[FrancesHinden]

I have some contradictory issues with my defence to a 1NT opening.

i) I don't want to vary the method according to vulnerability/form of scoring/opponents, because the memory strain is too great

ii) Against sober citizens a penalty double of a strong NT is a bit of a waste of time

iii) Against many freewheeling players a penalty double of a strong NT, particularly a 3rd position strong NT, particularly a third position NV strong NT, is vital to avoid vul game swings out.

So I continue to play double of a strong NT as penalties, because of (i) and (iii) even though I don't think it's entirely optimal.

The last time I played a long set against Zia, the ONLY thing he asked about our methods before play began was how we played double of 1NT.

[MickyB]

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

If the opponents bid a red suit, double is takeout (AKA pass or correct); If they bid spades, 3♦ is pass or correct and I guess double has to be penalties.

I now longer think that there is an advantage to the opps not knowing which is overcaller's 2nd suit, indeed there is potential for misunderstanding over the sequence (1N)-2C-(2H) where 2C showed clubs+a red suit; But I like having 2N and 3C free for other purposes given that we don't have a penalty double.

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 3 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

The last time I played a long set against Zia, the ONLY thing he asked about our methods before play began was how we played double of 1NT.

Likely his desire to know how hard to push your "envelope" as well as the giveaway about your philosophy of bridge and psyching you out by only asking 1 seemingly innocuous question......he's not where he is today due to lack of guile...

[Al_U_Card]

MickyB, on Jan 3 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

If the opponents bid a red suit, double is takeout (AKA pass or correct); If they bid spades, 3♦ is pass or correct and I guess double has to be penalties.

I now longer think that there is an advantage to the opps not knowing which is overcaller's 2nd suit, indeed there is potential for misunderstanding over the sequence (1N)-2C-(2H) where 2C showed clubs+a red suit; But I like having 2N and 3C free for other purposes given that we don't have a penalty double.

Well, I was looking for insights but the lack of a penalty double (except for 10-12 NT which are 1/1000 NT bids against me) hasn't harmed me as I maybe wanted to double 1NT for penalty one time in the last 1000 occurances...

[Al_U_Card]

MickyB, on Jan 3 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

When you double for S + another, pard can either place the contract in spades or ask for the other suit by bidding 2C? If he has an "interesting" hand, can he describe or investigate?

[P_Marlowe]

Jlall, on Jan 3 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 3 2006, 10:43 AM, said:

- It lets you get in on 4-4 shapes. I consider this desirable because a 4-4 fit cannot be worth more than 4 tricks against NT, but can be worth a couple more as a trump suit.

4-4 can be worth a lot of -1100s

As they say in english, it is the the driver who kills not
the car, if you go in with 4-4-3-2 being red vs. green,
well ... hopefully you find opponents to teach you better.

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 3 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 3 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit?

When you double for S + another, pard can either place the contract in spades or ask for the other suit by bidding 2C? If he has an "interesting" hand, can he describe or investigate?

2NT is the ask, at least to a certain point,
it promises a certain tolerance for spade,
... you need to know, where to run, if they
start x-ing.

Add. you have 3C, 3D as splinter raises
for the known mayor suit, 3S as preemptive
raise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

My pet theory (which I have posted numerous times before so you're probably all tired of it) is that with a passed hand, your structure does not need to enable you to show shapes that you can't have since you didn't open. For example, I see many Dutch pairs playing the popular Multi/Muiderberg both as opening and as defense against 1NT. This doesn't make sense since it means that they can't interfere over 1NT with a passed hand.

Therefore, there will probably have to be some diference between the structure played by passed and unpassed hands:

With an unpassed hand, emphasize should be on the majors.

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

[Echognome]

In response to Helene's post, what about having the requisite shape, but not the requisite strength? As an example, I played a very aggressive opening preempt style with one partner. However, we did not play them wide ranging. For example, first NV we played 2-level preempts as 0-5. So if you had the same preempting shape, but were say 6 to a bad 10, you had to pass. (I am not a believer in the 'no gap' theory!) So if you passed and then bid over say a 1NT, with the same method as our weak 2s, our bids are better defined. I don't see the problem with this. Of course, Vul we would be showing 6-10 with a preempt, so if we began with a pass, we would not want to show the same hand with less than 6 if we were vulnerable. But then again, why are we bidding at all over 1NT in that case?

[Al_U_Card]

Both of the previous posts raise interesting issues. Having the "same" method in several instances surely decreases the load on the brain cells. It may not provide the ideal method in all cases but as we all know, any agreement is better than no agreement.

The point about ranges for preemptive (shape) openings and passed hand NT overcalls is also important as you get to keep the same structure but improve on the accuracy (even if frequency tends to fall and one of the aspects of interference is to get in there as often as possible).

If a system is to be wide-ranging content wise, can asking bids be incorporated into the "responses" or is that "too much to chew" as Richard said?

[MickyB]

Agreed Matt, in your style it is fine to come back in later there NV, but arguably vul you should reconsider the meanings of a bid by a passed hand - "natural" maybe

Al - Lionel Wright suggested

After (1N)-X-(P)

Pass = at least 18 HCP between the sides if no spade fit, at least 22 if 4 card spade support
2♣ = pass or correct
2♦/♥ = suggestion to play
2♠ = to play
2N = invitational raise of spades
3X = splinter for ♠
3♠ = preemptive

After (1N)-2m-(P)

2N, 3m, 3H all invitational

[david_c]

helene_t, on Jan 4 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

My pet theory (which I have posted numerous times before so you're probably all tired of it) is that with a passed hand, your structure does not need to enable you to show shapes that you can't have since you didn't open. For example, I see many Dutch pairs playing the popular Multi/Muiderberg both as opening and as defense against 1NT. This doesn't make sense since it means that they can't interfere over 1NT with a passed hand.

Hmm, it seems I've been doing that. You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Must remember to speak to partner ...

Matt also makes a good point, but it's only relevant to people who play that particular style of pre-empting. i.e. hardly anyone

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2006, 09:42 AM, said:

Quote

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

I guess almost any passed hand with 5+5+ in the minors after hearing p-p-1NT would want to bid some number of NT to pre-empt past the comfort zone of the opps.....NT for the minors seems to be applicable to all systems in all seats to get past the major suit fit they might have.

[Al_U_Card]

I realize that constructive auctions after NT interference are pretty rare but can a response structure to interference also incorporate obstructive inquiries other than a jump raise (splinters always seem to me to point the opps to their biggest fits in these cases so I prefer to avoid them with a good hand and if things develop (how likely is that?) then q-bids might be more appropriate.

[MickyB]

My view is that it is usually wrong to compete with a minor or the minors over a 1NT opening unless you are prepared to go to the 3 level. Obviously you are with a 2NT bid showing 5-5 - unfortunately that gives the opps a lot of options, 3C for the minors makes things a good bit tougher for them (but gives them an easier time when you have whatever you would otherwise show with a 3♣ bid )

[Al_U_Card]

A next step (like using your weak 2 bid structure to overcall NT) is to keep the system the same for the initial call and the responses, if possible. (obviously some kind of "to play" or pass or correct options should be incorporated.

Any thoughts?

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

Quote

With a passed hand, emphasize should be on whatever unbalanced shapes don't fit in your preempt structure. For most pairs this means emphasize on the minors.

Against that, what you don't what to do as a passed hand (or even as a non-passed hand) is drive the opponents out of 1NT and into a better-scoring major suit partial. That's why most methods of defending 1NT don't emphasize the minors.

True, but then let me rephrase: emphasize whatever hands you can have and with which you want to bid. If you play multi/muiderberg, it could be 5m+4M, and both majors. And maybe three-suited hands.

[lowerline]

Against strong NT (14+)

dbl = clubs OR diamonds+hearts
2c = diamonds OR hearts+spades
2d = hearts OR spades+clubs
2h = spades OR clubs+diamonds
2s = spades+diamonds
2nt = hearts+clubs

Against weak NT (max 15)

dbl = natural
2c, 2d and 2h same as above
2s = clubs OR diamonds+hearts
2nt = spades+diamonds OR hearts+clubs

The 2suiters can be 54 if the 4crd suit can be played in at the 2level not vulnerable, otherwise 55.

Answers are P/C, 2nt and 3 of the overcalled suit can be used as gametry.

[MickyB]

Remind me to play a 13-16 NT against you and see what happens