[gnasher]

If 1NT shows 8-11, I assume that you'd bid two of a minor with any of these:

  Axx Jx QTxx 98xx
  Axx Jxx QTxx 98x
  Axx Jxx QTx 98xx
  QJx Qxx xxx Jxxx
  QJxx xxx xxx Q9x
  KJ8x xxx xxx 10xx

(The last three are adapted from examples in one of Mike Lawrence's books.)

In this thread:

  opps open, what is your call?

we learned that for many people it's OK to make a takeout double with a small doubleton in an unbid minor, planning to pass an advance in that minor. Comments included "willing to live with the consequences", and "the worst case scenario doesn't always happen and when it does you're usually in a 5-2 fit anyways".

It seems to me that these two styles don't fit very comfortably together. If your style of takeout doubles discourages the bidding of four card minors, surely you shouldn't have such tight constraints on advancer's 1NT?

[helene_t]

8-11 is not a tight constraint. A wider range is (close to) unplayable.

But yes, bidding 2m with the 6-7 counts with a stopper elevates the risk of playing in a 4-2 fit. I would not worry too much about it. The 8-11 range allows for light doubles when the shape is perfect, and I think that is a big winner. You don't have to double with a doubleton in an unbid minor but passing may be more dangerous.

[han]

Both off-shape takeout doubles and constructive 1NT follow ups to doubles are treatments that allow the non-opening side to find games. As such it makes perfect sense to play both in today's aggressive game.

It is true that you risk getting to a silly spot every once in a while. But for that to happen doubler must have had an off-shape double, advancer must have one of those awkward balanced hands and responder must pass. Usually these three factors don't all happen on the same hand and if they do then it still might not be a disaster.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Mar 7 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

8-11 is not a tight constraint. A wider range is (close to) unplayable.

But yes, bidding 2m with the 6-7 counts with a stopper elevates the risk of playing in a 4-2 fit. I would not worry too much about it. The 8-11 range allows for light doubles when the shape is perfect, and I think that is a big winner. You don't have to double with a doubleton in an unbid minor but passing may be more dangerous.

8-11 is a much narrower range than for a non-forcing 1NT response to an opening bid, which these days is about 5-10.

I don't see how the 8-11 range "allows" for light doubles any better than a 7-11 or 6-11 range would. A wider range costs when partner is strong, not when he is weak.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Mar 8 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

8-11 is a much narrower range than for a non-forcing 1NT response to an opening bid, which these days is about 5-10.

Nobody plays responses to t/o doubles as 5-10.

While an opening in a suit denies a balanced 15-17, a t/o double does not. So responder has to cater for that range. A balanced 15-16 is stuck opposite a 5-10 1NT response.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Mar 8 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 8 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

8-11 is a much narrower range than for a non-forcing 1NT response to an opening bid, which these days is about 5-10.

Nobody plays responses to t/o doubles as 5-10.

I didn't suggest that they do, or that they should.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 8 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

I don't see how the 8-11 range "allows" for light doubles any better than a 7-11 or 6-11 range would. A wider range costs when partner is strong, not when he is weak.

I think the point is that a narrower range from one players allows for a wider range from the other. If both ranges are wide that is obviously problematic.

[kgr]

Somebody I know plays some kind of Lebensohl here:
(1M)-DBL-(Pass)-1NT is relay to 2C, weak or strong.
and
(1M)-DBL-(Pass)-2x is more then minimum: 7-9.
What do you think about this idea?

[han]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 8 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

I don't see how the 8-11 range "allows" for light doubles any better than a 7-11 or 6-11 range would.  A wider range costs when partner is strong, not when he is weak.

I think the point is that a narrower range from one players allows for a wider range from the other. If both ranges are wide that is obviously problematic.

Agree with gnahser that these arguments are crap. There are good reasons to play a tight 1NT range here but whether you double light has nothing to do with it.