[Shugart23]

Partner and I are shaking up our bidding system and contemplating defining our 1NT overcall as 13-17 balanced shape nut are not sure yet whether or not we will promise a Stopper. We play exclusively matchpoints and there are lots of advantages to bidding NT before Opponents do, especially when non-vul..We have very well defined escape sequences and are adept at it (we open mini-NT).

Can I get some comments on whether the 1NT must have a Stopper or not , in matchpoint play.

[whereagles]

The advantage of natural 1NT bids is that they are very precise in terms of shape and strength.

Shape/strength is way more important than location of high cards (i.e. stoppers), so I would say you don't need stoppers for bidding 1NT. This opinion is, however, not the establishment. In fact, 99% of the people here will tell you a stopper is mandatory (wrongly, in my opinion).

HOWEVER.. if you're serious about a range 13-17 you will lose the HCP precision of the 1NT. I believe that is far more problematic than stopper issues because you're hitting primary defining features of the hand.

[mikeh]

Even at mps, where the race to 1N assumes far more importance than at other forms of scoring (other than BAM), the notion of a range of 13-17 makes me ill.

You are going to either overbid or underbid randomly.

Say partner holds a decent 10 count. The field will know to be in game when their partner overcalls 1N: your partnership is guessing

Say 3rd chair bids over your 1N: the field will be far better positioned to compete appropriately when their 1N overcall shows a narrower range.

In addition, overcalling 1N on a balanced 13, with or without a stopper, when red v white is a recipe for -200 on boring hands where, had you passed (it is not against the laws of bridge to pass with 13 hcp, you know) or doubled, you'd end up selling out to a partscore. There are many other bad possibilities when you make partner guess whether you hold 13-14 or 16-17, with or without a stopper.

I know there is a tendency amongst some players, especially those who like to think of themselves as 'aggressive' to think that getting into the auction as frequently as possible is good matchpoints, and I would generally agree with this. But I draw the line at throwing discipline to the winds and creating randomness in our own auctions where the randomness is at least as likely to cause us problems as it is to injure the opps. After all, 3rd chair knows what he has, and can usually safely assume his partner has a minimum range opening, so has (on most hands) a good idea of his side's combined high card assets, while your partner is more in the dark, and the less informed one's decisions are, the worse they tend to be.

As for doubling down on the randomness by throwing out the stopper requirement, I think it to be silly.

Now, if you use a tighter, more normal range, I can readily see dropping the requirement for a stopper in a suit in which opener promised only 3+ (or fewer) cards, since often times 3rd chair will choose not to lead partner's possible non-suit. However, I think dropping the requirement for a stopper in a suit known to be 4+ (and for many a major is 5+) is really bad. Apart from the obvious problem that we face when they run the suit off the start, we now add the embarrassing possibility of wrong-siding a contract....we won't get many matchpoints for 3N down 1 at trick 5 when partner holds, say, Kx or Qxx and we have 9 winners from his side.

[diana_eva]

In addition to Mike's comments re 13-17 being way too wide to be helpful, I think showing a stopper is at least as important as range & shape when bidding over a natural suit. Not only for right-siding the contract but also to discourage partner in case he has a shortness there, or to allow him to choose NT over a suit fit to avoid getting ruffed.

[Shugart23]

Thanks...Yes, tis is a concept in progress. We are already thinking if Red and partner has already passed, we probably need to be in the upper range and maybe even have the Stop....But in second seat and not vulnerable, it might be ok. (You should see some of the hands we open 1NT with non-vul!). Consensus is to have a tight range around the 1NT overcall, but has anyone actually played with the broad range ? I live in ACBL world, so 5 point spread is as high as it goes, not that I think it should be more I appreciate both of your responses; your points are well taken

[ArtK78]

There is a difference between entering an auction aggressively and creating random results. The latter should only be done if you believe that the field is better than you are, so that you benefit from a truly random result. I have not seen any successful players who employ such a tactic.

Besides, even if you employ tactics that attempt to create a random result, such tactics will not succeed unless your opponents are willing to cooperate with you in creating a truly random result. But I suspect that they are actually looking out for their own interests, and will not cooperate.

There was a chapter in Alfred Sheinwold's book Duplicate Bridge titled Playing for Average. The idea was that better players should aim for normal results on most hands and take advantage of their opponents' mistakes. If you don't make mistakes of your own, that is usually good enough to win if you are better than most of the opponents.

[Shugart23]

ArtK78, on 2014-April-16, 11:03, said:

There is a difference between entering an auction aggressively and creating random results. The latter should only be done if you believe that the field is better than you are, so that you benefit from a truly random result. I have not seen any successful players who employ such a tactic.

Besides, even if you employ tactics that attempt to create a random result, such tactics will not succeed unless your opponents are willing to cooperate with you in creating a truly random result. But I suspect that they are actually looking out for their own interests, and will not cooperate.

There was a chapter in Alfred Sheinwold's book Duplicate Bridge titled Playing for Average. The idea was that better players should aim for normal results on most hands and take advantage of their opponents' mistakes. If you don't make mistakes of your own, that is usually good enough to win if you are better than most of the opponents.

sure,we have enjoyed great success with our mini-NT opening...I think I saw somewhere that about 1/3 of all hands can be opened mini-NT whereas less than 8% can be opened standard range....maybe someone has the more precise statistic on frequencies...We sometimes pay the price, but not very often....Our results may appear to be more 'random' when playing against a field where everyone in the room opens 15-17, but its probably more of a function of our ability to make the bid several times a night (we win way more than we lose, so we are committed to mini NT strategy)

It would be interesting to know the conditional probablilty of being able to overcall 1NT with 15-17 HCP along with having a Stop, given your RHO has opened at the 1 level....I'd have to think very infrequently. I'll make a stab at the odds at 1/50 hands . By lowering the point count from 15, you increase the probability of having the bid available and getting in the auction. If not done stupidly, there may be a positive payoff

[kenrexford]

Interesting theoretically. As a short-form answer, I would love this approach if I could use a sort of Kaplan Inversion for overcalls. Bear with me, and I will explain my thinking:

1. Is the lack of a stopper a problem?

Sort of. I agree with much of what others have said. I myself do not always have a stopper. And, I have a means of asking about the stopper situation already in use. The simplest is a "transfer" to Opener's major as a
Do you really have a stopper?" ask. Putting the hand strength out there, and getting to 1NT first, has obvious merit.

The real problem, which Mike stated, it wrong-siding the contract when partner has a situational stopper. One solution is to require a bolster. Even Jx often does the trick. The other theory solution is a "Kaplan Inversion" style, where a 1NT overcall shows the one-up suit while one-up shows the balanced hand. For example, if 1♥-1NT showed spades, with 1♥-1♠ showing balanced, the contract would usually be right-sided. Even if Overcaller has AQx or so, the Queen is probably protected in Dummy anyway.

2. Is the HCP range a problem?

Not as much as for an opening bid, for a strange reason. Normally, with no information, a 13-17 range is too much. Here, however, there is a change in circumstances, as an opening hand is known to be to the right. If we know that an opening hand is to the right, we know that our 13-17 HCP hand probably has more strength than expected. Simply put, finesses have a better chance of making.

Years ago, I ran through a series of deals and noticed a trend. If you give Opener a normal 13-count or so, overcaller a sound overcall strength (13-14 is fine), partner about 8, and Responder about 4 (4-8-14-14 around the table), our side usually can make game on 22 HCP. The finesse positions amount to about 4 HCP worth of advantage, on average. Thus, I gained a lot being aggressive with nice looking 8-counts, especially at IMP bidding. This also argued for sounder overcalls, to protect the aggressive Advancer.

This theory starts to break down as you get away from 8 opposite 14. 6 opposite 16 might sound better, because more finesse opportunities are available. However, reducing Advancer to 6 HCP meant fewer entries and fewer complimentary cards. We all know that 13 opposite 13 plays better than 20 opposite 6 or 23 opposite 3. Same thing here.

If you combine these two realities, then, you end up with a weird phenomenon. An 8-count plays game well opposite 13-17. A 6-count plays poorly opposite 16-17. If you see where I am going, the range needed for game opposite an 8-count is wider than what it would be opposite an opening bid in a vacuum, with extra points opposite the 8-count (17 versus 13) not having as much impact as you would think.

Think about this. If the position is right, AKx produces 2 tricks, as does AQx, as often does AJx. If all three produce 2 tricks, then 2 HCP of value are somewhat arbitrary and unnecessary. Hence, the 17-count looks better than the 13-count, but they both end up taking the needed tricks, as long as partner has entries/values, and the needed entries/values are about the same.

Thus, IMO, the 13-17 range is definitely playable, from a "finding game" perspective.

From a safety perspective, that might be another issue, unless your escapes are great. You claim great escapes, so maybe vulnerability, or nuanced analysis of what hand types are prone to problems vs. escape-worthy is in order. But, that ends up being judgment, not definition.

3. Is the combination problematic?

Not necessarily, if you have an unwind of the no-stopper scenario that also allows landing on your feet well. You need to be able to have an escape similar to the "got doubled" escape when Overcaller's lack of a true stopper is a problem. For me, the transfer-to-a-major ask has a structure for when Overcaller does not have a stopper. You assume playing two of the other major (if possible) on a Moysian or some minor suit contract. Tailor the bidding to play in the correct minor if that is the scenario.

So, I think your innovation is better than others are suggesting. I agree that there are problems. I think the problems might be solved enough to net gain, with great care and good judgment. I believe that a "Kaplan Inversion" would go a long way to improve the viability of the idea.

[mycroft]

There is a big difference between a 1NT opening and a 1NT overcall; next seat has a much better idea of card strength around the table after the overcall. 13-17 is a big range, but it doesn't have the protection that many big ranges give over narrow ones; when responder has 10, he doesn't care much whether the points break 13-5 or 17-1 (and, of course, opener doesn't *have* to have a bare minimum 12).

I'm much happier opening my 11+-14 NT, or even my 11-13 or 10-12 NT, than I am overcalling 1NT with 13-bad 15 balanced, even if it *could* be bigger. I, too, get lots of magic results from the weak NT, but that's because it's *them* working out their partnership strength at the 2 level (and being concerned that, say with some reasonable 13, it's all stacked against them), not *us*.

And since my belief in the goal of escapes is well recorded here, I have less faith in escapes from 1NT o/c doubled forcing them to the last guess than when opened. If your escape strategy is geared to finding the best place to play (doubled), and not putting the pressure on the opponents to guess whether to defend or find their contract, then there's less of a problem, I will admit.

[helene_t]

The stopper is very important. If partner has enough for game and a stopper like KJx or AQx, 3NT has to be played from partner's side.

Without a stopper you will usually have the shape for either an overcall or a t/o double. If you have a 16 count with a 4432 shape and a small trippleton in opps' suit, maybe you have a good 4-card suit you can bid at the 1-level. Otherwise just pass. Your hand will be good for defence.

[ArtK78]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-16, 11:44, said:

sure,we have enjoyed great success with our mini-NT opening...I think I saw somewhere that about 1/3 of all hands can be opened mini-NT whereas less than 8% can be opened standard range....maybe someone has the more precise statistic on frequencies...We sometimes pay the price, but not very often....Our results may appear to be more 'random' when playing against a field where everyone in the room opens 15-17, but its probably more of a function of our ability to make the bid several times a night (we win way more than we lose, so we are committed to mini NT strategy)

It would be interesting to know the conditional probablilty of being able to overcall 1NT with 15-17 HCP along with having a Stop, given your RHO has opened at the 1 level....I'd have to think very infrequently. I'll make a stab at the odds at 1/50 hands . By lowering the point count from 15, you increase the probability of having the bid available and getting in the auction. If not done stupidly, there may be a positive payoff

I have no problem with the mini-NT. I play it myself.

I have a real problem with the NT overcall without a stopper. Others have set forth the reasons.

[aguahombre]

The mini NT is what it is, and the mini range is also a narrow one. You can cope with your own range just fine.

I have a big problem with wide-range NT openings and overcalls by opponents. They seem to guess a lot better than Mikeh suggests, and a lot better than I would expect.

[Shugart23]

kenrexford, on 2014-April-16, 12:36, said:

Interesting theoretically. As a short-form answer, I would love this approach if I could use a sort of Kaplan Inversion for overcalls. Bear with me, and I will explain my thinking:

1. Is the lack of a stopper a problem?

Sort of. I agree with much of what others have said. I myself do not always have a stopper. And, I have a means of asking about the stopper situation already in use. The simplest is a "transfer" to Opener's major as a
Do you really have a stopper?" ask. Putting the hand strength out there, and getting to 1NT first, has obvious merit.

The real problem, which Mike stated, it wrong-siding the contract when partner has a situational stopper. One solution is to require a bolster. Even Jx often does the trick. The other theory solution is a "Kaplan Inversion" style, where a 1NT overcall shows the one-up suit while one-up shows the balanced hand. For example, if 1♥-1NT showed spades, with 1♥-1♠ showing balanced, the contract would usually be right-sided. Even if Overcaller has AQx or so, the Queen is probably protected in Dummy anyway.

2. Is the HCP range a problem?

Not as much as for an opening bid, for a strange reason. Normally, with no information, a 13-17 range is too much. Here, however, there is a change in circumstances, as an opening hand is known to be to the right. If we know that an opening hand is to the right, we know that our 13-17 HCP hand probably has more strength than expected. Simply put, finesses have a better chance of making.

Years ago, I ran through a series of deals and noticed a trend. If you give Opener a normal 13-count or so, overcaller a sound overcall strength (13-14 is fine), partner about 8, and Responder about 4 (4-8-14-14 around the table), our side usually can make game on 22 HCP. The finesse positions amount to about 4 HCP worth of advantage, on average. Thus, I gained a lot being aggressive with nice looking 8-counts, especially at IMP bidding. This also argued for sounder overcalls, to protect the aggressive Advancer.

This theory starts to break down as you get away from 8 opposite 14. 6 opposite 16 might sound better, because more finesse opportunities are available. However, reducing Advancer to 6 HCP meant fewer entries and fewer complimentary cards. We all know that 13 opposite 13 plays better than 20 opposite 6 or 23 opposite 3. Same thing here.

If you combine these two realities, then, you end up with a weird phenomenon. An 8-count plays game well opposite 13-17. A 6-count plays poorly opposite 16-17. If you see where I am going, the range needed for game opposite an 8-count is wider than what it would be opposite an opening bid in a vacuum, with extra points opposite the 8-count (17 versus 13) not having as much impact as you would think.

Think about this. If the position is right, AKx produces 2 tricks, as does AQx, as often does AJx. If all three produce 2 tricks, then 2 HCP of value are somewhat arbitrary and unnecessary. Hence, the 17-count looks better than the 13-count, but they both end up taking the needed tricks, as long as partner has entries/values, and the needed entries/values are about the same.

Thus, IMO, the 13-17 range is definitely playable, from a "finding game" perspective.

From a safety perspective, that might be another issue, unless your escapes are great. You claim great escapes, so maybe vulnerability, or nuanced analysis of what hand types are prone to problems vs. escape-worthy is in order. But, that ends up being judgment, not definition.

3. Is the combination problematic?

Not necessarily, if you have an unwind of the no-stopper scenario that also allows landing on your feet well. You need to be able to have an escape similar to the "got doubled" escape when Overcaller's lack of a true stopper is a problem. For me, the transfer-to-a-major ask has a structure for when Overcaller does not have a stopper. You assume playing two of the other major (if possible) on a Moysian or some minor suit contract. Tailor the bidding to play in the correct minor if that is the scenario.

So, I think your innovation is better than others are suggesting. I agree that there are problems. I think the problems might be solved enough to net gain, with great care and good judgment. I believe that a "Kaplan Inversion" would go a long way to improve the viability of the idea.

Thanks Ken...are the 'Kaplan Inversion' type bids you suggest ACBL compliant ?

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-16, 16:29, said:

Thanks Ken...are the 'Kaplan Inversion' type bids you suggest ACBL compliant ?

Hell no. At least, I can't imagine.

[JmBrPotter]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-16, 09:20, said:

Partner and I are shaking up our bidding system and contemplating defining our 1NT overcall as 13-17 balanced shape nut are not sure yet whether or not we will promise a Stopper. We play exclusively matchpoints and there are lots of advantages to bidding NT before Opponents do, especially when non-vul..We have very well defined escape sequences and are adept at it (we open mini-NT).

Can I get some comments on whether the 1NT must have a Stopper or not , in matchpoint play.

Partner and I use a 10-14 1NT opening in all seats at all vulnerabilities. We need and use quite a few runout sequences and invitational sequences. It seems to work for us more often, sometimes spectacularly, than not. I can't see why the invitational sequences would not work just as well after an overcall.

For now, our 1NT overcall is a sedate 15-18HCP and balanced. We usually have a stopper, and our card says that we do. However, when everything else is right for a 1NT overcall, and no other call makes any sense, we sometimes throw in the 1NT overcall without a stopper. When the opening lead is with the partner of the opponent who bid the suit, the fact that a 1NT overcall showed a stopper sometimes inhibits the lead of the adverse suit. Apparently, some folks wish to avoid finessing against partner. Works for me!

Perhaps, partner and I should consider dropping and widening out 1NT overcall range.

[JmBrPotter]

kenrexford, on 2014-April-16, 20:28, said:

Hell no. At least, I can't imagine.

In the GCC (of all places) under allowed "Responses and Rebids" one finds as the last entry:

"10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct
overcall, EXCEPT for natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with
a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5
HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). See #7
under DISALLOWED."

As a club director, I read that as, "After you open or overcall a natural NT with a lower strength limit ≥ 10 HCP that has a range no wider than 5HCP, as long as you alert and announce as dictated by courtesy and lawful requirements, anything goes."

I've been known to misread the GCC from time to time, but this seems to be both clear and sweeping.

[aguahombre]

What you misread is the post you quoted and the post it was responding to. You are applying the section of the GCC about natural NT openings or overcalls to their discussion of a "Kaplan" type inverted overcall where neither 1S/1H nor 1NT/1H is natural.

[Shugart23]

[quote name='kenrexford' timestamp='1397673366' post='789468']
Interesting theoretically. As a short-form answer, I would love this approach if I could use a sort of Kaplan Inversion for overcalls. Bear with me, and I will explain my thinking:

1. Is the lack of a stopper a problem?

Sort of. I agree with much of what others have said. I myself do not always have a stopper. And, I have a means of asking about the stopper situation already in use. The simplest is a "transfer" to Opener's major as a
Do you really have a stopper?" ask. Putting the hand strength out there, and getting to 1NT first, has obvious merit.

Why not just cue bid the Major and then the 1NT overcaller bids 2NT or 3NT depending upon the answer (or could even cue bid at 3 level if there was some agreement worth having) ? A cue bid hamper Opener from rebidding his suit wheras teh transfer does not....

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-17, 10:28, said:

Why not just cue bid the Major and then the 1NT overcaller bids 2NT or 3NT depending upon the answer (or could even cue bid at 3 level if there was some agreement worth having) ? A cue bid hamper Opener from rebidding his suit wheras teh transfer does not....

A couple of reasons.

First, the cue of Opener's major is often a call dedicated to another purpose. For instance, 1♥-1NT-P-2♥ is a sequence I use as a transfer to spades. This explains the "transfer to Opener's major" method, because I would never transfer to hearts naturally.

Second, though, the transfer-cue allows for a nice scheme. Consider the exact same start:

1♥-1NT-P-2♦!

As a simple method, Overcaller could bid:

2NT = real stopper, minimum

3NT = real stopper, maximum

2♠ = no stopper, four spades (might play Moysian)

3♣ = no stopper, 5+ clubs

3♦ = no stopper, 5+ diamonds

So far, you have a lot of good stuff. But, what about hands like 3-2-4-4 or 2-3-4-4? With that hand, you can "complete the transfer." Hence, 1♥-1NT-P-2♦, P-2♥ = no real stopper, not four spades, no 5-card minor.

You can get even sexier that this, if you want.

If Opener's major is spades, this gets trickier, because hearts cannot be introduced by Overcaller easily. The "complete the transfer" allows some unwind, nonetheless, if Advancer's 2NT suggests playable hearts, but you really don't need that. More often, Advancer needs 2NT as a minor probe.

[gszes]

some of these have been mentioned above ---

1. I do not believe a stopper is needed opposite a minor suit opening but
firmly believe it is needed opposite a major suit opening.

2. Even opposite a minor suit opening make sure the hand is not better
off using a TOX.

3. The wide range creates far too many problems period.

4. The main disadvantage to me (aside from wrongsiding) is that we will not
spend any time looking for a better place to play when neither partner has
a stopper. Bidding goes 1H 1N(15-17) p and you hold Axx xx KQxx QJxx. The
sad thing is 4s 5c and 5d might all be plausible alternatives to going down
in 3n when neither partner has a stopper. While the same case can be made
after a minor suit opening those are far less likely to have 5+ cards that
are killers from the get go.

5. The stronger your play and defense get the stronger your partnership will
become and that takes practice. Make sure you are both on the same page when
it comes to when/how to use defensive signals and when they should be
randomized.

afterthought: today's game is hyper competitive and most of the time you will
not be allowed to play 1n in any competitive auction and slowly the pass out
seat (especially nvul) is adopting lower and lower standards for competing
against 1n. The point is do not be in such a hurry to make your 1n overcalls
"odd".