Competing (or not) over a weak 1NT

[Mbodell]

Do you get involved with the following when RHO deals and opens 1NT (12-14) unfavorable?

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saj93hq9dj74ckqj7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1NT - ???[/hv]

 

Does it change your answer if partner tends not to balance much in general?

[Guest Jlall]

This hand is not good enough to double. Pass.

[hotShot]

I use the Lionel Convention against weak NT, because it allows to find and play 4-4 fits at the 2 level. So I can double promising 4-4 distribution with ♠ and a 2nd suit and 11+ HCP.

 

 

Playing none or other conventions this is a clear pass.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW I think any convention that doesnt allow a penalty X (or card showing, whatever you wanna call it) of 1N when 1N is weak is very poor.

[cjames]

I agree with Justin, the hand is too bad to dbl with. Pass.

[skjaeran]

Double would to me (and should) be penalty. The hand isn't strong enough to double. So this is a clear pass.

[Mbodell]

How much more would you need to add to the hand to make it a X assuming same shape and fixing KQJ7 in clubs?

 

And, lastly, would you dbl with this hand if the auction were 1NT(12-14) - P - P - ???

[skjaeran]

How much more would you need to add to the hand to make it a X assuming same shape and fixing KQJ7 in clubs?

 

And, lastly, would you dbl with this hand if the auction were 1NT(12-14) - P - P - ???

If you excanged the ♦J with the king I'd (just) double.

I'd double in the balancing position with the jack.

[Guest Jlall]

I would double after 1N p p.

 

Usually I would double directly with 15, however this hand is so bad that I would probably need 16. At least it has a good lead.

[helene_t]

The computer program "Jack" persists in doubling my 13-15 1NT openings with 14 points. I think it's very bad. I lost count of the number of 1NTx+1 I have made.

 

Also, when you do have a strong hand, it's nice if the double shows your values.

[P_Marlowe]

FWIW I think any convention that doesnt allow a penalty X (or card showing, whatever you wanna call it) of 1N when 1N is weak is very poor.

I guess that does not mean that Lionel is a poor

convention.

 

Partner can pass the X of a weak NT, because it

shows some values, a little less that the values

needed to make a pure penalty double, but values

nevertheless.

 

It is a matter of style if you would use the Lionel

convention with this hand, I would prefer the Queen

of diamonds in clubs or spades, but I have done it

with similar hands.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Ask weak NT players when were the last time they got

caught for 800 / 1100, and most wont remember it.

And this although the penalty X of a weak NT is standard.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW I think any convention that doesnt allow a penalty X (or card showing, whatever you wanna call it) of 1N when 1N is weak is very poor.

I guess that does not mean that Lionel is a poor

convention.

 

Partner can pass the X of a weak NT, because it

shows some values, a little less that the values

needed to make a pure penalty double, but values

nevertheless.

So is it inaccurate to call 1H X a takeout double since partner may pass for penalty? That is silly, and at best you are arguing semantics since you know exactly what I mean. The double of 1N in lionel is not a penalty X, it shows spades and another suit.

 

PS: Ask weak NT players when were the last time they got

caught for 800 / 1100, and most wont remember it.

And this although the penalty X of a weak NT is standard.

 

They must not play a lot of bridge then. As someone who plays weak NT I can definitely remember going for 800.

 

As a thinking bridge player I understand that the point of having a card showing X over their 1N bid is not to get htem for 800 or 1100. It is to

 

1) Have a bid with a strong balanced hand, so that we can compete or get to our games when we need to rather than being forced to pass.

 

2) Be able to differentiate between very strong hands and not so strong hands so that we can bid games more accurately. If the auction goes 1N 2S and 2S was your only way to show spades the range is simply too wide and bidding cannot be accurate. If the 2S bidder is limited by his failure to X first, bidding can be accurate.

 

If you happen to catch them with a misfit and get them for a number, even better.

[P_Marlowe]

FWIW I think any convention that doesnt allow a penalty X (or card showing, whatever you wanna call it) of 1N when 1N is weak is very poor.

I guess that does not mean that Lionel is a poor

convention.

 

Partner can pass the X of a weak NT, because it

shows some values, a little less that the values

needed to make a pure penalty double, but values

nevertheless.

So is it inaccurate to call 1H X a takeout double since partner may pass for penalty? That is silly, and at best you are arguing semantics since you know exactly what I mean. The double of 1N in lionel is not a penalty X, it shows spades and another suit.

 

<snip>

Yes and values.

 

If my partner makes a Lionel X and I happen to

hold +10 or more HCP I will pass, ... at least it

will be an real option.

 

So I am not going into semantics, I just say, that

playing Lionel the hands with which you try to go

for a penalty double change.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

 

PS: Ask weak NT players when were the last time they got

caught for 800 / 1100, and most wont remember it.

And this although the penalty X of a weak NT is standard.

 

They must not play a lot of bridge then. As someone who plays weak NT I can definitely remember going for 800.

 

As a thinking bridge player I understand that the point of having a card showing X over their 1N bid is not to get htem for 800 or 1100. It is to

 

1) Have a bid with a strong balanced hand, so that we can compete or get to our games when we need to rather than being forced to pass.

 

2) Be able to differentiate between very strong hands and not so strong hands so that we can bid games more accurately. If the auction goes 1N 2S and 2S was your only way to show spades the range is simply too wide and bidding cannot be accurate. If the 2S bidder is limited by his failure to X first, bidding can be accurate.

 

If you happen to catch them with a misfit and get them for a number, even better.

Well I cant comment on the frequency, because I dont

play weak NT, but other forum poster may state the

frequency.

 

P1 you loose that, but gain frequency, the famous trade

off you either believe the trade off is worth it or not

P2 Not true, strong one suiter with spades go through X,

but modify your argument using hearts instead of spades

and you have a point, although even that problem can b

solved to a certain degree by bidding 3H instead of 2H,

although the solution is not as simple / risk free as with

spades.

But even if we let aside the above mentioned solutions, we

again speak about the forementioned trade off, you have a

higher frequency, which allows you to fight for the part score

contract (one main purpose of the weak NT is to make it harder

for the opponents to enter the fight for the part score contract)

and you loose in accuracy.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe