[whereagles]

Hi all,

I was just wondering how you guys deal with a weak NT in the following situations:

#1:

(1NT) dbl (2x) ??

2x = natural or some 44 with suit x or transfer

Most of the books I read recommend to play that the direct double of 1NT forces our side not to let opps play up to 2♠ undoubled. Your comment?


#2:

(1NT) dbl (rdbl) ??

Rdbl = weakish, either clubs or an unspecified 1 suiter, forces 2♣. Opener sure won't pass this.

Will you pull the double with a weak hand or do you think that a bid here should be at least mildly constructive?


#3:

(1NT) pass (2x) ??

2x: either non forcing stayman or a transfer.

I only have one book that deals with this, and it recommends that double here is the usual 14+ hcp, as if the double were a double in the direct seat. I was thinking playing it as ambiguous, i.e. either any 16+ OR lead-directing (pard assumes LD, doubler bids again with 16+). Comments?

Thx all in advance.

[bluecalm]

Quote

(1NT) dbl (2x) ??

We play that pass is forcing after 2♣/2♦ and not forcing after 2♥/2♠. Double is t/o in both cases.

Quote

#2:

(1NT) dbl (rdbl) ??

Never disccused this sequence but from meta agreements pass would promise some values and set 1 round force assuming they bid something on 2 level.

Quote

#3:

(1NT) pass (2x) ??

2x: either non forcing stayman or a transfer.

Dbl is t/o after stayman. After transfer I think it should be t/o to their real suit but I've never discussed that with my P (we don't play much vs weak NT).

[MFA]

Here weak NT's are very common. In my local clubs more people than not are playing the weak NT.

Here is what we do:

1)
Take-out doubles from either hand.
[1NT-DBL-2X-DBL,pass-2NT is natural not scramble/lebensohl btw]

Third double from the partnership (including the double of 1NT) is penalty. Enough is enough :-)

Passes of 2♣♦♥ are "almost forcing". It just means that it is ok to pass if it really looks right. For instance:
1NT - DBL - 2X - pass, 2Y - pass - pass
if advancer has a bust he can pass.
The initial-doubler can for instance pass if responder escapes to his long suit.
But one should beware that some opponents like to escape to a short suit and then redouble SOS.

2)
Mildly constructive. If we have a bust we just pass and wait what happens.

3)
DBL should be strong against either stayman or transfer. And there is no reason to wait for a particularly strong hand because it's a rather safe way to enter the auction. 14+ is better than 16+. We have to prevent a robbery - against a weak NT we will have lots of games our way. Also, although DBL is not takeout of their suit as such, partner might have a long suit somewhere and be able to compete to 3x.

I would scrap the lead directing thing completely against weak NT. I don't think we can indulge ourselves in that. We have our own contracts to cater to.

Playing DBL as two-way would give up one of the great advantages. That we can DBL with awkward hands and then lean back and not have to commit to bidding something (typically at the 3-level) if partner can't move. There are some other obvious disadvantages too.

[Cyberyeti]

bluecalm, on May 26 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

Quote

(1NT) dbl (2x) ??

We play that pass is forcing after 2♣/2♦ and not forcing after 2♥/2♠. Double is t/o in both cases.

Quote

#2:

(1NT) dbl (rdbl) ??

Never disccused this sequence but from meta agreements pass would promise some values and set 1 round force assuming they bid something on 2 level.

Quote

#3:

(1NT) pass (2x) ??

2x: either non forcing stayman or a transfer.

Dbl is t/o after stayman. After transfer I think it should be t/o to their real suit but I've never discussed that with my P (we don't play much vs weak NT).

#1 we also play that we won't sell out to 2m undoubled but will sell to 2M. We however play penalty doubles. We have found problems with takeout doubles in that opps with xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, x bid 2C intending to XX when we X it, but neither of us can make a ToX so we have to bid which is very sub optimal.

#2 Pass does not promise values (what else do you do with a 4333 yarborough), but 1N-X-XX-2S is weaker than 1N-X-XX-P-2C-P-P/2red-2S

#3 We play X shows the suit bid, and with a transfer, completing their transfer is a takeout of the suit shown that wouldn't want you to make a penalty pass of a takeout double at the 2 level.

[bluecalm]

Quote

#1 we also play that we won't sell out to 2m undoubled but will sell to 2M. We however play penalty doubles. We have found problems with takeout doubles in that opps with xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, x bid 2C intending to XX when we X it, but neither of us can make a ToX so we have to bid which is very sub optimal.

Interesting point. I don't have nearly enough experience against weak 1NT to notice such things. Thanks

[Cyberyeti]

bluecalm, on May 27 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

Quote

#1 we also play that we won't sell out to 2m undoubled but will sell to 2M. We however play penalty doubles. We have found problems with takeout doubles in that opps with xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, x bid 2C intending to XX when we X it, but neither of us can make a ToX so we have to bid which is very sub optimal.

Interesting point. I don't have nearly enough experience against weak 1NT to notice such things. Thanks

I'm not saying penalty double is better than takeout here, my partner and I debate it occasionally, but this is one of the major issues with playing takeout here in that it's a situation where oppos can freely bid a suit as "natural" without actually holding it.

Takeout doubles are clearly better in some other situations, so you pays your money and takes your choice.

[mich-b]

If your pass is forcing over their escape to 2m, why do you need a takeout double?
What is wrong with the combination of penalty double, and "takeout pass"?

And this approach is not vulnerable to opps running to suits they dont have.

[babalu1997]

i like lebensohl and sos redouble

[bluecalm]

Quote

What is wrong with the combination of penalty double, and "takeout pass"?

Too many times you have problems such:

1NT - dbl - 2♥ pass*
pass- ????

First pass can be made with almost anything if you play dbl as penalty because you hope partner will dbl. Then partner sits there with 3-2-4-4 or something and he would really like to make t/o double but he can't.

The same problem arises in many other bidding situations if you play "standard combination of penalty double and "t/o pass"". I much prefer to have t/o doubles from both hands maybe we will penalize them a bit less frequently but the precision of bidding in most hands is greatly improved. This is why we switched to t/o double in ALL "forcing pass" situations with my regular P.

[MFA]

mich-b, on May 27 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

If your pass is forcing over their escape to 2m, why do you need a takeout double?
What is wrong with the combination of penalty double, and "takeout pass"?

And this approach is not vulnerable to opps running to suits they dont have.

1) If it goes 1NT-D-2x-pass
we won't know if that pass is just any weak hand or values with takeout shape.

2) If it goes 1NT-D-2x-pass, pass- 2y (or 3y)
we won't know if 2y (3y) is a response to a take-out pass with perhaps a 4-card suit or a real suit.

In other words, if neither player has a penalty-double-hand we will suffer from playing penalty doubles, since there is much ground to cover.

I prefer "almost forcing" passes, see above. Those are even harder to combine with penalty doubles, since if we ever pass it out at some point it is potentially much worse that partner could be short in their suit with values than long with values.

[ggwhiz]

Over a weak nt, I play our front of card as if WE opened a strong nt, ie. 2c = maj, 2d = h etc. We lower the range for 1nt - p - p - dbl but still play FoC after.

Partners double of the weak 1nt SHOWS a strong nt and then we still play our front of card which includes lebensohl and negative doubles when 3rd hand bids 2x.

If the 2x is clubs, double is stayman but depending on the meaning of 2 clubs, more red cards will follow. 2d = h, 2h = s etc.

Regardless of what the rdbl means on #2 pard has our FoC bids available for any range of offensive hand and pass followed by red cards for the rest.

Works as well as anything for us, especially if pard bids a direct transfer and you can super accept.

[pirate22]

The writer of this question....will get a lot of advice.First thing to establish,most weak n/t have an escape mechanism.this does not complicate ones anti sys.
and dependant on an alert by opps,partner of the x still has hand,and will take action,if necessary.
but you firstly must agree your specific arrangemnts and agree the subsequent bidding.
the same agreements can apply if opps ply strong n/t

[Cascade]

#1

I like to double with about 15+ or slightly less with a good lead or suit. I have never felt the need to make PASS forcing.

We play subsequent doubles are takeout by either partner.

We don't chase the penalities rather we aim our bidding at trying to have a constructive auction and just take the penalties that naturally come along.

#2

I think a bid shows something. If I happen to have a balanced near yarborough I will be happy that the opponent has bid in front of me and relieved to be able to PASS which is what I might have had to do if they had not bid.

The something it shows doesnt have to be too much. Four points and a five card suit is plenty as we have close to half the deck.

#3

We play these doubles as values which helps us to get into the auction. I don't like ambiguity and don't seem to really miss the lead directing doubles. Obviously if we can't have values e.g. passed hand then lead directing doubles are ok.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on May 28 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

We don't chase the penalities rather we aim our bidding at trying to have a constructive auction and just take the penalties that naturally come along.

I think this is definitely right. Otherwise you find yourself making distorted takeout doubles in the hope that partner will pass it, and end up not being able to describe your hand properly. (Or, the equivalent if playing penalty doubles, you pass to allow partner to double, then end up being fixed when he does something else which premepts the description of your hand.)

[MFA]

gnasher, on May 28 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 28 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

We don't chase the penalities rather we aim our bidding at trying to have a constructive auction and just take the penalties that naturally come along.

I think this is definitely right. Otherwise you find yourself making distorted takeout doubles in the hope that partner will pass it, and end up not being able to describe your hand properly. (Or, the equivalent if playing penalty doubles, you pass to allow partner to double, then end up being fixed when he does something else which premepts the description of your hand.)

I like this philosophy too, but one can not deny that a weak NT is often in big troubles if it is outgunned. So the defense strategy has to be balanced and catering to extracting penalties also.
Furthermore there is no assurance of either defender not having a somewhat distributional hand. This is also an argument of staying flexible and chosing a double instead of bidding say a five-card suit.
All in all I think it is a situation where one likes to make more take-out doubles with less than perfect shape than in most other situations. But being reasonable so it won't be too hard to arrive at the right contract if we are not going to play for penalties.

[whereagles]

Thanks all. After reading this thread and some books, I decided to go


1NT dbl 2x* ??

(*) some sort of weak escape

dbl = take-out
pass = almost forcing
2y/2NT/3y = competitive/lebensohl/forcing


1NT dbl rdbl* ??

(*) some sort of weak escape.

pass = strong, creates a force
2♣ = weakish, nat or no 5 card suit
2x = weakish, 5 cards


1NT pass 2x dbl = cards, as if it were a direct double of 1NT