Saturday, September 5, 2009

The Case for the Weak Notrump

This is the introduction to a series of posts analysing the merits of a strong (15-17) notrump vs a weak (12-14) notrump. The name of this post might suggest the analysis will not be particularly objective, but the evidence is strong enough that it's hard to avoid any other conclusion.

I will assume the rest of the system is five card majors and a 2/1 game force structure, though there won't be much difference if not. The arguments for or against the weak notrump fall roughly into five categories:I'll post on each of these over the next few days plus a summary at the end.

3 comments:

Paul Gipson said...

I will assume the rest of the system is five card majors and a 2/1 game force structure, though there won't be much difference if not.

I think it makes a huge difference. Weak notrump and 5-card majors is a very different beast from weak notrump and 4-card majors.

The former is a very playable system, the latter seems fundamentally unsound despite being what everyone is taught in the UK.

Nigel Kearney said...

My argument is that a weak notrump is better than a strong notrump when playing five card majors, and also when playing four card majors.

If you mean that four card majors is unsound with a weak notrump but sound with a strong notrump, then you'll need to tell me why.

Richard09 said...

I've seen it argued that 4-card majors are incompatible with a strong NT. I'm not convinced by the argument, but I'm sure that playing the weak NT is at least easier. I don't think any combination is "fundamentally unsound", but each has (different) special cases and dangers that need to be handled. I think those that arise from a weak NT are easier to deal with regardless of whether you're playing 4- or 5-card majors.