Scum vs NT

[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.

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.

Needless to say I disagree with this. If you double on this sort of shite, your partner will have no idea what to do when holding a 4-5 count. In our partnerships you are expected to pass holding this sort of hand.

 

There may be a justification for your argument playing MPs, but at Imps I find it somewhat difficult to explain to partners why the opps made 1NT XX at my table, or why we went for 800 or so in a 2 level X contract.

 

You only get robbed if you play an inferior method of competing over 1NT such as Cappelletti for example.

[Impact]

I agree with Ron on the importance of double carrying an initial statement that it is probably our hand- save for the last part about Cappelletti which is awful against Strong NT but actually (slightly modified as I played it as effectively reverse gladiator), very effective against Weak NT!!

 

The other point is playing imps as opposed to matchpoints you should use 2NT overcall as a strong 2-suiter both to take it out of the realm of double (those double game swings are painful) and to ease your own responses (I play pivots and exclusions to ensure that the overcaller gets to show both suits and rebids).

 

regards

[glen]

Participating in this thread, via today's NABC bulletin Spring 07 NABC bulletin 5 , is Mike Cappelletti:

"You need the penalty double. These fancy systems are giving up too much. If you have a balanced 16 or 17 points and they open 1NT in front of you, double is best in the long run. It's like blackjack: when dealer has 10, but you have 11, you should double down. On a particular hand it might not work, but in the long run it's best. Remember that you're 'over' the 1NT opener and

that you get to make the opening lead."

 

According to Cappelletti, whatever the range of the opponents' 1NT, double should show a good 14 or more.

 

On weak notrumps, he said, "If you don't double, but defeat 1NT by one or two tricks (plus 50 or 100), you get an inferior score at matchpoints or IMPs if you could have made 1NT yourself for plus 90 or plus 120.  "Also, it's important to compete against the weak notrump (with appropriate values). If you can show both majors, you're at a terrific advantage since your partner will have a good idea of what to do. I've run many, many computer simulations that show it's right to compete with the majors even if you're only 4-4 with hands as light as 10 or 11 high-card points."

 

What about the "modified" Cappelletti convention? "I can't stand it. Using 2♣ to show several possible hand types is inferior to just showing your major-minor two-suiters with 2♥ or 2♠. The problem with using 2♣ as first step in modified Cappelletti is that the opponents compete over 2♣, your side could wind up losing the major."

I guess if you play both majors can often be just 4-4, then using 2♣ to show both majors, with a 2♦ ask for better major, may just get you to a 4-2 fit. So maybe it makes sense to play 2♦ for the majors instead of 2♣ in a style where 4-4 is frequent.

 

Anybody seen these variations:

 

1) GIT - Get In There

 

Double: any hand that would double a one level minor suit opening, or would overcall 1NT, or would bid 2♣ over 1♦.

 

2♣: ♦s or both majors( any hand that would overcall one of a minor with a major and having four or longer in the other major, or any hand that would use Michaels)

 

2♦: Either ♥s or ♠s

 

2M: M + minor

 

2NT: Minors

 

2) MMW - Modified Meckwell

 

Double: Majors or ♣s. If advancer bids 2♣, 2♦ shows about equal majors and 2M shows both majors with better M.

 

2♣: ♣s & major, or ♦s

 

2♦: ♦s & major

 

2M: Natural

 

2NT: Minors