[Thymallus]

My partner have ventured forth into club bridge for 18 months or so and in that time we have used out defence to 1 NT (Landy) precisely once only.

I realise that DONT was conceived to mess up the strong NT systems but is it a convention that works well against weak NT, which is a universal system (almost) on this side of the pond?

I am frustrated watching all the opps having comfortable NT auctions while Landy (Godot) never comes!

Thanks
John

[Flame]

Don't use dont, its one of the worse conventions, landy is just fine. You can lower your demands of the suits, especially when both non vul.

[Walddk]

DONT doesn't work very well against a 12-14 NT unless you want to give up on penalising the opponents. Double shows a 1-suiter if you play DONT. You could have the agreement that you skip showing a single-suited hand (unless you have spades, see below) and let double be for penalty. Then you can use the rest of the convention:

2♣ = clubs and another.
2♦ = diamonds and a major.
2♥ = both majors.
2♠ = natural.

However, I suggest that you use Multi-Landy instead of Landy and DONT. Personally I want to keep the option of doubling for penalty.

Dbl = penalty.
2♣ shows a two-suiter (at least 5-4) with both majors.
2♦ shows a one-suiter in hearts or spades.
2♥ shows five hearts and at least four cards in a minor.
2♠ shows five spades and at least four cards in a minor.

Roland

[badderzboy]

I play in the UK so face weak NT against a high percentage of pairs.

Unfortunately regular NT players have escapes from 1NTX...

We have now started playing the following...

1NT X ( Takeout but convertable) - 13+pts - partner pulls with a very weak hand to a 5 card suit or lowest 4 carder - only 2NT by doubler is forcing so partner can pull to a 'better' suit if short . Partner can pass with a reasonable hand

After 1NT X p 2NT is a strong response ( if red vs white or unsuitable hand) and asks partner to bid suits up the line...

1NT suit bid - one suiter 5/6+ 10-13pts typically.

The idea is to disturb 1NT and occasionally get extra penalties more often - so far so good!!!

Steve

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

there are lots of conventions out there.
http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm

A very popular one, is the one described by
Roland (Multi-Landy / Cappelletti / Hamilton / ...
lots of names for the same thing) ,
altough one important part is missing:

How to react, if partner doubles for penalty
and one holds a weak hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Multi L:andy is not the same as cappaletti or Hamilton.

[Gerben42]

Maybe it could be called reverse Capp.

To the original question: the only reasonable defence to a weak NT that does NOT include a penalty double is Lionel.

[Al_U_Card]

I see that almost all of the methods shown on the above listed site maintain the dbl for penalty. Guess DONT isn't all that popular.

My rule for response to the penalty double is: with one sure trick, pass. With 2 sure tricks invite and with no tricks pull the double to your best suit. Should they redouble, pass asks pard to bid 2C for correction. If you bid a suit it is the lower ranking of your two longest (usually 4 card) suits.

[cinvent77]

I think that playing against a weak no-trump there are two concerns:

1. You want to pick-up some doubled part-scores as 'payment' for all the trouble they cause.
2. You need to be able to bid your games. In particular you need to be able to bid constructively with both majors.

Point 1 means that one should discuss the meaning of various doubles, not just (1NT) - X. Since most opponents will run, one needs to know what say (1NT) - X - (2D) - X means. What about (1NT) - X - (2♦) - P - (P) - X?
Suppose the opponents play transfers. Does (1NT) - P - (2♦) - X show ♦ or a hand willing to defend 2♥ doubled?

As for point 2 I think bidding 2♣ with 5-4 in the majors is better than bidding 2♥ because of the 'extra' 2♦ bid. It makes it easier for responder with an invitational hand with 3-2 in the majors.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: Its unclear that judging methods based on counting the number of examples is necessarily valid the popularity of methods

Comment 2: Stevenson lives in the UK which has some strict regulations regarding using doubles for anything other than penalties. In turn, this might skew the sample.

Comment 3: For whats its worth, Stevenson lists 36 methods using penalty double and 44 using some form of artifical double.

[han]

With my f2f partner I played the double as artificial if the average was 15 or higher (so 14-16 is considered strong, 13-15 weak), and with Ben I play the double as artificial if 14 is included (so 12-14 is considered strong, 11-13 is weak). The weaker their NT, the more likely it is that you have game so the more you need to be able to show a good hand.

[mikeh]

DONT is bad versus weak nt as Roland and others have noted. As a user of weak (10-12, 11-13 and 11-14 depending on partnerships) notrump openers I can state from experience that it is essential to keep the ability to penalize the weak notrumpers.

Here is the scheme I use:

double: 14+ balanced or semi-balanced or any very good hand
2♣ = the majors
2♦ = ♥
2♥ = ♠
2♠ = a good one-suiter in a minor
2N = minors
3 level bids: long good suit in a not-good hand


For advancer, obviously one needs to know the opps' runout, but generally:

After a double and a pass or redouble (subject to meanings)

a bid: weakness: very bad hand

pass = strength: usually good 5+ count

2N gf 2-suiter

When the opps run either immediately or after a pass or redouble by responder, doubles by either partner of a 2minor are takeout and of 2M are penalty.

If advancer has any values, the opps are not allowed to play 2minor undoubled but may play 2M undoubled (but usually will not)

The same structure applies in balancing seat, but we give up the double, using it to show a 2♣ or 2♦ one-suiter too weak for 2♠: partner can pass with say 10-13 points and a suitable hand.

[KiwiBridge]

Forget all the nonsense about losing the ability to X a weak NT for penalties.... it just doesn't happen. I've played 12-15 for decades and can't remember the last time I went for a "number", certainly not in this century.

My partner and I switched from Landy to DONT several years ago, and YES, it does work really well against the weak NT which is almost universally played in New Zealand. It also enables you to compete far more often than Landy does.

[Free]

Gerben42, on Nov 23 2005, 06:51 PM, said:

Maybe it could be called reverse Capp.

Why not call capp 'reversed landy'?

Against weak NT, you need constructive methods since you could still have game (very important if you're vulnerable, a little less when you're NV). Against strong NT you want more destructive methods, more to intervene and annoy opps rather than looking for a game.

DONT is a destructive method, so it's not great against weak NT.

Landy is pretty nice, multi-Landy is better imo, but if you really want constructive methods AND a penalty double (especially when you're NV vs V and want to penalize opps) I'd advise you to play one of the family ASTRO/ASTPRO/ASPTRO. It comes up fairly often, and has great constructive methods. Lionel and Brozel (I think) also pretty fine, and have the advantage that 2 suits are known if you intervene with the ♥ suit.

[Walddk]

Free, on Nov 23 2005, 09:36 PM, said:

Lionel and Brozel (I think) also pretty fine, and have the advantage that 2 suits are known if you intervene with the ♥ suit.

Brozel is pretty useless (sorry Mr. Zeller). If you play that convention, you are completely lost if you don't happen to have a heart suit. Virtually everything shows hearts as one of the suits.

Roland

[mikeh]

KiwiBridge, on Nov 23 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

Forget all the nonsense about losing the ability to X a weak NT for penalties.... it just doesn't happen.  I've played 12-15 for decades and can't remember the last time I went for a "number", certainly not in this century.

My partner and I switched from Landy to DONT several years ago, and YES, it does work really well against the weak NT which is almost universally played in New Zealand.  It also enables you to compete far more often than Landy does.

In the last event in which I played, three weeks ago, we went for 800 (it should have been 1100) when partner opened 1N and I held 9xxx J9x 98xx xx.

Now, we were playing 10-12, and partner did hold a minimum: xx A10xx 10xx AQxx, but you could easily have increased his hand to a 12 count and we would have had the same disaster (duplicated tho it was at the other table )

I have gone for 1400 after opening a weak notrump. I lost a Regional Open pairs on the last board when I opened a 10-12 at favourable with 12 hcp and went for a number.

In a Canadian National Team Championship, I went for 1100 while our teammates were +110: I pointed out that we were only a '0' different.

(I hope you all understand that I have actually had some good results from the method )

If you have not gone for a number playing weak notrumps, all I can say is that you play against weak opponents.

In fact, one of the tests of whether a partnership is good is the extent to which they can extract penalties against weak notrumpers: there is a tendency even amongst quite good players to give up, once the opps are scrambling, and jump to the cold game, often forgoing an easy 7-10 imp pickup.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Nov 23 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

In the last event in which I played, three weeks ago, we went for 800 (it should have been 1100) when partner opened 1N and I held 9xxx J9x 98xx xx.

Now, we were playing 10-12, and partner did hold a minimum: xx A10xx 10xx AQxx

it would depend on who doubled, i guess, but if direct opp my bidding would be

1nt (x) p* (p) xx (p?) 2d=spades and diamonds - any bid is 2 suited w/out hearts

i doubt it matters this hand, it looks like one of those where the weak nt just happens to get blasted

[Chamaco]

mikeh, on Nov 23 2005, 08:32 PM, said:

DONT is bad versus weak nt as Roland and others have noted. As a user of weak (10-12, 11-13 and 11-14 depending on partnerships) notrump openers I can state from experience that it is essential to keep the ability to penalize the weak notrumpers.

Here is the scheme I use:

double: 14+ balanced or semi-balanced or any very good hand
2♣ = the majors
2♦ = ♥
2♥ = ♠
2♠ = a good one-suiter in a minor
2N = minors
3 level bids: long good suit in a not-good hand

A very similar scheme is played by some top-level players of the club I attend to:

double:one suiter in a minor (with a good lead), OR 14+ balanced or semi-balanced OR any very good hand
2♣ = the majors
2♦ = ♥ (1suited or 2 suited with a minor)
2♥ = ♠ (1suited or 2 suited with a minor)
2♠ =4 spades + longer minor (Raptor shape)
2N = minors
3m = 4 hearts + longer minor in the suit bid (Raptor shape)

[GeeGee]

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2005, 02:49 PM, said:

Comment 2:  Stevenson lives in the UK which has some strict regulations regarding using doubles for anything other than penalties.  In turn, this might skew the sample.

Not any more. The regulations were relaxed in the April 2005 Orange Book (edited by David Stevenson).

This says that, at level 3 (ordinary club level), any defence is allowed to a natural one no trump opener.

[Thymallus]

Thanks all for your replies.

I was taught that double negatives were bad, but in this context it seems that don't DONT is the consensus.

We'll have a think about which system to choose and I'll note how we do and perhaps make another post to let you know how we get on.

Incidentally why is it that the weak NT seems so reviled at the top level? It seem to me to be very pre-emptive and Mike Lawrence & co are very much in favour of pre-emptive bids in every other context.



John