[Chamaco]

Quote

What do you bid with a decent hand (say 13-15 high) and a long minor suit? Competing for the partscore could be quite important here, but it seems like these hands have no bid.

2D.
The 2 diamond bid shows either a 18-20 balanced or any single suiter equivalent to a minimum opener (say 10-15).
If you evaluate the 15 hcp single suiter as too strong for a minimum opener, you jump overcall to 3 of a suit, natural, showing the playing strength of a reverse.

Quote

Why are you playing "systems on" after the double? With a reasonable hand, shouldn't advancer simply pass? How does advancer get out of 1NTX with a bust and no major suit, if 2c and 2d are stayman and transfer respectively?

That was taken from Lawrence's book "Double": system on responding to pard's double vs weak NT.
I am not sure it is good.
My views about it:
- I could live without transfers responding to the double BUT
- I coould NOT live without a scrambling scheme if responder has a 4432 hand.
- a weakish responder (say 0-6) might leave the double in if opard doubled in the direct seat; BUT we ABSOLUTELY NEED a scrambling method when double comes from the balancing seat, when doubler can have a weak NT hand.

If you have any suggestions for scrambling methods other than a "scrambling stayman", I'll be happy to hear about them :-)

Quote

Is it important to be able to preempt over weak notrump? For example, say you have a normal 3s opening bid... do you feel the weak notrump makes that bid so ineffective that you'd rather not be able to bid it, and instead have yet another way to show a strong hand?

My priorities vs the weak NT hand are:
- constructive bidding
- safety

Because of this, I am willing to adopt vs the weak NT the same tactics than vs a weak 2 opener: because I consider the weak NT a "semi-preempt", I won't preempt over a preempt.

So, accordoing to vulnerability, I might upgrade a 3S opener to the playing strength of an opening bid, and treat it like a single suiter, bidding 2D, or simply bid 4S at favoirable vulnerability or simply pass when the options are too risky.

Quote

  if opponents are NOT in a forcing auction (i.e. 1NTX or 1NTXX may be about to play) then 2♣ is artificial and starts a scramble, and anything else is 5+ cards (and weak)

Alright so that answers my previous question.
Basically your scheme saves the 2 diamond bid for a 5 bagger.

QUESTIONS:

What are doubler's priorities in response to a double ?
What does he bid with a 5332 ?
How does advancer know whether the suit bid by opener is 5 or 4 cards long (so that he does not run from a 52 fit to a 43 fit) ?
How do you find slam hands with a 44 fit if not using stayman ?
(yes I know slam vs a weak NT hand are rare, and usually it pays off more to penalty pass with those, nevertheless, at red vs white, it pays off more to use constructive bidding even with good hands rather than simply pass: so there is a need also for a strong relay looking for 44 fits, and not only for scrambling realays)
----------------------------------------------------

Finally:
I like the extra preemption in the defense you use, but I really prefer to have 2 suiter bids available right away.
The use of 2-suiters is both safer (offers 2 places to play) and helps bidding tight games.
Bidding simply 2D/2M when I have a 2-suiter is not appealing to me.

One more thing:
I have seen people using defenses that show simply 44 in suits, even with balanced hands: I think it is important to discriminate whether the hand is a REAL 2suiter (at least 54) or simply a balanced 4432.
Balanced 4432 has a much weaker playing strength, and I think it should be shown with a bid that specifically shows a balanced hand.

I really appreciated the comments on doubling sequences, look forward to further insight (e.g. the questions above) !

Thanks !

[whereagles]

At the risk of being repetitive, here's my opinion on this..

People give too much attention to 2-suited overcalls over 1NT. The idea is sound: it is relatively safe to do it, and those are the hands you want to compete with anyway. However, hands suitable for a 2-suited overcall come up very rarely.

So I think one should gear one's overcalls over 1NT on hands that do come up fairly frequently, e.g, the balanced hands.

Another hand type you can live without having a bid for is the 1-suiter. That hand can pass 1NT and set it. If opps pull out of 1NT via, say, a transfer, then you might want to bid your suit in the 2nd round. That's obviously riskier, but should still be fairly safe. Still, there's nothing wrong with bidding over 1NT with 1-suiters, especially in the majors. Just that if you have to give up something, this is an ok thing to give up.

[luke warm]

i tend to have the complete opposite view from yours, whereagles... i think pass is right with the balanced hands, bid with the one and two suiters (or at least gear your system toward finding those bids)

[whereagles]

Yeah, I know my style isn't in-line with common lore

Just that 1NT is a contract which hard to defend, so it is preferable to try and buy the hand yourself as often as possible

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Mar 28 2005, 04:20 AM, said:

Balancing doubles would be a minimum of 14 AND a decent lead, Peter. I would prefer to make a 2 suited or ss takeout if at all possible.

How can you guarantee a decent lead with double in balancing seat? Playing against weak NT, balancing double should be more sound than dbl of RHO's nt opening. This is because responder to weak NT opener will usually run with a weak hand.

Junyi's suggestion is certainly not bad as you suggest. Playing against weak NT, it is certainly ok to dbl with good 14.

[hotShot]

Defending against weak NT's there are a few things to consider.

1) Weak NT's are preempts
If there is no better fit, and the points are distributed equally to each side, usually the side that is allowed to play 1NT, scores well. If you bid 1NT at once there is a good chance that opps will find some loosing lead due to the lack of information.

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT
weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

3) Don't fear that you miss game with balanced hands
If is highly unlikely that you have game with balanced hands, if one of your opps has 12-14 HCP with a balanced hand too. So it is the unbalanced hands that might miss game. Balanced hands will bring you a partscore only.

4) Take the pressure of the 4th seat
If opener can hold 12-14, your partners bid is pass with 0-14 hcp (if balanced) and 3rd seat will pass with 0-10 hcp, the 4th seat has a big problem. Opps can hold 12-24 HCP, partner 0-14.
With these wide ranges partner can make more wrong decisions than right ones. So you should narrow them down by bidding in the second seat or live with the fact that a reopening in the 4th seat will have to be extra solid.

5) There is much to gain if you can play fit's at the 2 level. Even if it is a 8 or 7 card fit only.
This is why "DONT" and "Lionel" allow you to play on the 2 level.
But THERE IS ALSO MUCH TO LOOSE there.

If your defence system takes all of this into account, it is well defined.

[Chamaco]

Quote

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT
weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

Agree.
My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.
Partner can decide.
Sometimes you drive them in a better contract, sometimes they nail us, sometimes we nail them soetimes we find game.

There are risks associated in sticking the head vs weak NT but same vs a weak 2 or a preempt. So goes life.

Quote

3) Don't fear that you miss game with balanced hands
If is highly unlikely that you have game with balanced hands, if one of your opps has 12-14 HCP with a balanced hand too. So it is the unbalanced hands that might miss game. Balanced hands will bring you a partscore only.
Moreover, in this scenario, the likelihood is that one pard doubles and the other leaves it in.

I disagree with this statement.
When both of us hold a combined holding of 24 (even 23 if one of us has 5332), MANY times 3NT is cold.
This is because:
- you can play doubledummy, knowing which finesse is on
- lots of endplays vs the weaknotrumper: many times the weak notrumper is endplayed since the opening lead
- frequent squeeze possibilities (aall high cards in one hand)

I can (and probably will, but not today) run a simulation on this and post the hands.

Quote

4) Take the pressure of the 4th seat
If opener can hold 12-14, your partners bid is pass with 0-14 hcp (if balanced) and 3rd seat will pass with 0-10 hcp, the 4th seat has a big problem. Opps can hold 12-24 HCP, partner 0-14.
With these wide ranges partner can make more wrong decisions than right ones. So you should narrow them down by bidding in the second seat or live with the fact that a reopening in the 4th seat will have to be extra solid.

This is a good point and I appreciate it.
I will probably lower the range to 14-17 in direct seat for the double.
This will allow tu use a (12+)13-16 in the balancing seat, which sounds more prudent.

Quote

5) There is much to gain if you can play fit's at the 2 level. Even if it is a 8 or 7 card fit only.
This is why "DONT" and "Lionel" allow you to play on the 2 level.

I have not enough experience about Lionel, but DONT is discarded by most expert pairs vs weak NT.
This is because of the lack of definition of strength/shape.

It is imperative to know if pard has a REAL 2suiter or simply a balanced hand with 4432 both in constructive bidding (bidding close games) and when deciding to penalize (when they are nonvuln, penalizing when we have fit for pard's 55 VERY often results in a worse score than buying the contract).

So my choice is to have specific bids for real 2suiters, and scramble via a pseudostayman with balanced hands.

awg's suggestion of using 2D/H/S as "to play" and 2C as "pseudoBaron" (asks 4 bagger up the line) has merit.

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Mar 28 2005, 09:55 AM, said:

Quote

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT
weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

Agree.
My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.
Partner can decide.

I have to disagree. If you defense scheme it based upon the theory that it is not worth considering doubling 1NT for penalty when they open weak, you give your opponents liscences to steal. The one great fear to a weak or mini-NT is the opponents will double you. That is one of the two huge disadvantages to these 1NT opening bids (there are a lot of advantages to them). If you take away this threat, well, heck everyone would play them

Ben

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Mar 28 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Mar 28 2005, 09:55 AM, said:

Quote

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT
weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

Agree.
My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.
Partner can decide.

I have to disagree. If you defense scheme it based upon the theory that it is not worth considering doubling 1NT for penalty when they open weak, you give your opponents liscences to steal. The one great fear to a weak or mini-NT is the opponents will double you. That is one of the two huge disadvantages to these 1NT opening bids (there are a lot of advantages to them). If you take away this threat, well, heck everyone would play them

Ben

Ben, the meaning of my sentence is the following.

There are people who double meaning "I set 1NT on my own".
Others that double to show "I have more than xxx hcp", but not necessarily set them alone.

Doubling as cardshowing loses the option of one-sided penalty (e.g. the times where one player would set the contract on his own and his pard has a yarborough), but gains the times where the cardshowing double is left in by his pard (because the other doublers-who required to "see" 6-7 tricks in hand- would not double with such hand).

I am in the second category (cardshowing).
I:
- double with a balanced hand or with unbalanced battleship
- bid my shape with 1/2 suiters and minimum opener
- bid 3 of a suit with single suiter reverse

[whereagles]

Hum.. yeah, Ben is right. You have to be able to double a weak NT for penalties. Otherwise you're starting your auction at the 2-level, whereas the field is starting it at the 1-level. To compensate for this disadvantage, you have to capitalize on the occasions the weak NT is caught speeding

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on Mar 28 2005, 02:41 PM, said:

Hum.. yeah, Ben is right. You have to be able to double a weak NT for penalties. Otherwise you're starting your auction at the 2-level, whereas the field is starting it at the 1-level. To compensate for this disadvantage, you have to capitalize on the occasions the weak NT is caught speeding

Sure, you can capitalize also using cardshowing double (say a 15+ balanced)
What is more frequent ?
A "pure" penalty hand (sets the contract alone) or a hand with "cards" (that would allow pard to leave the double in?
I think it is a matter of frequency of hand types and magnitude of losses/gains.
Of course in the frequency-magnitude analysis one should also include the hands where advancer is broke, so he'll pull the cardshowing dbl, and WE are going for a telephone number instead than opps.

The construuctive auction starts at the 2 level only for unbalanced hands, which are usually better suited for playing than penalizing.

[whereagles]

I would say after a weak NT on your right, a balanced 13-14 comes up fairly frequently, so it's probably better to double on this type of hand. Of course you'd prefer 16 or more for a balanced double, but that just doesn't happen so often. Another advantage of doubling on a balanced hand is pard will have an easy escape if he has a 5-carder. Sure, you can get into big trouble if you double on 13 and pard has a 5-count. But hey, it's a two-edged sword, like the 1NT itself.

Vs strong NT it's another story. You don't need a penalty double of a strong NT, so you might as well use that bid for something else.

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on Mar 28 2005, 02:50 PM, said:

Vs strong NT it's another story. You don't need a penalty double of a strong NT, so you might as well use that bid for something else.

Sure, all this thread does not deal at all vs strong NT

[Free]

I'm used to play 10-12 in 1st & 2nd seat (all vulnerabilities) and 12-14 in 3rd seat. I have to admit, the only fear we have is to get doubled for a number. We have a good escape sequence, but we can still get hit by a bus, especially when opps are NV. Being able to dbl for penalty is imo an obligation in your defense vs mini and weak NT.

[the hog]

Quote from Flytoox:

"Junyi's suggestion is certainly not bad as you suggest. Playing against weak NT, it is certainly ok to dbl with good 14. "

Please keep doing this while you are playing me, Fly, especially if we play for money!!

I have played and played against weak nt for more than 20 years. In my experience doubles with equal points are a huge losing proposition. However I have no doubt you have much more experience than I have in this area.

[Fluffy]

My experince against weak NT is nearly 0 sadly, not popular around here, but the common consense around, probably adopted from frenchs is that you should promise at least 1 more HCP than the opener.

[luke warm]

while i don't have ron's years of experience playing a weak nt, i do have a little... frankly, i've never worried too much about being doubled (maybe my matchpoint mentality)... sure i've gone for a zip code or two, but it's only one board... far more often it's the opps seem to end up badly (in my experience)... imo the weak nt is a big winner, for the preempt effect if nothing else (and there is a lot "else")

if you make a habit of doubling 12-14/15 nt with 14 hcp, i believe you'll pay the long run price... besides, the run out schemes are so good that if i ever find myself playing 1nt x'd (or xx'd), i honestly have no fears

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Mar 28 2005, 10:39 PM, said:

Quote from Flytoox:

"Junyi's suggestion is certainly not bad as you suggest. Playing against weak NT, it is certainly ok to dbl with good 14. "

Please keep doing this while you are playing me, Fly, especially if we play for money!!

I have played and played against weak nt for more than 20 years. In my experience doubles with equal points are a huge losing proposition. However I have no doubt you have much more experience than I have in this area.

I certainly do not have as much experience as you do. But frankly, I donot think either your or mine personnal experience proves much.

While you quote your criteria from Reese, I quote my criteria from Lawrence. Both are established bridge writers and I leave it to all to judge who is more influential in bidding theory.

When you score a lot from playing wk NT, it could be due to many factors. The simple factor that there are many world class players playing strong NT and many playing weak NT shows that weak NT, even if (this is a big IF by the way)it has any advantage over strong NT, can only be slightly superior to strong NT.

[Chamaco]

flytoox, on Mar 29 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

While you quote your criteria from Reese, I quote my criteria from Lawrence. Both are established bridge writers and I leave it to all to judge who is more influential in bidding theory.

Perhaps one point in favour of Reese is that he comes from a country where weak NT is routine, more than Lawrence.

I have the book of Lawrence "Doubles", but his section on defending vs weak NT does not look so confident and convincing as other sections where the reader "feels" the author is at ease: he does not deals with "nuances" such as the effects of methods in direct seat to balancer's obligations, and more stuff.

Instead, when dealing with other auction types, he is often very focus and povides usefu examples of bad and good things that can happen.

Just a feeling of mine, though, and I am certainly no expert.