[luke warm]

my partner and i have a philosophical disagreement on this subject... i see an awful lot of folks playing capp on bbo, which must mean they prefer a double to be for penalty... some play capp vs. weak nt and dont vs strong

i guess the question is, all in all is it better to use a double of 1nt for some bid other than for penalty?

is 1nt doubled (usually) where you want to play? or are you, like me, scared of both sides of that contract?

yeah, i hate 1nt x'd for penalty, mainly cuz i think i'm ahead of the curve when my 1nt has been x'd and left in

[Free]

Chances of making a game after a strong 1NT opening are small, so you usually want to just disrupt their bidding and get some playable contract for yourself. That's why DONT or Meckwell are the best vs strong NT imo: they can show ALL two-suiters (44+) and all singlesuiters (5+ card), so you get a very agressive intervention style, but you need the Dbl to show all these handtypes. That's not a big loss imo.

After a weak NT, the cards are different: there's a lot more chance that we can make a game! That's why we not only need some disruptive methods, we need constructive ones as well. That's where we use the Dbl most of the time, and like that, capp might just be better (it can show still a few two-suiters and singlesuiters and has a penalty double). Perhaps just a slight modification of DONT is even better in this case:

Dbl = opening value / penalty
2♣ = one suited hand
2♦ = 44+ ♦ and a Major
2♥ = 44+ ♥-♠
2♠ = 5+♠ and 4+m

[the hog]

I have said this before: Cappelletti is a poor convention both against weak and strong NT. The reason so many play it is laziness - it is too difficult to learn the nuances of something such as Aspro or Asptro.

Fwiw I prefer a penalty X against a weak NT, and say a X to show Majors or similar against a strong NT. However if partners so desire, I am happy to forgo the penalty X in all cases, eg Richard and I play Lionel against weak and strong NT.

I should point out that I also believe that a penalty X of a WNT is not a balanced 14-15 count as some play. I need a good balanced hand or a good suit with an outside entry or two -
KQJxxx Ax KJx xx
would be a minimum X for me.

As for Free's comment re disruptive methods over a weak NT. Needless to say I totally disagree; I have played the WNT long enough to come to the conclusion that disruptive tactics are self defeating.

[Flame]

I dont like the penalty double, but im a MP player, in imps and extremly in rubber bridge maybe this double is good when you can get 1100 once in a while.
Two things that i dont like about the pd first its ignoring the total trick law which usually suggest playing at the 2 level, and secondly the pd is a gamble double, you basically gamble that your partner is stronger then dummy.

[Shrike]

Seconding Hog here -- if you double a weak notrump on a balanced 14 count, you will be eaten for lunch. The only reason the players who do it think that it's OK are (1) they remember their successes, but not their failures, and (2) some pairs don't have good methods against it.

My methods don't permit the playing of 1NT doubled -- the contract will always be redoubled. But even against a different system, -180 is the least of your problems. When the double is wrong and your partner pulls, you are getting doubled and you are going down, or opponents are getting to a comfortable spot anyway. But worse than that is that partner will learn to pull when he holds a five count, and now you often can't nail 'em when you have a real double.

And if you interfere with a bid on similar values and indifferent shape, a good pair is doubling you when it's right, and has a better chance than before your interference of getting to a playable contract otherwise.

Tell you what, anyone who likes to act with these hands: I'll take a weak notrump hand as South. You get a fourteen count as West. We'll even tell our partners this information. I open one notrump. You have more points than I (how about this: I'll play 11-13). But here's the deal -- you are required to act. You sure you've got the better of it?

[Free]

Against weak NT, opps ALWAYS have an escape structure, so imo it's better to use Dbl as take-out. But when they are V, partner may pass ofcourse
As for the 'disruptive methods', they are still constructive you know, I'm not as stupid as you think I am Ron!! Bidding with nothing is not an option after weak NT, because weak vs weak usually doesn't work very well...

[paulg]

Free, on Apr 13 2004, 02:15 PM, said:

Against weak NT, opps ALWAYS have an escape structure, so imo it's better to use Dbl as take-out.  But when they are V, partner may pass ofcourse 
As for the 'disruptive methods', they are still constructive you know, I'm not as stupid as you think I am Ron!!  Bidding with nothing is not an option after weak NT, because weak vs weak usually doesn't work very well...

They may have an escape structure, but they may not have anywhere to escape to.

You need a penalty double against a weak 1NT just to show that you have a good hand (15+ pts) so that there is not too much strain on your other bids.

Paul
From the land of the weak NT

[hrothgar]

Here are my own thoughts:

I prefer not to play penalty doubles. In my experience, the doubles never stick when you want them too. Furthermore, I'm not sure whether the penalty double is sufficiently descriptive during the scramble that inevitably develops.

As Ron noted, I prefer to play Lionel:

2S = Spades
2H = Hearts
2D = Diamonds
2C = Clubs
X = Spades and another suit

I prefer aggressive intervention and will frequently double or bid 2m with 4-4 shape.

Advancer is encourage to convert the double to penalties if he thinks that the 1NT opener is sandwiched between two 12 point hand. Seems to work well enough in practice, especially since many pairs don't trigger their run outs over a "takeout" oriented double.

[mikestar]

Ron,

Back before Capp became so common, I used to play Astro. Asptro seems like a technical improvement. Could you explain the subequent bidding a bit, especially with major 2-suiters?

[the hog]

Hi Mike,
Asptro
2C = H and another
2D = S and another

Over both of these, step is pass or correct. Interestingly, with both Majors you should anchor into the shorter major. The reason for this is that if the bidding goes eg
(1N) 2C (P) 2D responder is denying decent H support, so when overcaller now bids 2S you can expect a decent fit. This is somewhat paradoxical in nature, but it makes sense if you think about it.

Dbl Penalties, 15+ or a good lead (less in 4th): forcing passes to 2H
2C Hearts and another
2D Spades and another, anchoring to the weaker major
2H/S Natural, usually a six card suit: +1 = R, as opposite a weak two
2NT Minors
3level Weak


(1NT)-2C
2D Prefer to play 2D rather than 2H opposite majors (non-forcing)
2H To play
2S/NT Natural, non-forcing
3C Relay, FG
3D Constructive raise
3H Pre-emptive raise


(1NT)-2C-(P)-2D
Pass 4H 5+D
2H 5H 4+m (2S/3C/D NF; 2NT relay for minor)
2S 5S 4+H
2NT 4H 6C


(1NT)-2C/D-(P)-3C
3D Five-card major (3H asks for minor, then 3S clubs, 3NT diamonds)
3H Majors
3S/NT Four-card major with longer clubs/Diamonds


(1NT)-2C-(Dbl)
Pass To play opposite length (RDbl = 4H 5D; 2D = 5H 4D; 2H = 5H 5S; 2S= 4H 5S)
RDb Diamonds and spades
2D+Natural


(1NT)-2D-(Dbl)
Pass To play opposite length (RDbl = 4ª5C; 2H = 5H; 2ª= 5ª4C)
RDbl Hearts and clubs
2H+ Natural


(1NT)-Dbl-(Pass)
Pass Normal
2level Weak hand with a longish suit
2NT Game-forcing two-suiter


(1NT)-Dbl-(RDbl)
Pass Automatic unless RDbl is a rescue manoeuvre and we have a weak hand with a long suit


(1NT)-Dbl-(2H)
Pass Penalty double or weak balanced or a good hand (not PFA)
Dbl Not a penalty double, but happy to defend
2S Weak hand, longish suit
2NT Weak hand, longish suit
3C/D/S Game-forcing, not a flexible hand
3H Limited three-suiter, short hearts


(1NT)-Dbl-(2H)-Pass
Db At least a doubleton, happy to defend:
Pass Penalty double
2S Weak scramble
2NT Weak scramble
3C/D/ª Invitational
3H Flexible game-force
2S/3m Longish suit, unsuitable for defence
2NT Bad hand with a long minor
3H Good hand, short hearts

[mikestar]

Ron,

Thanks for the very lucid explantion--you're right, it makes a great deal of sense and beats the hell out of Capp.

[Fluffy]

All the experts I know don´t play double as penalty against strong NT, why its easy to understand: the % of times you will use it is quite poor, while the times you will use it for something bad makes it even worse. Playing whatever else (I play very different than capp, but even use it in capp to show ♣ and you will have a better system already) has a much higher chance to happen, and better to be worthwhile as well.

Allways remember: a Good convention is something you will use often for something usefull, if it hardly happens, you won´t get any profit, specially when you finish forgeting about it and get missunderstanding.


My personal system against opps NT is based on making strong hand to lead, here it is if someone ever likes to read:

Double = 2 suiter, minor+major, usually 10+ because it is not forcing.
2♣= both majors.
2♦/♥/♠/3♣= transfer (we want the opener to lead)
2NT= minors

Using double to show any minor may be as good in % to happen, but it won´t hurt opponents on their bidding.

the good news about it is it is easy to remember, in most cases just act more or less like if it was your partner who opened 1NT

[the hog]

All the experts I know don´t play double as penalty against strong NT

Some do actually, though I agree most don't.

Bermuda Bowl, Yokohama 1991, Forrester doubled Rodwell's 15-17 NT opening for penalties with
AKJx
Kxxx
AQTx
x
Meckstroth pulled to 2C which was doubled by Robson and went for 1100

[luke warm]

yeah there are great examples of doubling 1nt and having it work out well for doubler's side... i guess what i really want to know is whether or not the results in the long run are better if the double of 1nt is better used for penalty or for some distributional reason... the key is, in the long run

[1eyedjack]

Free, on Apr 13 2004, 08:15 AM, said:

Against weak NT, opps ALWAYS have an escape structure, so imo it's better to use Dbl as take-out. But when they are V, partner may pass ofcourse
As for the 'disruptive methods', they are still constructive you know, I'm not as stupid as you think I am Ron!! Bidding with nothing is not an option after weak NT, because weak vs weak usually doesn't work very well...

If the double is no more narrowly defined than "takeout" then it implies tolerance to try for a 2 level contract in any suit of advancer's choosing (ie balanced) unless doubler follows up with a change of suit (which begs the question, how is this different from a simple overcall, down to agreement). But of the balanced hand types, if I am happy to try for something approaching 8 tricks in any suit then I am happy to try for 7 tricks in defence of 1NT. So, to my mind, there is not a lot of difference between that hand type and a classic penalty double. There may be some difference in the minimum required values to double, and all that does is affect the minimum values required of advancer to justify passing and thereby "converting" the double to penalties.

The problem that I have with Lionel defence to a weak NT is purely the combined doubt of the competing partnership on whether to investigate game. This ambiguity can be reduced by narrowing the values required of the initial defensive action, but that may require you to pass on some weaker hands that would be able to compete if afforded a penalty double in the arsenal.

A question that I find of some interest is this: If a penalty "style" double of a 12-14 1NT is correct, and an artificial double of a 15-17 1NT is correct, at what strength of 1NT opener is there no benefit of one method over the other? I doubt that many correspondents would play Lionel against a 10-12 1NT (or would they? Comments?).

I have long held the view that a strong indicator that you have chosen the optimum range for the 1N opener is when the opponents have no net benefit or cost from choosing a penalty 1N over an artificial meaning. As the peanut gallery is divided over the appropriate meaning of double of a 12-14 1NT then perhaps that is a good indicator that this is the optimal range. Of course there are other factors, such as the impact of the choice on the 1-suit continuations.

[Trpltrbl]

Penalty X is nonsense against strong NT.
Against wk NT I like it, but I play it in direct seat as strong NT or better, but in passout seat, I can be very light. Mostly Meckwell in passout seat.
I like people who X against my wk NT with equal or better value, I never seems to get enough of these +800 against a partscore or +960 etc. people are so afraid when we open wk NT against them we are trying to steal and they will do anything to stop that. Keep it up....

Mike

[luke warm]

i like our continuations when 1 of a suit is opened vs. 1nt... we play 11-13 at all vulnerabilities, in all seats except 4th... 14-16 then

when 1 of a suit is opened and 1nt is rebid, opener has 14-16 and we play 2 way ckback over that... it seems to work just fine... the responses to 1nt are ok too, tho i did post one problem hand (for me, anyway)... my tendency is to overvalue a hand, making into invitational that which is best left as weaker... i'm working on it

from what i've seen so far it appears that doubling 1nt is less appealing than using the double for some other bid... my partner is *firmly* in the penalty double camp, tho, and since i don't think it's worth fighting over i guess that's where we'll stay

i'm still convinced that when i play a 1nt contract doubled i'm happier than the ops... and i feel if that's the case, so are others