence 1♣ - (X) - ? our 2 bids have the exact same hand types (with just ranges changing).

Thus when it goes (1NT) - 2♥ - (P) - ? I know what our continuations mean without giving it a second thought.

Or when it goes (1NT) - 2♣ - (X) - ? I know what XX, Pass, and 2♦ means, since we have discussed these sequences.

So I'm willing to trade off not having perhaps the theoretically best defense with having the confidence in knowing what partner's bids mean.

[MickyB]

Echognome, on May 16 2005, 04:33 PM, said:

So I'm willing to trade off not having perhaps the theoretically best defense with having the confidence in knowing what partner's bids mean.

Agreed Matt, mr1303 and I played that same defence partly for the same reason. It also saves space on the convention card

[david_c]

MickyB, on May 16 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

I think my candidate for worst defence is called Roche. Its main feature was a 2♣ overcall showing a weak NT...

hehehe ... well said Mike, I'd forgotten about that one. There are a few pairs playing this back at my home club in Hampshire; the first time they explained it I thought they must have misunderstood the idea, but no, apparently that's really what it is.

I agree with Free btw - Meckwell vs. strong, multi-landy (or a sensible version of asptro) vs. weak.

[mike777]

My fav. toy is suction, you can save space also on cc by playing it over strong club, strong 2clubs or polish club

BTW this includes all jumps by us and also on over weak 1D or 2D responses so:

bid suit shows long next higher suit or next 2 suits. example clubs =long d or h and s.....D bid shows long hearts or s and clubs..etc.
You can play double shows c and h or d and spades or
you can play double shows c and h and nt bids show d and s.

[awm]

I think the following are the main points for a good defense against notrump:

(1) It's best to bid your single-suited hands such that partner immediately knows your suit. This is because opponents don't often shut up after their NT opening, and partner needs to know whether to compete to the three-level.

(2) When bidding two-suited hands, you should have a way to bid unequal (5-4 or 6-4) patterns. Partner needs to have a way to determine which of your suits is longer, at least in the absence of further competition. Making the same bid on 5-4 and 4-5 (with no inquiry available from partner) forces partner to guess and you'll play a fair number of 4-3 fits instead of 5-3 fits, or even 4-2s instead of 5-2s.

(3) Against weaker notrump ranges, a penalty double is very valuable. Now, most opponents will not stay put and take their lumps in 1NTX, but the double is a very valuable way to limit the other overcalls. By the way, it is important to have good agreements about continuations after the double. I highly recommend playing running free-bids by doubler's partner as natural and weak (NOT "systems on") and playing the first double by our side after the 1NTers run to a suit as takeout-oriented. On another note, I have found that doubling with "top of their range" generally works poorly. Keep the doubles fairly sound, something like 15+ even if the notrump range you're hitting is 8-10.

My definition for weak/strong notrump is "how possible is it for the non-opening side to have a straight-up 3NT game based solely on high card points?" Basically this means, if the "average" hand in the 1NT range has 15 hcp or more, it's a strong notrump. Otherwise weak. When opponents play 14-16, I ask whether they frequently upgrade "good 13s" to open 1NT; if they do then it's weak, if they don't then strong.

--------------------

Against strong notrump I'm currently playing my own defense (Meyerson):

X = major+minor two suiter; typically advancer will bid 2♣ which is "please bid your FIVE card suit (or major if 5-5)." Alternately advancer can bid 2♦ to ask for major or 2M as natural, or (rarely) 2NT as a game-forcing inquiry. If opening side bids on over the double, any double of an artificial bid (i.e. transfer) shows 4+ card support for the bid suit. Double of a natural bid is takeout.

2♣ = majors. Advancer can bid 2♦ (you pick!); if this is followed by a raise or shift of suit it is invitational. A direct 3M bid by advancer is preemptive.

2♦, 2♥, 2♠ = natural, single-suited hand

2NT = minors

3♣ = natural, wide-ranging values

3♦+ = preemptive

Meyerson was designed to work similarly to Woolsey (which is the same as Multi-Landy plus a double showing minor+major). However, it allows single-suited hands to be bid naturally, including a way to bid diamonds at the 2-level, and has the additional advantage of being ACBL general chart (for those bound by such rules).

-------------

Against weak notrumps I'm currently playing Stayman. Thus:

X = penalty, 15+ (any) with followup agreements outlined as above.

2♣ = asks partner for a four-card major. Shows either 5-4 major two suiter, or a 4-card major plus a longer minor. Advancer bids 2♦ (no major), or 2♥/♠ (natural) with an invite or worse, or bids 2NT (asking) with a game force.

2♦, ♥, ♠ = natural

2NT = good hand with clubs

3♣+ = preemptive

--------------

Obviously I think what I'm playing is the "best" defense. Other defenses I'd qualify as "good":

vs. Strong: Woolsey, Lionel

vs. Weak: Landy, Astro (and variants), Mohan, Multi-Landy

Defenses which are commonly used but which I think are "bad":

vs. Strong: Cappelletti/Hamilton, DONT

vs. Weak: anything without a penalty or values double, Cappelletti/Hamilton

[Free]

I know a pair who uses an interesting modified DONT:

Dbl = penalty
2m/♥ = shows either a DONT hand, or a singlesuited hand in the bid suit which can play at 3-level (constructive)
2♠ = natural (I think)
2NT = minors
3X = preemptive

I've seen them go wrong several times, as well as I've seen them bid nice games. So I can't really tell if it's very efficient or not...

[Gerben42]

The best defence is one you and your partner will never forget.

Otherwise I can give the following tips in no particular order:

* Don't use DONT
* Don't use 2♦ to show both majors (partner will have to guess which is 5)
* Don't use penalty doubles against a strong NT (15-17)
* Against a weak notrump discuss what subsequent doubles mean. I play 1st shows points, 2nd is takeout, 3rd and more is penalty.