[mike777]

Wow, coming back to bridge I did not remember how cutthroat the bidding can be over an opponent's strong NT opening.


Some of my partners love to show:
2 suited hands NV with J9xx and 9xxx
2 suited Vul hands with ATxx and KTxx
Granted these partners do tend to play the spots off the cards.
I would have alerted but had no idea my partners love to bid so much.

Last night 2 rounds in a row the opp's then competed with Lebensohl type bids to show their 4 card club suit and balanced hands at the 3 level Vul:). They said they did not want to get stolen from . Lo and behold their partners, the 1nt opener, had 4 card support both times.

Actually the suits and hcp count may be even worse but I was on my second Holiday Baileys by then .

My bridge books do not teach me these kind of bridge bidding secrets! Can someone please write the real winning and bidding bridge book?

[luke warm]

hehehehe... i blame a lot of this on the fact that the poor old penalty double seems to have run away

[han]

The examples you give here are too much for me, but bidding aggresively over 1NT is a clear winner, especially at love all.

[Kalvan14]

What goes today for an overcall over 1NT would have been off-limits 20 years ago
However, the theory of assumed fit does promises that you have 2 chances in 3 to find a fit when you bid with two 4-card suits, and it is a clear incentive not to be shy. Which is really proven by facts: you may have to pay the occasional 500 or 800, but, on average, you gain. Kindly note that this applies to both MP and IMP (and I would assume to BAM too).

I am a big supporter of DONT to overcall 1NT. It is simple and quite effective (IMHO the most effective overcall system). The advancer has just one rule: be always a pessimist, and don't {DONT } change suit unless you're doubled and you have reasonable chances to find a better fit; a less-known corollary to Murphy's law states that if you hold a 9 cards 2-suiter, pard will have no fit .

The theory of assumed fit should be used as a general pre-emptive tool: I am not sure how ACBL rules are; OTOH, Australia is quite a free country, and EBU has relaxed a number of the most stupid rules. My recommendation is to go for the maximum that you're allowed in pre-empting at the 2-level. I play 2♦ multi, 2♥ weak with 4/4 in the majors, 2♠ Dutch style. I am even thinking to ditch 2♣ GF to play 2♣ as a weak 3-suiter (or 5-4-3-1) with clubs as anchor suit.
Which anticipates the last suggestion: it is better (much, much better) when pard can pass your bid Which is another reason for liking DONT.

[FrancesHinden]

I've had a string of large penalties recently from people coming in over a mini NT on rubbish. And we don't even play penalty doubles by responder!

[Gerben42]

The problem with DONT is: it doesn't interfere. Only if responder would have passed 1NT you will might have gained something. And if it's your hand, you will more often than not play a suboptimal contract (if the contract were good, do you think they would've passed it out?) I love it when my opponents play DONT, but that's just me I guess.
At IMPs, they usually wonder where all the 5-IMP swings come from (110 and -100). At MPs, the big gains is when they struggle around in a 4-3 minor fit for +90 and everyone chalks up +100 for 1NT down 1 or +110 for 2 of a MAJOR making.

So I advise everyone to play DONT. Please do. Against me. For money. Please?

[Al_U_Card]

Ah yes, evolution, a wonderful, frightening and very useful natural phenomenon. In the bad old days, bidding was so bad that everyone had to be a super card player. Then bidding improved to where playable contracts were reached so often that competition increased along with the bid level.

I think that the old farts who resist the tendency towards more "agressive" bidding methods are losing out in the "survival of the fittest" contest. Check out the younger players. They are fearless and we can't even punish them effectively.....oh what is a parent to do?

Didn't someone, a long time ago in a far away place, named Fishbein try something like that against those nasty preempters? Some day our Prince will come and we will have super penalty doubles (at the end of the auction, you show the "super" card and all scores are doubled). Then those sacrificial maniacs will get their due....

[pbleighton]

"I've had a string of large penalties recently from people coming in over a mini NT on rubbish."

The best reason to play the mini - the opps go wild

Peter

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Perhaps you might like to try playing 'negative doubles' against the people bidding over a strong NT with very poor 4-4 suits.

This style of 'takeout' doubles seems to work because 'if' either partner has a trump stack, your partner will often make a 'takeout double.'

I used to play a lot of penalty doubles(based just on HCP totals) over my
12-14HCP KS 1NTs and we sometimes defended at the two level with the other pair holding 8(9?) trumps.

Playing 'takeout' doubles' the number of penalties has risen and we no longer defend contracts at the two level when the enemy has 8 trumps 'unless' one of us holds a trump stack.

Since DONT players(and other methods) sometimes(often?) try to play in a 4-3 fit, a 'takeout' double often will greatly increase your reward when they can be nailed for a number. Even if they find a 5-3 fit, that trump stack will often get your pair a nice penalty.

I like to double and defend so 'takeout doubles' give me more and better chances to do so. As a side result, I can often select a playable contract 'if' the DONT player has managed to find a 8+ trump fit.

Regards,
Robert

[mikeh]

While we have all seen silly overcalls of 1N, we don't see them (no pun intended) by good players in good competition. If you are playing online against a pair who are either inexperienced or have not discussed their methods over competition, then silly bids will work a disproportionate amount of the time. This is actually a trap situation, in that it encourages an approach that will get you killed in the real world of good ftf bridge.

I consider myself an aggressive competitor over their strong 1N and I use the same general approach, in terms of strength, length etc over weak notrump, altho I use entirely different conventions. I do not use penalty or strength doubles of strong NT but do over weak NT. As for suit overcalls, (suction, molson, or my no-name defence to weak nt.. no-name meaning I don't know if it even has a name), my approach is much the same as over strong. As a proponent of weak nt openers, I know that many of our best results are from the opps thinking that our weakness is an invitation to compete on garbage.

Leave the silly 4-4 two-suit overcalls for others, else your judgment will be shot.

And I agree with what (I understood) Frances to be saying: negative doubles work fine, and I use them at the 2 and 3 levels after we open 1N, regardless of range. You still usually nail them when it is right and in the meantime you get to describe competitive hands that would otherwise be stolen from you. Altho I admit it took a while for me to become comfortable opening 1N on xx KQxx Jxx AJxx and reopening a 2♠ overcall with double

[han]

mikeh, on Nov 29 2005, 01:20 PM, said:

Altho I admit it took a while for me to become comfortable opening 1N on xx KQxx Jxx AJxx and reopening a 2♠ overcall with double

You do this?

Seriously, I've had some bad results reopening with a minimum, especially when red.

[mikeh]

Yes, Han, I would reopen with that hand after a 2♠ overcall was passed back to me. However, I only play 10-12 when not vulnerable, and I would not reopen with any ♠ length or strength nor with a bunch of quacks: the hand I gave (xx KQxx Jxx AJxx) is control-rich in context, and a good defensive hand should partner sit.

My experience with this style is that RHO will usually strive to bid over his partner's overcall with values, and, when playing negative doubles, the chances of a 3 level disaster our way is much less than the chances of a 500 or more in 2♠ doubled.

As I have previously posted, I used to play disaster-avoidance, but now I play more of a pressure game, and the occasional nightmare doesn't worry me.

I am still conservative within the context of my methods (compared to some I know) but my methods are themselves more aggressive, if that makes sense.

[han]

My bad results came when I balanced holding something like KQxx xx AJxx KJx after opening 1NT (14-16) and 2H was passed around to me. Perhaps this is different from the 10-12 NT because they are unlikely to bid over 2H even with good hands?

[Kalvan14]

Gerben42, on Nov 29 2005, 07:30 AM, said:

The problem with DONT is: it doesn't interfere. Only if responder would have passed 1NT you will might have gained something. And if it's your hand, you will more often than not play a suboptimal contract (if the contract were good, do you think they would've passed it out?) I love it when my opponents play DONT, but that's just me I guess.
At IMPs, they usually wonder where all the 5-IMP swings come from (110 and -100). At MPs, the big gains is when they struggle around in a 4-3 minor fit for +90 and everyone chalks up +100 for 1NT down 1 or +110 for 2 of a MAJOR making.

So I advise everyone to play DONT. Please do. Against me. For money. Please?

If there were a consensus, there would be not 232 different defenses against NT

I like DONT, and play it against everyone, beginners or world champs. If the results were not good, i would already have changed my defense.
No worry, gerben: I'll play aginst you too. For love or for money