[Winstonm]

Problem: 1N-P-P-?

Discussion: What is the goal here, to move opps out of 1N or to compete for the partscore? Does it matter whether imps or MPs?

Two views: If the goal is to move opps as often as possible from a comfortable 1N, then a convention such as DONT seems ideal - you get to bid a lot with a lot of different hand types. The problem it seems with DONT is often you aren't sure of how good of fit is available and therefore stop competing at the two-level. Also, some of the DONT bids allow opps to find a better strain cheaply and play 2 minor or 2 major.

The other view is to balance to compete: Here it would seem that the spade suit is crucial as this forces the 3-level. Since we would want to compete as safely as possible as well, it would make sense it seems to incorporate spade/any 2-suiters and resist the temptation to use too much bidding space on other two-suiters, instead treating other 5/4 types as 1-suiters.

With this view in mind, what about the following in pass-out only seat:

X=Any 1-suited hand with clubs, diamonds, or hearts.
2C/2D/2H=Canape with 4/5 or 5/5 with spades as the longest or equal suit.
2S=1-suited spade hand
2N=5/5 with Clubs + diamonds or hearts
3C=5/5 hearts/diamonds

[kenrexford]

I am interested in the thinking, but I'd suggest that you are downplaying the 4-4 major fit discovery with the canape approach. It seems like you'd be better served having a X also possibly be a 1-suiter with spades, change 2♠ to a longer-spades two-suiter (intending to play 2♠ but having an escape option), and making 2♣/2♦/2♥ show four spades and longer in the bid suit (2♥ perhaps any 44+).

[MickyB]

I subscribe to the second view, but I think you are better off using double to show spades and another and bidding with the major single-suiters (Lionel), it makes it much easier to judge when to leave the double in and easier to know what to lead when you do.

[blackshoe]

I do think the range of the 1NT opening makes a difference.

If you're going to bid in the passout seat, there's a couple of points:

1. You want to become declarer, if possible, to put the strong hand on lead.
2. You want to show your hand type as quickly as possible, preferably in one bid.
3. Over a strong NT, game is unlikely; over a weak NT it's a distinct possibility. This will affect your methods.
4. Holding the spade suit is of great value.
5. The weaker the NT opening, the more valuable is a penalty double.

Some of this is obvious, of course. I just thought it should be mentioned.

Item 1 means that transfers by the balancer are out. Transfers by advancer, otoh, might be useful.
Item 2 means you want to be able to show, at a minimum, one suited hands (4 hands) and two suited hands (6 hands). That's 10 hand types. If you want to keep the bidding low, you're going to have to compromise somewhere.
Items 3 and 5 mean you're likely to want different methods over different strengths of 1NT. In particular, giving up the penalty double over weak NT is probably a bad idea. Although I've heard some expert weak NT bidders say they've made more points with penalty doubles of opponents' strong NTs than they've lost through penalty doubles of their weak NT. I dunno, maybe it should be the other way 'round.

Just some thoughts. Maybe they'll help.

[barmar]

I'm a big advocate of aggressive balancing against strong NT. If you have a weak hand, partner is likely to have a good hand sitting over the NT bidder. And if you play any of the common 2-suited overcall systems like DONT or Capp, partner is likely to be balanced (since he didn't overcall), which means that you likely have a fit somewhere. So while I generally like to have at least 5-4 in my suits when overcalling in direct seat, I'll often balance with a 4-4.

You have to be careful about balancing against weak NT, though. If responder is balanced, he can pass with a pretty decent hand because he knows there's no game. Mini NT is the worst -- responder can pass with a minimum opening hand, just waiting to pounce on an unwary balancer.

[Free]

In balancing seat I'm a fan of Lionel:
Dbl = ♠+another
2m = ♥+m
2M = natural

You know both suits, and a penalty double has completely no use (if you're behind the opener it can be useful, even against strong NT). The disadvantage of DONT is out of the way since you know both suits, and I'm always a huge fan of 2M natural!

[awm]

barmar, on Aug 22 2006, 12:54 AM, said:

I'm a big advocate of aggressive balancing against strong NT. If you have a weak hand, partner is likely to have a good hand sitting over the NT bidder. And if you play any of the common 2-suited overcall systems like DONT or Capp, partner is likely to be balanced (since he didn't overcall), which means that you likely have a fit somewhere. So while I generally like to have at least 5-4 in my suits when overcalling in direct seat, I'll often balance with a 4-4.

You have to be careful about balancing against weak NT, though. If responder is balanced, he can pass with a pretty decent hand because he knows there's no game. Mini NT is the worst -- responder can pass with a minimum opening hand, just waiting to pounce on an unwary balancer.

I don't really understand this reasoning. Surely the hands where you get in trouble are the ones where opponents have most of the values and you don't have a great fit.

While it's true that responder can pass with stronger hands opposite weaker notrumps, opener also has correspondingly less. The odds that opponents have, say 21-24 high after 1NT-Pass-Pass are surely higher the stronger the notrump opening.

In fact I'd tend to balance more aggressively over weak notrumps, as it's quite likely we could be missing a game. I agree that bidding with shape often pays off, but give me a 4432 13-count and it would never occur to me to balance over strong notrump and two passes, whereas over weak notrump I'd be searching for a call (since partner could also have a 4432 13 and passing the board out could mean defending 1NT undoubled into our game).

[whereagles]

I have been told by a friend theoretician that there are two schools of thought on the issue (though not much written material).

School 1 says you should never disturb opps 1NT unless you have a very clear bid to make.

School 2 says opps 1NT contract is a good one most of the time, so action is needed even if your hand doesn't clearly suggest a bid.

(Note that both schools do not put competing for the partscore as a priority.)

I have never read much on the subject, but I tend to follow the school 2 approach. The NT range matters, but only for giving 4th seat double a meaning: opposite weak NT it has to be a good opening.

[Winstonm]

whereagles, on Aug 22 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

I have been told by a friend theoretician that there are two schools of thought on the issue (though not much written material).

School 1 says you should never disturb opps 1NT unless you have a very clear bid to make.

School 2 says opps 1NT contract is a good one most of the time, so action is needed even if your hand doesn't clearly suggest a bid.

(Note that both schools do not put competing for the partscore as a priority.)

I have never read much on the subject, but I tend to follow the school 2 approach. The NT range matters, but only for giving 4th seat double a meaning: opposite weak NT it has to be a good opening.

If we use a common strong NT of 15-17, opener averages 16. Given that responder did not transfer not try for a NT game, the expectancy would be less than 8 HCP and no 5-card major. If responder's range is 0-8 expectancy would suggest 4. So in theory we should be very close to a division of 20/20 in HCP.

The nice thing about this auction is we do not have to get past the 2-level to compete and can sell out to any 3-level bids.

So then it seems the question remains: what is our purpose for competing? Seems the logical answer is: to improve our score, either with a plus score or a smaller minus.

Therefore to me it would seem most logical to emphasize the suits that have the most chance of forcing a 3-level bid from the opponents, the major suits.

Double as penalty is rare, so that should be free to use.
However, partner may want to convert, so a flexible double might be best.

That leads to this possibly:
X= 1-suiter.
2C-majors 5/5 or 4/4
2D-majors 45
2H-majors 54
2S-Spades/minor
2N-Hearts/minor
3C-Minors

Just thinking out loud here - seems like holding the majors and finding a playable fit would give us the best chance of a plus score.

[awm]

A few issues with the approach Winston suggested:

(1) Double on a one-suiter isn't necessarily best. First, if partner does decide to convert he may have to guess our suit on lead in order to set the contract. Second, if opener decides to bid a five card suit over the double, it's pretty easy to lose our fit forever (in case we'd be well-off to compete to the three-level). Third, advancer will often bid 2♣ (ask for the suit) which RHO can double to suggest clubs or bid 2♦ to suggest diamonds (and the minors are often hard to show directly over pd's 1NT call).

(2) If 2♣ shows majors, partner can advance with 2♦ to ask the better major. Thus when 2♣ shows majors there's not much need for other bids to also show majors. It seems wasteful for 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ to all show the major suits!

(3) This scheme doesn't give any way to bid hands with a four-card major and longer minor. Competing with those hands can be useful too.

I still like to play Meyerson vs. notrump in balancing seat, but then, I would like my own convention wouldn't I?

In any case, playing Meyerson you have:

(1) Double shows a major/minor two suiter. This is arguably more frequent than Winston's one-suited hand, and the values are less concentrated so "lead my suit" isn't necessarily so critical. If opponents interfere over this sequence we can often double for takeout (since there are two resting places instead of one).

(2) The direct 2♦ and 2M natural can shut out opener a bit more often. Partner is also on the right page on whether or not to compete further (he knows our suit now).

(3) We have a way to bid 4cM+longer minor hands.

[Winstonm]

awm, on Aug 22 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

A few issues with the approach Winston suggested:

(1) Double on a one-suiter isn't necessarily best. First, if partner does decide to convert he may have to guess our suit on lead in order to set the contract. Second, if opener decides to bid a five card suit over the double, it's pretty easy to lose our fit forever (in case we'd be well-off to compete to the three-level). Third, advancer will often bid 2♣ (ask for the suit) which RHO can double to suggest clubs or bid 2♦ to suggest diamonds (and the minors are often hard to show directly over pd's 1NT call).

(2) If 2♣ shows majors, partner can advance with 2♦ to ask the better major. Thus when 2♣ shows majors there's not much need for other bids to also show majors. It seems wasteful for 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ to all show the major suits!

(3) This scheme doesn't give any way to bid hands with a four-card major and longer minor. Competing with those hands can be useful too.

I still like to play Meyerson vs. notrump in balancing seat, but then, I would like my own convention wouldn't I?

In any case, playing Meyerson you have:

(1) Double shows a major/minor two suiter. This is arguably more frequent than Winston's one-suited hand, and the values are less concentrated so "lead my suit" isn't necessarily so critical. If opponents interfere over this sequence we can often double for takeout (since there are two resting places instead of one).

(2) The direct 2♦ and 2M natural can shut out opener a bit more often. Partner is also on the right page on whether or not to compete further (he knows our suit now).

(3) We have a way to bid 4cM+longer minor hands.

I am only toying with the idea/subject so am not devoted to anything I'm suggesting.

It seems the idea/debate/decision between what you suggest and my thinking revolves around the relative importance of competing in majors mostly verses all suits.

I'm not too concerned about the doubles allowing opps to show minors - if they find a minor and get to the three level we have accomplished our goals - moved them from 1N to a contract we might defeat.

[whereagles]

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

So then it seems the question remains: what is our purpose for competing? Seems the logical answer is: to improve our score, either with a plus score or a smaller minus.

According to school 1, the purpose is improve our score. You seem to be more in line with this trend.

According to school 2, it is to take opps out of their 1NT.

[pigpenz]

for me it would all be determined by the form of scoring imps vs matchpoints.
Imps take your small minus and go to next hand but at matchpoints you need to be a little more agressive