Jeff Lehman

Weak notrump inferences

Here’s an interesting hand for a pair that plays weak (12-14) notrumps.

N
North
AK7
A754
A7
10743

 

All vul, you open 1 on a hand that strong notrumpers would open 1NT.  LHO overcalls 1 and partner doubles, presumptively showing 6+ and at least four cards in each major.  RHO passes.  And you?

Well, playing weak notrumps, a 1m opening is one of three types of hands: long in the minor (either 6+ or, if 5 then with a side four card suit, often spades), 4-4-4-1, or strong and balanced.  On the subject hand, you are strong and balanced but you also happen to have four card support for partner’s heart suit.  What should mean your “raises” of the hearts shown by partner?

I think 3 and 4 should be equivalent to raises of a 1 response.

So, what should 1 and 2 mean?  Remember you cannot have a balanced minimum with four hearts, because such a hand would have opened 1NT.   Can 1 be a hand with only three card heart support (the same scheme used by some pairs for a 1 rebid by opener when a 1 overcall is met with a negative double by partner [promising exactly four spades], and any minimum hand of opener’s with four spades is to bid 2)?  Might opener have three hearts in a hand of 5-4-3-1 distribution?  If the four card suit were spades he would rebid in spades.  But if the four card suit were in diamonds, a 1 call might be right, rather than risk defending 1X opposite possible diamond shortness of partner.  Or, might opener have three hearts in a 15-17 notrump but a hand without a diamond stopper, maybe 3=3=3=4?  That’s possible.  So, it seems reasonable to me to play that 2 shows a hand with four card heart support but one that is too weak for a 3 raise, maybe a 5-4-2-2 minimum or a poorish strong notrump with four card heart support but deemed not quite strong enough for 3.

Not sure if 3 or 2 is a better choice with my hand, but I chose 2 at the table.  Now my RHO bid 3, partner passed and LHO preferenced to 3.  Having lots of defense for my prior choice of 2, I doubled.  And 3X became the final contract.

Now, on to defense.  

 
N
North
AK7
A754
A7
10743
W
West
Q942
QJ9
954
652
6

 

Partner led a 3rd/5th 6, dummy covered and I won the ace.  To me, it looked as though declarer had at least five clubs for her 3 rebid and so, having trump control, I led back the 7 to plan for giving partner club ruffs.  Declarer thought a while and then played the J, losing to partner’s queen.  Partner returned a spade, small, king, small.  Expecting partner to ruff this club, I played a second club back.  Surprise, as declarer won the A and partner followed with the eight.  So declarer, vulnerable, bid 3 on a four card suit; man, these club players will do anything not to defend!  Declarer led a diamond from dummy and I flew with the A to play a third club.  Declarer inserted the nine and partner ruffed with the 6 (our fourth trick, one in each suit).  Now partner cashed the K and played back another spade which I won with the A, our sixth trick.  I led back a fourth round of clubs and partner ruffed with the J.  That’s down three, +800 for the good guys!

 
12
Both
West
N
North
AK7
A754
A7
10743
 
W
West
Q942
QJ9
954
652
6
E
East
J3
102
KQ1083
AKJ9
 
S
South
10865
K863
J62
Q8
 

OK, declarer bid way too much.  But the longer I play weak notrumps, the more I find interesting inferences available to each partner, from the failure to have opened 1NT.  Much was written on this subject in a fascinating thread on Bridge Winners, responding to a long-ago monograph of Fred Gitelman.


10 Comments

Scott NeedhamNovember 17th, 2012 at 2:14 pm

Jeff, why not simply adopt K-S raises?

Jeff LehmanNovember 17th, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Hi, Scott,

I like to have the ability to raise partner’s 1M response with as few as three-card trump support, while K-S raises require four card support. As an example, let’s assume I open 1C on Kxx, AJxx, x, KJxxx. When partner responds 1S, I think a raise to 2S best describes my hand. When partner passes 2S and has responded 1S on, say, four small, my choice to raise to 2S might not work out best, but that’s only one hand type and even then we might survive, either in the play or by the opponents not allowing us to buy the contract at 2S.

I would also raise to 2S on a “suit devalued” strong notrump with four card support such as Axxx, KJx, QJx, KJx, while I would raise to 3S on a better strong notrump with four card support such as QJxx, Axxx, Kx, AJxx. Finally, a 2S raise also encompasses minimum hands of 5-4-2-2 distribution with four card support (a hand where, if my four card major were hearts, I might well have chosen to open 1NT.

Of course, all is a matter of partnership style and agreement.

Thanks for contributing.

— Jeff

Judy Kay-WolffNovember 17th, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Hi Jeff:

Although I have read but never responded to your blogs (as I am more into bridge memories and current political and ethical problems at the
table), your above blog really struck a chord. Playing bridge as long as I have — I can honestly say — seen that, done that!

However, today’s problem struck a nerve (but made me smile) when you mentioned Weak No Trumps (its advantages and hindrances).

Being married to Norman Kay until his death in 2002, I was a disciple of Weak No Trumps for a reasonable period of time. One day many years ago Norman opened the New Year’s Edition of The New York Herald Tribune and found himself written up in Florence Osborne’s column for going minus 1400 Vulnerable in 1NT against a part score. A little later we went to a neighborhood party of bridge players and apparently the hand was being circulated and in a nice way, he was being teased. Norman was a great sport but when he returned home (we didn’t have cell phones in those days or he would have contacted Edgar on the site), he telephoned him and advised he would play WNT NON VULNERABLE ONLY or to find a new partner. Edgar acquiesced as he knew he couldn’t do better. They did change that on the card and played together quite successfully for about 43 years until Edgar’s death in ’97. However, as much as it hurts (because I knew Edgar well and loved him dearly), I have come to realize (just like Roth-Stone) KS, for the most part, is a style of the past. And, when I married Bobby Wolff in 2003, I convinced him (and he is not an easy pushover) to play WNT non vulnerable only which he agreed to, and I made Bobby a believer as his style is to get into the bidding early. Believe me, Jeff, I in no way profess to be an expert (far from it!) but Bobby’s influence and style of bidding has done wonders for my game even at my age (old). Forgetting and re-learning is a difficult process for me but I have given it my all.

In the last nine years, I got converted to a totally different style of bidding through Bobby, but who am I to argue with HIM? I now make bold weak two bids (sometime on five baggers) as well as opening pre-emptive three bids that I never would have made in my wildest dreams before (and every time I do — I look skyward and ask my two mentors for forgiveness). By jamming the auction at higher levels and opening weak NTs, you get your foot in the door first and force your opponents to do a lot more guessing. In the hand above, South barely had a negative double but it was in the range of the bid and NS were comfortably settled in 2H when East felt he was being robbed and ventured 3C. The return to 3D evoked a double by North (knowing his partner had at least six points) and a big fat plus 800.

Cheers,

Judy

Jeff LehmanNovember 17th, 2012 at 8:02 pm

That’s an interesting set of stories, Judy.

One partner and I once tried to play “chicken weak notrumps” where the range changed from 12-14 to 15-17 depending upon seat and vulnerability. We abandoned that approach because too often the opener would forget the appropriate range or the responder would misannounce opener’s range. I still think the idea of variable notrump openings is a valid concept, though.

Gary MugfordNovember 18th, 2012 at 1:41 am

Jeff,

Am enjoying this posting and the comment thread. On your response to Judy’s comment, referring to chicken weak notrumps and not playing them for reasons of forgetfulness, I have one remembrance along those lines. In the World Bridge Championships in Montreal back in ’01 (IIRC), I was playing with Danny Ioannidis and we were playing a combination of Precision and Two-Over-One depending on seat and vulnerability. Obviously, the NT bids were all over the place. As it was, we had been doing this for a few years and our ‘forgetful’ days were behind us. Or so I thought. We didn’t forget our conventions or get them wrong, we merely sat in the WRONG SECTION when a round change was called after a smoking break (for Danny, not me). And I wish we had figured out we were playing in the wrong section BEFORE we played the first hand of the round and lost a well-earned, but discarded, top. Forgetting what section we SHOULD have been remains one of the lowlights of my Bridge career.

Scott NeedhamNovember 18th, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Jeff:

Two comments about the raise: As published, K-S (at least the Updated version) would not prohibit the 2S raise so long as the support value is 15-17; playing WNT, you have to decide whether these hands open canape, raise the major on 3 or rebid the minor: I can’t believe EK would ever disparage a bridge logic action such as this raise whether or not strictly systemic.

Also, just a style thing: I’d devalue Axxx, KJx, QJx, KJx to open 1N.

I enjoy your WNT postings.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

Judy Kay-WolffNovember 18th, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Gary:

I got a laugh out of your going to the wrong section. I have probably committed just about every mistake possible in the game but going to the wrong section was not one of them. And, since I started playing variable NTs both with Norman and Bobby (even though we play them in all seats) — I have never forgotten whether I was red or white.
That is one thing I got down pat but bridge in general seems to be presenting new problems down the road. Perhaps that is
why it is so fascinating and we are all so
engulfed in trying to master it.

Alvin P. BluthmanNovember 22nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Jeff:

In a sense, your auction has an advantage over other auctions, such as 1C – P – 1H – P, and 1C -1S – X – P, with which partner will show a heart suit of (at least) four cards, because you still have the room to bid 1H. in that context, there are two sensible meanings for your 1H rebid. Either you show a minimum, thougth unbalanced, hand with four hearts, or you show three-card support (like a support double, or after a four-card transfer). I’m not sure which is better or whether you can combine them, as you have ti might do if you open 1C on Kxx AJxx x KJxxx, a marginal opener in a weak NT system, and, I think, a clear pass if playing K-S (because there is no acceptable rebid to a 1H response.

Whichever you choose, you can now use K-S raises for the 2H, 3H, and 4H rebids, which narrows the range for eaxh of these bids.

Judy Kay-WolffNovember 22nd, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Alvin:

Let me begin by saying, I would rather give up the game than originally pass KXX AJXX X KJXXX (and I do play WNT non-vulnerable). It is a bidder’s game. If partner responds 1D, you bid 1H and obviously you raise 1H to 2H. If partner responds 1S, YOU BID 2S. It is an old myth about playing possible 4/3 fits when the ruff is in the short hand. Maybe old Roth-Stoners (if there are any of them left) may choose to pass, but partner could never envision a hand like this if you do.

Alvin P. BluthmanNovember 28th, 2012 at 12:01 am

Mrs. Kay-Wolff:

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Of course, there are different philosophies at work here. If playing standard (even with weak NTs), I would open 1C because I can raise a 1S response to 2S. But playing a non-standard system, rhere is a significant problem with opening 1C, either because you need a stronger hand to open or because you cannot raise partner with only three-card support (my error above, I meant to type, “rebid to a 1S response”).

Leave a comment

Your comment