[jillybean]

---

Matchpoints, I hate these hands.
Playing 12-14 nt my options here are 3♠ showing 4 card support and 15-17 hcp or 1nt (15-17), concealing the ♠ suit but potentially right siding a 3nt contract.
Concealing the 4 card ♠ suit seems like a bad idea. Do I just live with it, rub of the green ?

[akwoo]

First of all, one of the advantages of playing a 12-14 1N is that opener's raises of responder's 1M bid can be lower. I strongly suggest that you agree with your partner that this hand is a 2♠ raise, not a 3♠ raise. (With a couple tens and nines, I would raise to 3♠; it's that close.) Really, this hand is not any better in a spade contract than ♠AKxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣AQxxx. That way, you play 3♠ as something like 15-17 unbal or 17-18 bal, and 4♠ as 19-20 bal (with 18+ unbal, you'd be splintering).

Second, your partner more likely than not has an unbalanced hand, and, besides, your hand isn't that no-trumpy. If your minor suit kings were replaced by queens and jacks, then you might consider 3N better than 4S even in a 5-4 fit, but I don't think this hand is quite at that level of no-trumpy-ness.

Third, wrongsiding matters a lot less than some people think. It's only a couple percent of hands where it matters.

And, if partner has 6hcp and 4 spades, you want to be in 2♠, winning the board against all the strong notrumpers.

[LBengtsson]

This is a good question. We are all told to raise partner's suit here without exception, but there are times when going off piste might be preferable. It all depends whether you can get back on track if you decide to do so. What gadgets have you after deciding in a crazy moment to rebid 1NT here? Is 2♣ or 2♦ conventional? Does the 4 card ♠ support get lost thereafter?

I am not suggesting rebidding 1NT here, but there may be ways around this sort of hand. I have seen conventions - I cannot think of their name - where opener rebids 1NT with 12-16 points, yes you read that right 12-16. Responder then relays with either 2♣ or 2♦ in a similar way to the Gazzilli convention. I do not know whether you can then show the 4 card ♠ support in some way. Maybe someone who has knowledge of relay systems like this may be better qualified to advise.

As to the level you raise the ♠ suit if you do not have the option above, I think it is a matter of personal preference. Both 2♠ and 3♠ could be right here. It is a 16-point hand that feels like a 15-point hand, but if you raise to 3♠ with all 15-point hands then that is what you have to do, despite the shape and lack of intermediates.

[mw64ahw]

Following the statement "raise to 3♠ with 4-card support and 15-17hcp" appears to be agnostic as to shape which is contrary to your quote at the bottom of the post.

In this case 3♠ feels like an overbid with 2♠ an underbid. I'm tempted by 1NT, but that may be because I'm a strong NTrumper although the flat hand is also encouraging. So long as continuations after 1NT are comprehensive I'll stick with this route.

[helene_t]

Agree with Akwoo. I would just bid 2sp and not worry about it. On a good day partner will then bid 3m and we can suggest 3nt.

But of course the solution is to play transfer responses

[AL78]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-06, 21:41, said:

I am not suggesting rebidding 1NT here, but there may be ways around this sort of hand. I have seen conventions - I cannot think of their name - where opener rebids 1NT with 12-16 points, yes you read that right 12-16. Responder then relays with either 2♣ or 2♦ in a similar way to the Gazzilli convention. I do not know whether you can then show the 4 card ♠ support in some way. Maybe someone who has knowledge of relay systems like this may be better qualified to advise.

Crowhurst:

https://www.bridgebu...m/crowhurst.php

I'm not a fan of the wide ranging NT rebid myself.

[AL78]

I am an advocate of supporting with support when it comes to majors but the hand has too many losers to respond 3♠ so I would raise to 2♠, and be prepared to apologise if partner with an ideal nine count passes and we write +170 down.

[Cyberyeti]

I have been known to open these hands 1♣ occasionally rather than 1♠ to rightside NT even though we play 4 card majors, if I do that, I follow it through and rebid 1N. We have the "advantage" that 1N goes up to a bad 19 so is rarely passed and thus I am able to show a hand with 3 spades over Crowhurst and let partner decide. It hasn't tended to be disastrous even when we have a 5-4 fit.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2022-December-07, 02:04, said:

I am an advocate of supporting with support when it comes to majors but the hand has too many losers to respond 3♠ so I would raise to 2♠, and be prepared to apologise if partner with an ideal nine count passes and we write +170 down.

which compensates all the strong nt pairs for the problem of missing 2S opposite 6 HCP.

[mycroft]

One thing my partnership stresses (and I recommend to others, not just who play weak NT, but any "off-standard" system) is "what will the world do? and why should we not join them?" Note the emphasis. Just like a good "default question" is "are trumps out? and why am I not pulling trumps now?" (obviously there are many, good, answers to that question, but unless you can find one, pull trump now) I believe that there's enough variance playing a non-standard system that unless there's a very good reason, I don't want to increase it. In the homogeneous world that is ACBL club bridge, doubly so.

It has to be "the information we got from the system tells me that the standard pattern is likely wrong on this hand" to walk away from it - because you're playing a full-board gamble when you do. Now you might be coming from a full-board gamble situation already (which hand has the killing lead?), but you might not. Really, "wrongsiding" isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. In my opinion, the losses from "playing the major from the wrong side" are far outweighed by the losses from "playing a different contract", and "letting the opponents in at the 1 level" (of course, the gains from "playing a different contract" and "not letting the opponents in at the 1 level" do compensate).

As an example, "we freely bypass one, even both 4-card majors to rebid 1NT." The room knows that opener has a balanced 15-17; making a second call that denies that critical information to responder doesn't gain anywhere near enough to catch up.

Spoiler

Now, my experience with the side-effects of this agreement has convinced me to also play it in many of my strong NT partnerships. But that's a whole different discussion.

Here, the auction in the room is very likely to go 1NT-2♣; 2♠ or 1NT-2♥;2♠. Whether it's right, wrong, or wrandom, almost without exception (1NT-p, or Stayman, then 3♠-3NT "choice of games, I'm flat"-pass seems like the most likely) the field is playing in spades. You want to play NT instead because it rightsides the contract and you're square; hoping at least that if partner has 5, they won't pass you - that depends a lot on how often you raise on 3, I guess. Let's look at how we answer my question with this want.

At IMPs, a lot of the gamble is "will NT go down where partner's trumps are the extra stopper?" And if partner raises you to 3NT, it's a pretty big gamble; if it's just 1NT, it's still 4-6 IMPs if you lose. Of course, you might make the same number of tricks as the spades players, and it might be 7. Of course, you might make one fewer trick than the spade players if your partner has to play spades because your hand is on the table, and if that's 7, your -4 in 2♠-1 just became -1 in 1NT=. But that's your gamble.

At MPs, a lot of the gamble is the default "everyone is in spades, I'm actually *playing* 2NT here" that you're used to from 1NT-p. How do you feel, when dummy comes down and you know everyone else is making 110, so 90 is almost as bad a score as -50? Is that something you want to do more of? For me, that's a "not really, not if I don't have to". Similarly, "I'm actually playing 4NT here" when partner raises you to game "knowing" there's no spade fit.

One more gamble, of course, is "how much do you damage further auctions by violating system this time?" Assuming you don't agree that 4333s will be treated as 3333s, now partner will wonder with their nice 4144 next time "do I check back for partner's *4-card major*, just in case? What will partner do if I do check back?" Okay, maybe they won't do it. Maybe the partnership is strong enough that stepping out occasionally won't trigger doubts about another step-out. But maybe it's not. Assuming you *do* agree that 4333s are treated as 3333s, what do you have to change in your system to handle it? What downsides do those changes have?

So, in my opinion, 2♠ it is.

Why 2♠, not 3♠? Because the 12-14 NT isn't a "killer weapon" that "destroys the opponents" (although it is quite pre-emptive, and it does give the opponents some unsolvable problems nobody else has). It's because, just like the strong NTers use that bid to acquire clear separation between "bad balanced openers" and "very good balanced openers", and build the rest of their system around that, the weak NT allows us to know that when we open 1m, *we don't have a bad (semi-)balanced opener*. And frankly, in order to use this effectively (K/S, North American style; as always, I can't speak to Acol, because I have not investigated the decisions they've made to understand how it can possibly works.), that means that your 1m openers have to be sound, with minimal exceptions that are clearly understood.

And that means no random 4315 (or 3415, and especially not 4135) 11 counts. Those have to be passed. Yes, that is an issue - one MikeH has stated here recently, he believes is effectively a death-knell for the system at highest circles. Yes, there are hands we've passed out that made game in the room. But it means that when you show one of those "not minimal exceptions", it means you have the goods.

In K/S style, North American weak NT system, 1m-1M; 2M is "promises 15-17 points in support of M. Might not have it, but that's what it promises." And 1m-1M (2x, or double); p is "assume partner has a strong NT that can't raise you". And this is a *huge advantage* when you get to do it, and makes up for a large amount of "wrongsiding", "letting the opponents in at the 1 level", and all the rest of the system losses you get. And it means when you jump to 3♠, you've got even *more*, and you won't be concerned that partner will pass with enough for game (the way strong NTers have to decide whether to "upgrade" their balanced 19s into game, just in case partner passes a useful 7 opposite the "good 15-18"). And it means that when you jump to 4♠, partner doesn't have to worry about going down in 5 opposite that "good 18 or balanced 19" versus missing slam with the 21 or nicely shaped 20 (or did they decide to move those into 2♣ openers because they've missed too many slams?)

If you throw all that away, you're operating from behind, in my humble opinion. You have shown parts of your system agreements before that says either "we don't understand what our 1m openers look like" or "we are choosing to throw that all away". The first case is "Read the K/S book, and then review your agreements" (maybe start with KSU and decide what you don't like about it and why?); the second is a very good reason to abandon the weak NT and all of the hassles and forced variance it gives you in favour of going with the field.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on 2022-December-07, 01:21, said:

Agree with Akwoo. I would just bid 2sp and not worry about it. On a good day partner will then bid 3m and we can suggest 3nt.

But of course the solution is to play transfer responses

Playing transfer responses, how does the auction go?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2022-December-07, 15:26, said:

Playing transfer responses, how does the auction go?

It depends. There are lots of ways to play transfer Walsh, but in reality I don’t think it’s correct to say that they solve anything here.

In my variable notrump partnership, this hand is fairly easy if we are nv.

1C 1H. Shows spades

2S. Shows 4 card support and either a distributional minimum (unsuited for an 11-13 1N) or a balanced 14-16. 2N by partner is a relay.

With a strong notrump and 2-3 spades, we’d have bid 1S. Some play that 1S shows 3, but our experience is that it’s better to show 2-3. Primarily because that frees up 1C 1R 1N as 17-19, and that in turn frees up 1C 1R 2N for other specialized uses.

In a 14-16 1N seat, obviously we open 1N.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2022-December-07, 12:11, said:

In K/S style, North American weak NT system, 1m-1M; 2M is "promises 15-17 points in support of M. Might not have it, but that's what it promises."

I basically agree with mycroft here, but my 3M raises start with "Hand that would've superaccepted after opening a strong NT", so all but the worst and flattest 17 counts raise to 3M, and most 16s that include a small doubleton do as well. I suspect I open slightly more unbalanced 11 counts than he does (but not all of them).

[mycroft]

I'd be comfortable with that. Not my agreement, but I can certainly see it (but it does break LoTT when partner only has 4 - you're effectively superaccepting Stayman here. Now, you do have "partner has Ace-or-good-5/6" to make up for it...)

We lean a *lot* on game tries after 1m-1M; 2M, so we get the same thing in other ways. For me, I'm so much less likely to be allowed to play this auction in 2 than 1NT-<Stayman or Transfer>; 2♠, so I'm much less concerned about "being forced to 3 to invite" and "immediately pushing out the competition".

I will note that my major openings are more aggressive - usually more aggressive than the room, frequently more aggressive than they "should be" without limited openers. It's only the minor openings that are sound. OTOH, it's amazing how many people hear "sound minors" and translate to "strong club" - we've had several ask us that in the past (and now, with the new Alert system, sometimes the questions sound more like "and why didn't you pre-Alert your strong club?" than "so you play a strong club?").

But that's been the K/S style since the book came out - sound minors, aggressive (for the time) 5-card majors, 12-14 NT.

[jillybean]

We are are really struggling when we hold a 15-17 opening hand. I'd like us to have the discipline not to jump and have the confidence in partner to continue the auction.
We'll keep trying!

[akwoo]

AL78, on 2022-December-07, 02:04, said:

I am an advocate of supporting with support when it comes to majors but the hand has too many losers to respond 3♠ so I would raise to 2♠, and be prepared to apologise if partner with an ideal nine count passes and we write +170 down.

The ideal 9 count will invite after a 2♠ raise - well at least the ideal 9-count with club values (the minor I opened) definitely will; the ideal 9-count including ♦QJxx might be more hesitant.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2022-December-08, 11:46, said:

We are are really struggling when we hold a 15-17 opening hand. I'd like us to have the discipline not to jump and have the confidence in partner to continue the auction.
We'll keep trying!

I tell potential pickup partners that I play weak NT, but, even if they are willing and interested, I rarely agree to play weak NT with them unless they've played it before.

The inference when partner opens 1m that they must be either unbalanced or 15+ is extremely valuable (not just in the situation of raising responder's major but also in various competitive situations), and if you can't reliably make use of that inference, you're most of the advantage of the weak NT away and basically just taking on a bunch of disadvantages.

Now my problem is that I play strong NT so rarely that I basically end up making that inference when it's not true. It costs about a board a session.

[pilowsky]

akwoo, on 2022-December-08, 12:18, said:

The inference when partner opens 1m that they must be either unbalanced or 15+ is extremely valuable ...

So the critical point is that 1NT is an ironical opening: saying what you aren't.

[nullve]

jillybean, on 2022-December-07, 15:26, said:

Playing transfer responses, how does the auction go?

Some play versions of T-Walsh where some (otherwise awkward?) hands with 4c support go through the transfer acceptance.

For example, you could play

1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2♠ = 15-17 BAL w/ 4 S

.

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2022-December-08, 11:46, said:

We are are really struggling when we hold a 15-17 opening hand. I'd like us to have the discipline not to jump and have the confidence in partner to continue the auction.
We'll keep trying!

When opener raises responder's suit in a weak NT system, it shows something like either 11-14 unbalanced or 15-16 balanced. If you count 3 points for a singleton once a major suit fit is found, it's about the same so a balanced 15-count doesn't really have extra values.

It is a bit of a problem, though, that an 11-point with 3-card support sometimes has no good alternative to raising. But partner will bid on with a (9)10-count with four cards in the major, so maybe you shouldn't raise with 3-card support and a minimum in a weak NT system.