[jonottawa]

I like double at IMPs. Not perfect but I'll pretend my ♦Q is the ♣2.

1N is tempting at MPs (assuming no sandwich) where it's often right to be in 1N at these colors whether it makes or not (90 vs 50.) Pard also is going to be more inclined to compete to 3♣ on a 4-bagger at MPs to try to push the opps up a level or go -50/-100 instead of -110.

[MarkDean]

eyhung, on Jan 3 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

Justin -- I didn't mention double because I didn't feel I had the experience to comment on the superiority of double vs. 1NT.  I have not yet doubled with an off-shape hand in this position -- usually I can bid 1NT with confidence (good 15 or 16) or pass (13-, and trust partner would have overcalled with an appropriate hand).  This hand is pretty ugly for a 15-count, so maybe an offshape double is best, but the point of my post was to point out the subtle advantages of 1NT in this position.  I think gnasher's point about hand-type is pretty good -- the most likely strain for our side is notrump, and we are taking a slight risk by bidding notrump in exchange for a precise level-setting auction without getting sidetracked into clubs or spades with so many soft red cards.  I think you exaggerate the low frequency of hands where we can double.  I will pretty much double here on most hands with 4 spades and 4+ clubs, even with some red values, but lying about the 4th club on this hand when it screams notrump seems to be going a little too far. 

MarkDean -- you're right, support doubles should be irrelevant against good opponents, but in practice some good opponents aren't completely confident -- such as a pickup expert partnership, frequently seen in the lesser NABC+ events.  Also, when responder is frequently stealing, either opener has to have more values than normal for the double, or responder will pull on hands he shouldn't.  Fred has quoted Jeff Meckstroth on how he hates to defend or declare 1NT-X.  I imagine other top players feel the same way.  After starting to play 1NT in the sandwich position as natural, I have not yet gone for a number, and have already won 3 boards where it occurred, so the treatment looks like a winner to me.

As for non-natural 1NT sandwich bids, I used to play them but I have given them up as I started playing against better competition.  I found that the extra descriptive value of the sandwich 1NT does not compensate for losing the natural overcall against thieving opponents.  This includes the top Poles: Balicki stole my teeth out last year by responding with a light 1H while I was playing an artificial sandwich notrump.  I held a balanced 16 with a doubleton spade, so I passed and we missed a vul game.  The balanced 15-18s come up much more frequently when RHO regularly responds on 4 or even 1 HCP.  Larry Cohen is also on record in his books advocating the natural sandwich 1NT, saying that it's indispensable in top-flight modern bridge.  If you play at a lower level, by all means, use the artificial sandwich, it should work fine, but I strongly suggest you change your methods if you start playing up.

I think three instances is not a large enough sample size. I have been playing natural for years, and it does sometimes go bad. I like more of a 16-19 range for the sandwich nt, not only because it is reasonably dangerous without as much upside with 15, but because it is also is pretty tough when you have 19 if you have to double then bid 2NT next round. But it is well established that I play bridge like an old man (no offense to the old men on the forums).

[Siegmund]

I had natural go bad (both me bidding it and being set, and me setting my opps who used it) sufficiently many times that I've been using it for 4-5 in the unbid suits for quite a while, and considered the fact that it removed all temptation to bid a natural 1NT and get one's ass kicked one of the big plusses of the method.

We further agreed that 1D-p-1H-X was takeout of hearts and 2nd seat was allowed to bid a natural 2D, while the 5-5s jumped to 2NT. There was an inference then that if we reopened after 1D-p-1h-p-2h-p-p that we must be 4-4 or have 5 bad spades.

The posted hand I would have said was passwtp. Of course in my experience the steal by responder is quite rare, too.

I am curious, eugene - at what level would you say the crossover happens and natural becomes useful again? (Mine is that it's somewhere considerably north of regional A/X pairs games and 2nd/3rd brackets of KOs.)

[eyhung]

Siegmund, on Jan 4 2010, 12:14 AM, said:

I am curious, eugene - at what level would you say the crossover happens and natural becomes useful again? (Mine is that it's somewhere considerably north of regional A/X pairs games and 2nd/3rd brackets of KOs.)

Hm, Siegmund, I don't know. I'm blessed to be living in an area with strong local competition (the SF Bay Area) -- the power rankings usually equate my sectional games as equivalent to some regional pairs in remote areas, so my experiences of a regional pairs may not be calibrated to yours. I do think it's best to play a natural sandwich 1NT in NABC+ events / Gatlinburg -- all the hands I mentioned occurred in NABC+ events. It feels difficult to sort out hands later when you have to double on both balanced strong hands as well as shapely takeout-double strength hands.

For what it's worth, my general style in system choices is to use tools that work against the best opposition. I figure if I am playing against weak opposition, they will either not be able to take full advantage or hand me points in the cardplay, and any systemic gains will probably be wiped out by added memory strain ("sorry, partner, I forgot 1NT was artificial in this event").

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Jan 3 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

I have a number of times seen top experts overcall 1NT in this spot on much lighter hands than I would consider safe. In Meckstroth's book I think there is even an example of Rodwell doing it on (a good) 14.

Josh, you are the go-to guy when it comes to hands in bridge books. I found the hand you mentioned, it's :

Scoring: IMP

---

and the auction went 1♥ - P - 1♠.

And yes, they were vulnerable against not at IMPs for the 1NT overcall. It's a great 14, though.

Incidentally, opener had a balanced 15-count with 5 hearts and did not double (probably fearing a stealing responder.) Responder had Q743 Q J9432 953.

Also, Meckstroth comments that partner's sandwich 1NT is less defined than a opening strong notrump because "they may be bidding his suits, and then he has only two choices -- Pass and 1NT." No offshape takeout doubles? Unclear ... to be fair, double feels less attractive on this hand because both majors have been bid.

[mohitz]

eyhung, on Jan 4 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Incidentally, opener had a balanced 15-count with 5 hearts and did not double (probably fearing a stealing responder.) Responder had Q743 Q J9432 953.

Did he make it btw?

[eyhung]

mohitz, on Jan 4 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

eyhung, on Jan 4 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Incidentally, opener had a balanced 15-count with 5 hearts and did not double (probably fearing a stealing responder.)  Responder had Q743 Q J9432 953.

Did he make it btw?

They never played 1NT : Meckstroth jumped to 3♣ with K2 8753 7 QJT876 and made it for +110. Win 9 IMP when teammates opened 1NT 15-17 with the 5-heart hand and the Meckwell hands interfered and got to 2♥, going down 3 vul after trying to set up clubs -- the 5-1 trump break doomed them.

[Jlall]

eyhung, on Jan 4 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 3 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

I have a number of times seen top experts overcall 1NT in this spot on much lighter hands than I would consider safe. In Meckstroth's book I think there is even an example of Rodwell doing it on (a good) 14.

Josh, you are the go-to guy when it comes to hands in bridge books. I found the hand you mentioned, it's :

Scoring: IMP

---

and the auction went 1♥ - P - 1♠.

And yes, they were vulnerable against not at IMPs for the 1NT overcall. It's a great 14, though.

Incidentally, opener had a balanced 15-count with 5 hearts and did not double (probably fearing a stealing responder.) Responder had Q743 Q J9432 953.

Also, Meckstroth comments that partner's sandwich 1NT is less defined than a opening strong notrump because "they may be bidding his suits, and then he has only two choices -- Pass and 1NT." No offshape takeout doubles? Unclear ... to be fair, double feels less attractive on this hand because both majors have been bid.

4-2 in the unbid suits is off shape. 4-3 is fine obviously. His point was when they have bid his suits (ie he has 7+ cards in those suits) he will have to pass or bid 1N. He did not say anything about when they have bid 2 suits that he has 6 cards in.

[eyhung]

Maybe we're just arguing semantics, but my definition of an offshape double after the enemy has bid two suits is 4-3 in the unbid suits. I understand why one might want to double with 4-3, but I expect my partner to have at least 4 cards in each of the unbid suits, and will bid accordingly. Similarly, in direct chair, I would define a double containing a 2-card unbid minor as offshape -- partner doesn't expect a 2cm when responding. I frequently make offshape doubles in direct, but have never had the guts to do it in sandwich. Perhaps this is a hole in my game.

And in case you were wondering, I would define a double containing a 2-card unbid major and standard values as ridiculous.