Scum vs NT

[glen]

In today's (Monday's) NABC bulletin, Spring NABC Bulletin #4

Bart Bramley talks about SCUM vs. NT (btw he could have also called it SCAM since the choice of vowel is optional).

 

This is:

Double: Two suits of the same shape: ♥s & ♣s or ♠s & ♦s

2♣: Two suits of the same color: ♥s & ♦s or ♠s & ♣s

2♦: Majors

2♥/♠: Natural

2NT: Minors

 

He uses this against all notrumps that begin with a decent 11 or better.

 

While some have described their two suited bids as '5-5', here we have:

 

"I hate defending 1NT. I compete on some hands that would make many people blanch. My style is hyper-aggressive; I'll come in on 4-4 hands, especially if I don't like my lead position. If my hand contains a lot of tenaces that make it unattractive to lead from (against a 1NT opening), I'll trade my lead problem for a declaring problem."

So do you blanch at this style, or would it be effective, even against a 12-14 notrump?

[helene_t]

Seems ok. I think I would make a minor adjustment:

 

2♦: hearts or spades

2♥: majors

2♠: 5 spades and 4+ in a minor

 

The advantage of this is that with spades and a minor, you can differentiate between four and five spades. With a passed hand (which can't have a six-card major) you can play 2♥ as five hearts+four spades, 2♦ as four hearts and five spades.

[hrothgar]

We just concluded a fairly length thread titled "Battling the Weak Notrump" which had a fair amount of commentary regarding preferred methods and different theories about competition.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18221&st=0

 

I won't repeat all the comments I made in that thread, however, I will note that the system that Bramley describes as "SCUM" bears a lot of similarity to Lionel (my preferred method)

 

1. Both systems treat 4-4 patterns as two suited

2. Both systems are predicated on aggressively entering the auction

3. Both systems use 2♥ / 2♠ as natural, single suited patterns

 

There are obvious differences in the definition of X, 2♣, and 2♦. (I like the Lionel system better, which is probably why I play it) Even so, I'm quite comfortable with the style that Bramely advocates.

[MFA]

Not having a penalty double of a weak 1NT is terrible, absolutely unplayable.

Getting doubled is THE greatest downside of the weak notrump, so you must be able to double.

 

I have played weak notrump since approx. 1996, and I just love when opponents can't penalty double because of some silly convention.

[pbleighton]

"Not having a penalty double of a weak 1NT is terrible, absolutely unplayable.

Getting doubled is THE greatest downside of the weak notrump, so you must be able to double.

 

I have played weak notrump since approx. 1996, and I just love when opponents can't penalty double because of some silly convention."

 

Agree, except that burying your own fit is worse (or at least more common) than getting doubled for penalty, which is painful but not so common.

 

4-4 as two suited hands is fine against strong NT. I'm not sure I like this against weak NT, except to show both majors.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Not having a penalty double of a weak 1NT is terrible, absolutely unplayable.

Getting doubled is THE greatest downside of the weak notrump, so you must be able to double.

 

I have played weak notrump since approx. 1996, and I just love when opponents can't penalty double because of some silly convention.

Of course this begs the entire question: "What is a penalty double?"

 

You seem to be differentiating between a penalty double and conventions. Presumably a penalty double is some big strong studly hand while a conventional double is used to announce a single suited hand or show a 4 card major with a longer minor or some such. I don't find this a useful distinction.

 

From my perspective, the most crucial issue is not what the double shows but

 

1. Whether double is used as a forcing bid

2. If double is non-forcing, how frequently can it be passed and is partner well positioned to make an intelligent decision about whether or not to pass

 

In short, while I agree that you want to be able to penalize the opponents after they open a weak NT, its unclear whether "penalty" doubles are the best tool to accomplish this end.

[Walddk]

I admire Bart Bramley as a fine player and an outstanding analyst, but I think his method against the opponents' 1NT has two significant flaws.

 

1. You can't penalise a weak NT (11-13 and 12-14 for example).

 

2. 2♦ for the majors is not ideal. The problem is that advancer can't ask for the longer major. I much prefer 2♣ for that purpose because you have 2♦ available to get to the right major when advancer has equal length.

 

Roland

[kenberg]

Seems ok. I think I would make a minor adjustment:

 

2♦: hearts or spades

2♥: majors

2♠: 5 spades and 4+ in a minor

 

The advantage of this is that with spades and a minor, you can differentiate between four and five spades. With a passed hand (which can't have a six-card major) you can play 2♥ as five hearts+four spades, 2♦ as four hearts and five spades.

I have been told that this would not be acceptable in the online acbl game because, are you ready for this, 2D does not show at least one definite suit. Apparently in the General Convention Chart it is OK to use a Cappalletti 2C to show a single unknown suit but not OK for 2D to show a single unknown major. There are stupider things in bridge and in life but right now I can't think of any.

 

 

Of course I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am.

 

 

Ken

[pclayton]

Seems ok. I think I would make a minor adjustment:

 

2♦: hearts or spades

2♥: majors

2♠: 5 spades and 4+ in a minor

 

The advantage of this is that with spades and a minor, you can differentiate between four and five spades. With a passed hand (which can't have a six-card major) you can play 2♥ as five hearts+four spades, 2♦ as four hearts and five spades.

I have been told that this would not be acceptable in the online acbl game because, are you ready for this, 2D does not show at least one definite suit. Apparently in the General Convention Chart it is OK to use a Cappalletti 2C to show a single unknown suit but not OK for 2D to show a single unknown major. There are stupider things in bridge and in life but right now I can't think of any.

 

 

Of course I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am.

 

 

Ken

Yeah; double and 2♣ can be anything under the sun. This is sensible I think, because you can still play systems on over 2♣ and they can't screw you up too much.

 

I'd just assume play Suction as what Bramley is suggesting. He can't show minor single suiters at all, and I agree with Roland that 2♦ as the majors is sub-optimal.

[MFA]

Agree, except that burying your own fit is worse (or at least more common) than getting doubled for penalty, which is painful but not so common.

Yes, you are probably right, in isolation it might cost you more to bury your fit with a weak NT opening than the occasional big penalty. However I see this as a trade-off for getting fast to 1NT and leave your opponents guessing about leads and competitive moves.

 

Being able to show some fancy two-suiter with double surely does not compensate for the lack of a penalty double of the weak notrump.

 

So do you blanch at this style...

 

Yes, I do. I really don't like 4-4 overcalls after 1NT, and absent the occasional success that style doesn't seem to work for my opponents either.

Well, a very chunky 4-4 in the majors might be ok, but it would really be the exception.

[pclayton]

4-4 as two suited hands is fine against strong NT. I'm not sure I like this against weak NT, except to show both majors.

 

Peter

Actually, I think the opposite. With 4-4 against a strong NT, my disruptive value is limited, and even if we buy it, there's the worry of a stack. If I have extra values with a 4-4, I'd just assume defend. Shape rules.

 

Against a weak NT, we need to find our fit, and a tool to show a moderate 4-4 is useful, as long as you can safely do so.

 

In another thread, I mentioned that I wouldn't want to give up a penalty double against a weak NT, and I still don't, even if its a studly, macho bid. I would mention that in practice, you don't get a lot of penalties against a weak NT, but it does happen. What a penalty double is good at is immediately claiming ownership of the deal from the perspective of the 4th hand. Sometimes this means we knock them off, but sometimes it means that we can gauge our possibilities of game better.

 

"We double, they run, we wiggle, then we probe". I think this is better than "we wiggle, then we probe, then we probe some more".

[MFA]

In short, while I agree that you want to be able to penalize the opponents after they open a weak NT, its unclear whether "penalty" doubles are the best tool to accomplish this end.

While I find your view of the double as a convention or not as fine, I don't understand your conclusion: "unclear".

 

Surely having a "strong hand double" will catch the opponents much more often than first requiring 2nd hand to have some specific shapes to be able to double and then 4th hand to divine a pass when it's right. This setup won't happen very often.

 

Anyway, too much talk of penalties (and this is largely my fault :) ).

Against strong notrump you can view your interference completely as a part score battle. We don't have a game unless there is a big fit, and then we'll ususally find out.

 

This approach doesn't work against weak NT. We have many games on sheer power, so we must find out. The penalty double is a great tool in that department, since it announces strength.

[hrothgar]

Surely having a "strong hand double" will catch the opponents much more often than first requiring 2nd hand to have some specific shapes to be able to double and then 4th hand to divine a pass when it's right. This setup won't happen very often.

 

Needless to say, I disagree. You'll certainly be well positioned if and when one of your "penalty" doubles crops up. However, the more specific you make your double, the more rare its going to be. If you'd like, please provide a fairly concise description of the hand types that qualify for a "penalty" double. I can run a sim to estimate its frequency. (The same goes for Roland or anyone else)

 

Anyway, too much talk of penalties (and this is largely my fault :) ).

Against strong notrump you can view your interference completely as a part score battle. We don't have a game unless there is a big fit, and then we'll ususally find out.

 

This approach doesn't work against weak NT. We have many games on sheer power, so we must find out. The penalty double is a great tool in that department, since it announces strength.

 

I'm going to repeat some data that I originally posted in the original thread suggesting that you rarely have a game based on power, even opposite a 10 - 12 HCP 1NT opening.

 

I ran a VERY simple sim in which I assigned North a 3 HCP range (10 - 12), (11-13), (12-14), ... (16-18)

 

I then calculated the frequency with which North/South held 24+ HCP, as well as the frequency with which East/West held 24+ HCP. I didn't bother with any kind of single dummy or double dummy analysis for the resulting contracts. I simply looked at the HCP strength of the hands.

 

A couple points stood out:

 

1. Even if the opponents open a 10 - 12 HCP 1NT, the odds that the defending partnership is going to get dealt a 24+ HCP hand are very slim (less than 15%). Regardless of what range NT they're opening, defensive methods shouldn't focus on exploring for game. Alternatively, if do want to bid "constructively", you need methods that will focus on something other than HCPs. You need to explore double fits, running suits, or some such... (Personally, I don't think that the precise set of methods will be nearly as important as making sure that both members of the partnership agree about the meaning of different bids)

 

2. There is a significant dynamic balancing "exposure" - the likelihood that you're going to go for a significant penalty - versus disrupting their ability to accurately explore for game. Individual partnerships will need to make their own decision regarding the risk that the opponents are going to make game. I will suggest that the NT opener's vulnerability probably needs to be taken in to account.

 

 

“10-12”

23.05

14.72

 

“11-13”

27.87

10.63

 

“12-14”

33.32

7.18

 

“13-15”

39.32

4.52

 

“14-16”

45.7

2.51

 

“15-17”

52.7

0.1

 

“16-18”

59.85

0

[Flame]

2♣: Two suits of the same color: ♥s & ♦s or ♠s & ♣s

How will you continue over this 2♣ ???

This seems very strange and unplayable atleast when vul.

[MFA]

Surely having a "strong hand double" will catch the opponents much more often than first requiring 2nd hand to have some specific shapes to be able to double and then 4th hand to divine a pass when it's right. This setup won't happen very often.

 

Needless to say, I disagree. You'll certainly be well positioned if and when one of your "penalty" doubles crops up. However, the more specific you make your double, the more rare its going to be. If you'd like, please provide a fairly concise description of the hand types that qualify for a "penalty" double. I can run a sim to estimate its frequency.

Ok. What about any 14+?

Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx.

 

1. Even if the opponents open a 10 - 12 HCP 1NT, the odds that the defending partnership is going to get dealt a 24+ HCP hand are very slim (less than 15%).

 

Slim?

14,72% is not slim at all. View it this way, your analysis suggests that you are only a 14 to 23 dog of any game being your way. That is 40% of all the games. And this is just the "high card games" - the distributionally based ones make this even closer.

 

I think your (by the way excellent) analysis supports my view.

 

Against a 15-17NT you are only 0,1% to have 24+. THAT's slim.

Against a 12-14NT you are 7,18%. That's not slim either. Say we interfere with a weak NT one time in 3. Then we have a game on sheer power some 20% of the time when we bid! Add all the distributional ones on few hcp! We simply can not miss out on most of these!

[skjaeran]

2♣: Two suits of the same color: ♥s & ♦s or ♠s & ♣s

How will you continue over this 2♣ ???

This seems very strange and unplayable atleast when vul.

You employ the Multi principle.

That is, you make a preference as high as you can in the alternative that's worst for you.

 

That is, if the red suit's are "bad" from your perspective and the blacks are better or even great, you give preference to your best (longest) red suit. Partner will pass or bid ♠'s at the same level, unless he's got extra strenght and/or shape. If you make a 2♠ reply, partner will know that you can play at the 3-level (or higher) if he's got the red suits.

 

If your hand is great, you bid 2NT, to ask partner which suits he's got. This shows game interest, so partner will bid cheaply with a minimum and make a stronger move if he's got a good hand.

[awm]

I agree that penalty doubles are useful. Here are some statistics along the lines of hrothgar's:

 

A priori, we have 24+ points on only 23.48% of hands. While the opponents opening a weak notrump reduces this probability, it's not necessarily by that much (especially for the 10-12 and 11-13 varieties).

 

For a 10-12 notrump, the bidder behind opener has 15+ points on 11% of hands. On these hands, the non-opening side has 24+ points 42% of the time.

 

For a 11-13 notrump, the numbers are 9.4% and 34.1% respectively.

 

For a 12-14 notrump, 7.8% and 26.4% respectively.

 

Note that these strong hands do come up. While they are not super-frequent, they are more frequent than, for example, hands with 8+ points and 6+ spades (3.4% of hands over a 12-14 or 3.7% over a 10-12) and not even that much less frequent than 8+ points and 5+ spades (11.6% of hands over a 12-14 or 12.4% over a 10-12). Also, the strong hands directly behind 1NT opener account for around a quarter of the "games on power" we're trying not to miss (strong balancing hands will account for roughly another quarter), and this ignores the potential of defending doubled for 200, 300, or 500 on a hand where we hold only 22-23 high and the opening side has no particularly good fit.

[Al_U_Card]

When I played the weak NT (10-12) we used double to show the balanced 10-12 hcp hand......with systems on! (Just like WE had bid 1 NT. It worked out great! I used CANT over other strength NT openers but any method that gets the shape/strength of your hand out there when you want it to is fine.

[hrothgar]

I agree that penalty doubles are useful. Here are some statistics along the lines of hrothgar's:

 

A priori, we have 24+ points on only 23.48% of hands. While the opponents opening a weak notrump reduces this probability, it's not necessarily by that much (especially for the 10-12 and 11-13 varieties).

 

For a 10-12 notrump, the bidder behind opener has 15+ points on 11% of hands. On these hands, the non-opening side has 24+ points 42% of the time.

 

For a 11-13 notrump, the numbers are 9.4% and 34.1% respectively.

 

For a 12-14 notrump, 7.8% and 26.4% respectively.

 

Note that these strong hands do come up. While they are not super-frequent, they are more frequent than, for example, hands with 8+ points and 6+ spades (3.4% of hands over a 12-14 or 3.7% over a 10-12) and not even that much less frequent than 8+ points and 5+ spades (11.6% of hands over a 12-14 or 12.4% over a 10-12). Also, the strong hands directly behind 1NT opener account for around a quarter of the "games on power" we're trying not to miss (strong balancing hands will account for roughly another quarter), and this ignores the potential of defending doubled for 200, 300, or 500 on a hand where we hold only 22-23 high and the opening side has no particularly good fit.

 

I'm attaching a more complete description of the percentages following a 12 - 14 HCP 1NT opening. (Please note, with the exception of some rounding issues, this data all agrees with the figures that AWM provided)

 

The first data set describes the chance that any one player has "X" HCPs following a 12 - 14 HCP 1NT opening in first seat. The second data set provides the East's West's combined HCP strength following North's first seat 1NT opening. The first column is the HCP, the second is the number of observations, the third is the frequency, and the 4th is the cumulative frequency.

 

From my perspective, the crucial issue is the following:

 

Lets assume that a penalty double or a power double or whatever shows 15+ HCP. As we've already noted, this occurs about 7.8% of the time. In contrast, an 11+ HCP hands shows up almost five times as often (~34.2%) of the time. If you goal is trying to extract penalies you don't want to be waiting for a rock crusher. You want to nail the opps when the NT opener is sandwiched between a couple of intermediate strength hands. This is going to be a lot more frequent. Its also a lot more difficult for declarer to score any tricks.

 

Finally, I ran a couple more sims studying how frequenty you're double in direct seat playing SCUM and Lionel.

 

Scum = 7.5%

Lionel = 7.6%

 

Note that the absolute frequency of these doubles is (essentially) the same as that of the 15+ HCP double that MFA suggested for a "penalty" double. While the 11+ HCP hands are much more frequent, both Lionel and Scum have pretty specific shape requirements for the direct seat double. Our strength is less well defined, but our shape is much better defined. Like anything else, there's a trade off.

 

 

 

0 9890 0.0048 0.0048

1 21320 0.0103 0.0151

2 36373 0.0176 0.0328

3 65877 0.0319 0.0647

4 100972 0.0490 0.1137

5 133977 0.0650 0.1786

6 165611 0.0803 0.2589

7 196858 0.0955 0.3544

8 210909 0.1023 0.4567

9 212319 0.1030 0.5596

10 202472 0.0982 0.6578

11 181149 0.0878 0.7456

12 151914 0.0737 0.8193

13 121108 0.0587 0.8780

14 90521 0.0439 0.9219

15 62859 0.0305 0.9524

16 42054 0.0204 0.9728

17 25936 0.0126 0.9854

18 14982 0.0073 0.9926

19 8135 0.0039 0.9966

20 4051 0.0020 0.9985

21 1832 0.0009 0.9994

22 770 0.0004 0.9998

23 299 0.0001 0.9999

24 89 0.0000 1.0000

25 24 0.0000 1.0000

26 3 0.0000 1.0000

27 1 0.0000 1.0000

28 0 0.0000 1.0000

 

 

 

 

0 0 0.0000 0.0000

1 5 0.0000 0.0000

2 19 0.0000 0.0000

3 80 0.0000 0.0001

4 261 0.0001 0.0002

5 669 0.0003 0.0005

6 1672 0.0008 0.0013

7 3873 0.0019 0.0032

8 7566 0.0037 0.0069

9 14139 0.0069 0.0137

10 25086 0.0122 0.0259

11 40195 0.0195 0.0454

12 60997 0.0296 0.0749

13 87581 0.0425 0.1174

14 117828 0.0571 0.1745

15 148529 0.0720 0.2466

16 177736 0.0862 0.3328

17 200340 0.0971 0.4299

18 209902 0.1018 0.5317

19 211032 0.1023 0.6340

20 195819 0.0950 0.7290

21 169903 0.0824 0.8113

22 137191 0.0665 0.8779

23 103781 0.0503 0.9282

24 69976 0.0339 0.9621

25 41896 0.0203 0.9824

26 22536 0.0109 0.9934

27 10433 0.0051 0.9984

28 3260 0.0016 1.0000

[Flame]

2♣: Two suits of the same color: ♥s & ♦s or ♠s & ♣s

How will you continue over this 2♣ ???

This seems very strange and unplayable atleast when vul.

You employ the Multi principle.

That is, you make a preference as high as you can in the alternative that's worst for you.

 

That is, if the red suit's are "bad" from your perspective and the blacks are better or even great, you give preference to your best (longest) red suit. Partner will pass or bid ♠'s at the same level, unless he's got extra strenght and/or shape. If you make a 2♠ reply, partner will know that you can play at the 3-level (or higher) if he's got the red suits.

 

If your hand is great, you bid 2NT, to ask partner which suits he's got. This shows game interest, so partner will bid cheaply with a minimum and make a stronger move if he's got a good hand.

Thanks, i was just confused because after the double you can play in 2!C and 2!D while after the 2!C you cant play in 2!C.

[the hog]

"Ok. What about any 14+?

Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx."

 

No this is not correct; a strong player who understands the nature of the weak NT will not do this. In the original thread I stated why this philosophy is losing tactics. You should have an absolute minimum of 15+ to X a weak NT. See Reese for some thoughts on dealing with WNT openings. (After all he should know).

 

To reiterate: It seems to me that the mania primarily manifested in US bridge of doubling a weak NT on any 13 count is predicated by the thought that the WNT is somehow robbing them. "How dare the opps open a 12-14 NT when normally it is 15-17?!" This is partly a MP attitude and partly due to misunderstanding th enature of the opening. Would you X a 1m opening on a flat 13 count? Probably not. I believe in penalty Xs over the WNT, but I also believe that bidding should be constructive. It is precisely because of this latter point that many have foregone the X as penalty in methods such as Lionel. This is going a bit far for me, but I love playing those opps who X on 13+, as more often than not they wind up in significant difficulties.

[awm]

Focusing on the 12-14 notrumps, let's compare the following two meanings of double:

 

(1) 15+ points, any shape.

(2) 11+ points and 4+/4+ in two non-touching suits (♠+♦ or ♣+♥).

 

For the first type, the frequency for the bid is about 7.8% of hands. Typically we will get a good result (either doubling the opponents or finding game) any time we have 22+ hcp between us. We will often get a bad result if we have 19 or fewer points, since 1NT will often make and because the double is so wide-ranging in terms of shape it can be hard to run out to a good spot at the two-level. We have 22+ points on 53.3% of hands and 19- points on 20.8% of hands. So this bid will get a good result roughly 53.3% and a bad result roughly 20.8%.

 

For the second type, the frequency for the bid is about 5.9% of hands. Typically we will get a good result whenever we have 22+ hcp between us. We will often get a bad result if we have 19 or fewer points and neither of doubler's suits provides us with an 8+ card fit. We have 22+ points on 38% of hands and 19- points without a fit in either of doubler's suits on 12.8% of hands.

 

So by this analysis, if we defend weak notrumps on 10,000 boards we would expect:

 

Using type (1) doubles, 416 really good results and 162 really bad results.

 

Using type (2) doubles, 224 really good results and 75 really bad results.

 

The net is better for type (1) doubles. Of course I've made several assumptions here, but I think most of them actually make type (1) doubles more favorable. In particular:

 

: I've assumed that every time we make a type (1) double and we have less than half the strength, it's bad. Of course this is not always true, since sometimes the opening side will run out anyway, or partner will have a long suit he can reasonably introduce.

 

: I've assumed that every time we double and our total assets are 22+ points things will go well for us. Of course this ignores the occasional hand where we double a making contract at the two-level with opponents holding most of the strength. It also ignores the fact that sometimes doubler has substantial "extras" and even though we have most of the values it is hard for our partnership to diagnose this. This second problem occurs much more frequently when doubler is 11+ since effectively this gives doubler a wider range.

 

: I've assumed that if double shows "two non-touching" and we have less than half the points and our eight-card fit is in a suit that doubler does not hold, we are in trouble. This may not be true all the time, but most of the methods I see for advancing this double (including the "multi" style stuff) pretty much assumes we are playing in one of doubler's suits.

 

: I've pretty much ignored the question of "what happens when we have 20-21 hcp?" With a type (1) double you probably end up defending most of the time, which might work out okay because most of our values are behind most of their values. With a type (2) double you will probably more frequently run out to two of a suit, which will usually be okay but occasionally not so much. I assumed that these results would normally be "neutral".

 

: I've only analyzed the results we get when we double combined with the double frequency and not considered the results for other bids. Obviously if the other bids are very different it will have a lot of effect. However, playing type (1) doubles has a very positive ripple effect on the rest of the system (all other calls are limited) whereas playing type (2) doubles seems to just let you get in on those particular hands when otherwise you couldn't (not so much positive ripple effect). I could be wrong here, but I'd bet the upshot of "non-double" calls tends to favor type (1).

 

: I've stuck to 12-14 notrumps throughout. If we reduce the range to 10-12 or 11-13, I'd expect things to be much more in favor of the type (1) double. Increasing the range to 13-15 or higher would have the opposite effect of course, but then this is why people don't play penalty doubles against strong notrumps (admittedly 13-15 is not always considered strong of course).

[MFA]

Finally, I ran a couple more sims studying how frequenty you're double in direct seat playing SCUM and Lionel.

 

Scum = 7.5%

Lionel = 7.6%

Was that:

any 11+ &

any 4-4 with the right suits?

 

Yum-yum ;)

 

Of course you could set up liberal criteria that make your double come more frequently than the penalty (strong hand) double.

 

But the above are just not likely to help you to a good result. The penalty double is, and so is the absence of the penalty double when you bid something else and thus limit your hand better.

[MFA]

"Ok. What about any 14+?

Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx."

 

No this is not correct; a strong player who understands the nature of the weak NT will not do this. In the original thread I stated why this philosophy is losing tactics. You should have an absolute minimum of 15+ to X a weak NT.

I don't agree. This is too conservative.

 

See Reese for some thoughts on dealing with WNT openings.

 

Hmm, this reference is too old.

 

(After all he should know)

 

I suppose you refer to his being English. Well, I'm from Denmark and roughly 80% of the Danish bridge elite play weak notrump. So we get lots of experience on this subject. :)

 

This is going a bit far for me, but I love playing those opps who X on 13+, as more often than not they wind up in significant difficulties.

 

Just to make sure: I'm not advocating 13+. Just saying that some 13hcp hands do double. And most 14s and 15s. Note that this actually means I could pass flat 15s!

Sure they might wind up in difficulties. Bidding over your own penalty double takes good agreements and some experience. These troubles have to be dealt with - you cannot just refuse to double in the first place. ;)

 

Would you X a 1m opening on a flat 13 count? Probably not.

 

Well, I might! As you might know the expert style has moved dramatically towards these ugly one-level doubles on balanced and less-than-perfect shape.

I'm not talking Reese, but the last decade or two of Bermuda Bowls etc. People ARE getting robbed, if they don't interfere in these situations.

 

@ awm

Nice post.

[hrothgar]

Hi Adam:

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort for that last post. Regretfully, I don't think that I agree with some of your basic assumptions.

 

If forced to chose, I'd rather play a bidding structure that emphasizes shape than one that emphasizes range. (Ideally, I'd like to be able to describe both, but 1NT is a very preemptive bid). Using double (my cheapest possible bid) to show a rare point range without any qualifying information about shape just doesn't make sense. Moreover, the opponents will inevitable scramble (show me a competant weak NT pair who doesn't have a good run out scheme). As soon as this happens, partner is going to poorly positioned.