[the hog]

Quote Flytoox:

"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. "

Very curious. I do not think Mauro meant this thread to be a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the Weak vs Strong NT, so I do not see the relevancy of this comment to the discussion at all.

[awm]

In answer to some questions:

After 1NT-X-Pass, advancer's first priority is to pass with 6+ points. If doubler has a balanced hand, then oftentimes defending 1NT will be right. Typically the opening side will not sit for 1NTX holding less than half the points, and most often the pass will be forcing and the start of some kind of runout. Even if doubler has some shapely hand, usually he will get another chance to bid. With 0-5 points, advancer bids a 5+ card suit if any. This will normally be left in by partner, unless the doubler holds a distributional hand (will introduce a natural suit of his own, which is NF if not a jump) or substantial extras (will raise or bid 2NT). With 0-5 points and no 5-card suit, advancer can pass if opponents' pass was forcing. Sometimes opponents run from 1NTX anyway (especially if doubler has more than 15 hcp). If not we can run after the forced redouble. If opponents pass was to play and advancer holds 0-5 with no 5-card suit, then 2♣ starts a scramble. We have no particularly specific agreements about these auctions beyond that; frequently watching the opponents tempo is extremely helpful here. My general tendency as doubler is to bid a five card suit (if any) and otherwise pass the two club call, planning to redouble for rescue later if not holding a club suit.

After 1NT-X-some bid, if the bid is totally artificial (i.e. a transfer) then double simply shows cards (6+ points). This lets partner know it's our hand. If the bid is a suit (either single suited, or that suit plus another) then double is takeout. This helps us reach our own 4-4 fits, and still keeps open the option to defend doubled when it's right. Passing normally shows either a weak hand (0-5 points) or desire to defend the opponents contract doubled when partner balances. If the suit bid is passed back to doubler, his double is also takeout. Note that this is not necessarily a forcing auction. A new suit bid by advancer in this auction tends to deny interest in defending the opponents contract doubled, and should show five or more cards in the suit bid and at least moderate values. I normally play these bids as forcing one round (but not to game) and about 6+ points.

As regards two-suited hands, I have found that finding major suit fits is very important. Thus I like being able to bid 2♣ stayman with a major two suiter, or major plus longer minor. On the other hand, minor suit fits tend to be less important. Five of a minor is a less frequent game to make. In particular I find that holding a five-card major, it is not particularly important to be able to show a side four card (or often even five card) minor suit.

On the other hand, I have found that actually showing the single suit directly is very valuable. Sometimes the auction goes something like: 1NT-2♦ (any one suit)-3♦ (to play). We need to compete to the three level with about half the deck and a good major fit. But advancer doesn't know whether we have a good major fit -- overcaller could have either major, or even have clubs. A natural suit bid could simply be raised. On the other hand, consider: 1NT-2♣ (unknown TWO-suiter) - 3♦ (to play). If advancer has a fit for two of the three unbids, a takeout double is quite safe. This is quite different from the situation after the 2♦ bid when advancer needs a fit for all THREE unbids. Also, there is substantial merit to playing doubles as penalty after partner shows a known single suited hand. But with a two-suiter, we can often rely on partner to balance with a takeout double anyway, at least when holding maximum values and shortage in the enemy suit.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Mar 30 2005, 01:10 AM, said:

On the other hand, I have found that actually showing the single suit directly is very valuable. Sometimes the auction goes something like: 1NT-2♦ (any one suit)-3♦ (to play). We need to compete to the three level with about half the deck and a good major fit. But advancer doesn't know whether we have a good major fit -- overcaller could have either major, or even have clubs. A natural suit bid could simply be raised.

......

I agree on this point.
Actually, an approach quite popular vs *strong* NT at the local club is the following:

X = minor 1suiter
2C = Landy (54 or better in majors)
2D/2H = transfer overcall, may be a 2suiter
2S = Raptor hand with 4 spades, NF
2NT = minorsv 2suiter
3m = Raptor with 4H and minor suit bid

Despite the fact that people employ this vs strong NT, I had thought of employing a variant of it, vs mini/weak NT, using X as "penalty".

I like how it deals with major-based as well as Raptor hands.

However, it does discriminate less the balanced hands AND the minor 1suiter: 15-17, 18-20 and 21+ balanced, as well as long minor hands are all lumped into dbl.

Comments ?
(Keep in mind that I do not like to be forced to double only with hands "with a good lead", especially minor 1 suiter: I'd like a defense that allow me to bid also with a minor single suiter and a better than minimum opener- even without a good lead -, without being hung by pard that penalty passes with a few hcp: so basically I want to be able t resolve between various balanced hand ranges AS WELL AS minor one suiter)

One approach could be to use:
2D and 2H as "multi-bid", e.g.

2D = EITHER xfer to H OR 18-20 bal
2H = EITHER xfer to S OR 21+ bal

This would leave double as EITHER 15-17 OR minor single suiter.
Alternatively, double could be further "cleaned" into ONLY (14)15-17 balanced, and 2C would also become multi, e.g.: EITHER single suiter in a minor OR 54+ or better in both majors.

[awm]

I'm not sure how important it is to be able to show these huge balanced hands over the 1nt opening. First, they almost never come up. Second, when they do come up the right action could easily be to penalize the opponents in 1NT or wherever they run. Third, what is the meaning of doubling the 1nt and then rebidding 2nt after partner (or opponents) run from 1NTX? Seems like it should show a balanced hand which is substantially stronger than 15-17, so at least one range can be captured by that sequence.

Astro, while old-fashioned, is actually a fairly effective defense and not too disimilar to what you describe. If I recall, it's something like:

2♣ = 4+ hearts and another suit; partner bids 2♦ to relay unless holding a weak hand with a heart fit or holding a suit of his own; then 2♥ by overcaller shows 5+ hearts and a (usually shorter) second suit, other bids natural and show the canape hand (4 hearts, longer other suit).

2♦ = same idea with spades

2♥/2♠ = natural one-suited

X = penalty, either 15+ (any) or lighter with a natural lead in a minor suit

[Chamaco]

Quote

I'm not sure how important it is to be able to show these huge balanced hands over the 1nt opening. First, they almost never come up.

The idea is that when yo have a HUGE hand, you won't be able to penalize because pard will pull way too often.

Of course, if depends which school of double you are:

1- if your doubles mean "I set them alone", then doubling with balanced nìbattleship will fare well (hopefully) because pard will lave it in even holding close to nothing;
but on the other hand the frequency of you doubles, and of your overall action, will be much lower, and put much pressure onn balancer (or lose many penalties or game opportunities where hcp are split and neither you nor pard has a battleship);

2- if your doubles show only "cards" (14+ or 15+ or 16+, according to style), but do not guarantee to set the contract, a broke responder will often pull. So in this case (doubler has, say, 18-20 balanced), the doubler will have a hard time bidding on if pard pulls, either missing games, or overbidding (the usual problem being "pard is weak, but by how much? Can we have game on anyways ? ").
Even when doubler rebids, there is a need to discriminate 18-20 vs 21+ balanced hands. The schemes I mentioned are geared towards that.

Also, both Mike Lawrence and other authors (incluing Rosenkranz) suggest using direct 2NT overcall over a weakNT to show the 20+ balanced hand: this is because they know from experience that when you have too strong a hand, you won't be able to penalize (pard will pull too often), so after all better show the strength right away giving up penalty hopes but easing constructive bidding.


Basically, the schemes I mentioned:
- give up hopes of penalty with very strong (18-20) and huge hands (21+),
- give up hopes of penalty with a (semisolid) suit to run (but usually in that case opps have also a long suit and they'll play a partscore there;
- give up hopes of penalty when we are unbalanced (but here too, responder will often be unbalanced as well and have a decent place to run)
- maintains the possibility of cooperative penalties with pard when one hand ahs a 14-17 and the other has, say (7+)8-9+ hcp.

The latter option, not only is more frequent, but is usually also more effective than having a single strong balanced hand doubling unilaterally for penalty: defense plays better when hcp are well split between us and pard, rather than when one defender holds all the strength.
Of course, it also includes additional risks when the doubler hits a broke pard and opps double.

Quote

Third, what is the meaning of doubling the 1nt and then rebidding 2nt after partner (or opponents) run from 1NTX?
Seems like it should show a balanced hand which is substantially stronger than 15-17, so at least one range can be captured by that sequence.

That makes sense, and actually was implemented in the first defense I posted.

Quote

Astro, while old-fashioned, is actually a fairly effective defense and not too disimilar to what you describe. If I recall, it's something like:
......

Yes but in constructive bidding I want a defense that guarantees whether the major is 4 or 5+ in length.
I can live with 2-suiters that guarantees 54+ *if holding both majors*, but when it is *major-minor* I want to be sure if the major has 4 cards OR if it has 5+.

I like 2-suited overcalls that only promise 4 cards as preemptive bids, e.g. vs strong NT (at the right vuln). It does hinder opps bidding machinery and the relaxed criteria guarante a higher frequency of use and damage.

BUT, when opps open a mini/weak NT, when bidding starts one level higher, I want my 2-suiter to be more accurate, to be able to bid close games with subminimum values IF FIT is there (e.g. if my pard REALLY has a 5 c major , and not just a 4 card with longer minor).
This is very important to me.

[whereagles]

I can live with pard pulling out a 18-20 double. At least we'll have a play for our 2-level contract

[the hog]

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

[Chamaco]

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Ron,
in your agreements, what are the obligations of balancer when bidding goes:
1NT-p-p-?

What is the minimum HCP strength required for doubling in the balancing seat with a balanced hand (remember, using double to show a balanced hand only and not including a long suit with a good lead) ?

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Well, what happens is I waive the penalty when points split 18-5 or 19-4, but I get more penalties when points split 14-9 or 15-8. I think the later two are more likely, so I'd say you get more penalties when you double light.

Still, you can use statistics here. Say you want to double opps when points split 22-18 or more. Let's assume a 12-14 NT. That's 12-13 on average (the low end is more likely than high end). Let's say average is 12,5. If you double on 14, there will be 13,5 between pard and LHO. That should split 6,75 for each, so in average your side has 20,75. Say 21. Thus 14 is not enough, unless you want to trap opps also on 21-19 splits.

So yeah, basically you should double on 15-16+ if you want safety, or on 14+ if you want to risk a bit. An easy corollary is the lower end of the double goes slightly down as the NT also goes down.

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Whether to pull or not doesnt depend on your point, but depend on your shape. No matter how much hcp pd's dbl shows, you should not pull unless you have shape AND a weak hand. A weak hand doesnot justify a pull.

[pbleighton]

"Whether to pull or not doesnt depend on your point, but depend on your shape. No matter how much hcp pd's dbl shows, you should not pull unless you have shape AND a weak hand. A weak hand doesnot justify a pull."

If you have xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx, wouldn't you pull?

Peter

[flytoox]

pbleighton, on Mar 31 2005, 04:33 PM, said:

"Whether to pull or not doesnt depend on your point, but depend on your shape. No matter how much hcp pd's dbl shows, you should not pull unless you have shape AND a weak hand. A weak hand doesnot justify a pull."

If you have xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx, wouldn't you pull?

Peter

Tell me first if you think this is a balanced or shape hand:) then you will know the answer.

[the hog]

Chamaco, on Mar 31 2005, 11:23 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Ron,
in your agreements, what are the obligations of balancer when bidding goes:
1NT-p-p-?

What is the minimum HCP strength required for doubling in the balancing seat with a balanced hand (remember, using double to show a balanced hand only and not including a long suit with a good lead) ?

Hi Mauro, in the passout seat we loosen up quite a lot. eg our 2 suited Major bid can easily be a moderate 4-4, whereas in immediate seat we need 5-4 or a vg 4-4.

Xs in passout seat are also lighter - down to a minimum of 14, but again a decent 14 and not a hand shape like 4333.

[pbleighton]

"Tell me first if you think this is a balanced or shape hand:) then you will know the answer."

This is a balanced hand, and I would pull in a second. You would not, I take it, and your opps would make their doubled contract, perhaps with an overtrick.

Peter

[flytoox]

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2005, 04:29 AM, said:

"Tell me first if you think this is a balanced or shape hand:) then you will know the answer."

This is a balanced hand, and I would pull in a second. You would not, I take it, and your opps would make their doubled contract, perhaps with an overtrick.

Peter

Yes, I will not pulll. If you run to 2H, you will get dbled. That willnot necessarily be better than 1Nx.

Do you pull with xxx,xxx,xxxx,xxx? You dont, do you? SO the reason you pull is that you take it as unbalanced hand.

[Chamaco]

flytoox, on Apr 1 2005, 08:28 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2005, 04:29 AM, said:

"Tell me first if you think this is a balanced or shape hand:) then you will know the answer."

This is a balanced hand, and I would pull in a second. You would not, I take it, and your opps would make their doubled contract, perhaps with an overtrick.

Peter

Yes, I will not pulll. If you run to 2H, you will get dbled. That willnot necessarily be better than 1Nx.

Do you pull with xxx,xxx,xxxx,xxx? You dont, do you? SO the reason you pull is that you take it as unbalanced hand.

In my understanding, adopting the policy of not pulling partner's double without a clear direction has merit, but it has impact on the requirements for doubling.

If with such hands you are not allowed to pull, and should leave it in, then it seems that doubler must be pretty sure to set the contract or in any case avoiding ovetricks, even if he hits a broke partner.

However, I have seen in earlier posts of yours that you agreed with Juniy Zhu's suggestion to lower the requirements of double to 14 hcp.

But, if you say that doubling with 14 is reasonable, then it is probably better to scramble with a yarborough hand, no?

[flytoox]

Chamaco, on Apr 1 2005, 08:40 AM, said:

flytoox, on Apr 1 2005, 08:28 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2005, 04:29 AM, said:

"Tell me first if you think this is a balanced or shape hand:) then you will know the answer."

This is a balanced hand, and I would pull in a second. You would not, I take it, and your opps would make their doubled contract, perhaps with an overtrick.

Peter

Yes, I will not pulll. If you run to 2H, you will get dbled. That willnot necessarily be better than 1Nx.

Do you pull with xxx,xxx,xxxx,xxx? You dont, do you? SO the reason you pull is that you take it as unbalanced hand.

In my understanding, adopting the policy of not pulling partner's double without a clear direction has merit, but it has impact on the requirements for doubling.

If with such hands you are not allowed to pull, and should leave it in, then it seems that doubler must be pretty sure to set the contract or in any case avoiding ovetricks, even if he hits a broke partner.

However, I have seen in earlier posts of yours that you agreed with Juniy Zhu's suggestion to lower the requirements of double to 14 hcp.

But, if you say that doubling with 14 is reasonable, then it is probably better to scramble with a yarborough hand, no?

No, I think whether you pull has not much to do with whether pd's dbl should be 16+ or 14+. My point is that if pd dbl opener's 1N and I have a completely broke And balanced hand, then you will not get a good result by running. You will be hacked and you are not sure if you have a fit or not. Furthermore. It is not impossible pd could defeat 1N by himself. Pd could have sth like Axx,Kx,KQJTxx,Ax.

I definitely think "Pull pd's dbl if I have a broke hand" is a very poor method. I am sure you have read Lawrence's book about it already

[pbleighton]

There's a better than even chance you will be playing in an 8+ fit. Thre's also a decent chance that, even if you aren't, you won't be doubled.

Peter

[Winstonm]

In my experience, players over-compete against weak NT openers. The first thing to realize, IMO, is that occassionally the weak NT will get you and accept that fact.
The next thing to realize is that every now and then you will be able to get them with a penalty.

But by far what occurs most is a neutral result. If one thinks about it, with a 12-14 NT opened, the expectancy is 13 HCPs. That leaves 27 in other hands, or an expectancy of 9 points per hand. So the expectancy is that they hold 22 and we hold 18 - a part score battle.

I haven't bothered to figure it out, but I'd guess about 60-70 percent of the time that a 1NT opening is passed out that it is a normal contract, just arrived at quicker than by those opening in a suit. That means that a decent amount of time the 1NT bidders will be in the wrong contract. They may get a slight edge overall in the partscore battle, but IMO that goes up dramatically if one gets overactive against them.

I believe it is more important to have a good balancing seat convention for competing for the partscore, and a direct seat convention that is aimed at reaching games and the occassional penalty.

WinstonM

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2005, 07:14 AM, said:

I haven't bothered to figure it out, but I'd guess about 60-70 percent of the time that a 1NT opening is passed out that it is a normal contract, just arrived at quicker than by those opening in a suit.

i kib a lot, and i think this is probably right... often i see a player open 1x, pard bids 1y, opener rebids 1nt, all pass... i'd have opened the hand 1nt to start with