1NT and Penalty Doubles

[awm]

A lot of pairs play different defenses to "weak notrump" and "strong notrump."

 

At the moment I'm not interested in what particular defense people like (we've been over that before). The point is that defenses can be broadly divided into those where double is primarily "penalty" or "a strong hand" (and the expectation is that if opponents don't run, we will usually defend 1NTX) and those where double has some other meaning (shows some distributional hand type, and partner will normally remove it, although converting to penalties is always possible when partner holds a strong hand).

 

Anyways, the weaker the notrump the more desire there seems to be for a penalty double (both because you're more likely to hold a good hand when they open 1NT, and because you're more likely to get robbed of your game if you don't bid when you hold a good hand and they open 1NT).

 

What's the cutoff for you between preferring a defense with a penalty double to one without?

[CSGibson]

I would always want a penalty double, especially against opponents prone to psyching, just to describe a trick-taking hand.

[jdonn]

I have always described the cutoff as if their notrump includes 16 we treat it as strong, if it doesn't we treat it as weak. So 13-15 would be weak, 13-16 would be strong. I don't honestly know why that particular cutoff, but at least it lets us know what we are doing in all cases. I'm sure exceptions should be made for something wacky like 9-17, which I did run across once, playing with you in fact Adam.

[gwnn]

I like the "if it includes 13 then it's weak" agreement, it has always made more sense to me. The requirements of double should be regulated on them stealing from us, not on us being scared of being caught by them. Also, they're always more likely to hold the weaker half of the range, making that case more relevant.

[rogerclee]

I play that if it doesn't include 16, it is weak, except for goofy ranges like 11-16, which are obviously weak.

[hrothgar]

I'm happy to play shape showing doubles starting at 11+ - 14

[bigmax]

I was thinking of

DBL of strong nt = 10 + points and some shape (1 siuiter as in DONT for example).

Idea being 10 opposite 11 will usually murder 15-17 nt.

 

Any opinions?

[Apollo81]

If it doesn't include 17 then prefer penalty X

[effervesce]

If the minimum is 14 or less, pen. Isn't is better to use the minimum as a criterion? They're much more likely to be on the lower end anyway...

[TimG]

I play that if it doesn't include 16, it is weak, except for goofy ranges like 11-16, which are obviously weak.

What do you do against the Woodson 2-way NT?

[rogerclee]

I play that if it doesn't include 16, it is weak, except for goofy ranges like 11-16, which are obviously weak.

What do you do against the Woodson 2-way NT?

1) I think it's not ACBL legal (the range is legal, but not the followups), so I'm unlikely to have to deal with this in a tournament here.

2) x = penalty, obviously.

3) It sounds like such a bad agreement that I am okay with anyone playing this against me in any event.

[TimG]

I play that if it doesn't include 16, it is weak, except for goofy ranges like 11-16, which are obviously weak.

What do you do against the Woodson 2-way NT?

1) I think it's not ACBL legal (the range is legal, but not the followups), so I'm unlikely to have to deal with this in a tournament here.

2) x = penalty, obviously.

3) It sounds like such a bad agreement that I am okay with anyone playing this against me in any event.

The major drawback to the Woodson 2NT (in my experience) is getting to 2NT too often.

[jdonn]

The major drawback to the Woodson 2NT (in my experience) is getting to 2NT too often.

You have experience with it?!?!

[effervesce]

My memory may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that before they banned the woodson NT it had a huge IMP average gain (just like Wilkosz 2D) even against players prepared against it. In fact one of the reasons it was banned was because it was too good.

[benlessard]

At 14-16 im pretty sure penalty double is still best. The problems is againt tough opps who play 15-17 and frequently upgrade 13 count with 5M or minor 6carders. You might easily missed some good 3Nt or some good penalty.

[rbforster]

For those of you who never heard of this, the Woodson 1NT is

 

1NT = 10-12 or 16-18 balanced

 

2C asks for strength and major suits. With strong hands, you assume partner's weak. With weak hands, you assume partner's strong.

 

Of course it wasn't/isn't "banned," just like 4 card preempts or wide ranging preempts or other natural bids that aren't within the ACBL's purview to dictate. But they did what the Conventions Committee always does when they don't want to play something personally and/or don't want to play against - ban any sort of conventions after that opening. This is the origin of the "no conventions if your NT range is wider than 5 points" clause on the GCC.

 

In fact one of the reasons [woodson NT] was banned was because it was too good.

I always hear about conventions being "too good" but I think a reasonable test of this is whether anyone else good plays it. Wilkosz is played a lot in places like Poland were it's legal, as well as at high level events like the Bermuda bowl. I have yet to see anyone play this 2-way NT but maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.

[OleBerg]

If the minimum is 14 or less, pen. Isn't is better to use the minimum as a criterion? They're much more likely to be on the lower end anyway...

Indeed.

 

For those who it may interest:

 

http://bridgehands.com/P/Probability_HCP.htm

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[OleBerg]

A lot of pairs play different defenses to "weak notrump" and "strong notrump."

 

At the moment I'm not interested in what particular defense people like (we've been over that before).

One thing regarding the defence, needs to be adressed, before you can make a reasonable judgement about where the cut should be: Namely what a double shows, and how committing it is.

 

Lets say we have to decide whether to play a double as "strengt" or "something else", when opponents open a 14-16 nt.

 

If you play "strength" as: "More points than the opener", you will not have a double as often as you will, if you play: "The middle of their range, and a good lead". And the more likely you are, to have a suitable double, the more inclined you should be to play it as "strength".

 

Of course, if you play; "The middle of their range, and a good lead", the double should not be very committing, so it should not set up a force.

 

 

Finally an anecdote from the rough end of the trenches: Our teammates play a somewhat suicidal convention, known as Blakset's 2♠; When white vs red, a 2♠ opening shows 0-7, any shape.

 

So one of them passsed, showing 8-10 points. Next hand bid 1nt, 15-17. Third hand had a decent 13-count and a good lead. 500.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

 

Ps: English is not my native language, please bear with me.

[helene_t]

As usual agree with Csaba.

 

Especially at matchpoints, when the field may be reaching 3NT our way which is impossible to bid accurately after their weak 1NT anyway, our best chance of a decent score is to nail them. OTOH when the field is playing various partscores in either direction, our objective is to find something better than defending 1NT undoubled, which is most likely to be some partscore for ourself.

[hotShot]

If we define a NT opening with 2-4♠, 2-4♥, 2-6♦ and 2-6♣ we have the following probabilities (based on 1,000,000 random deals):

HCP range count [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]count additionally 2nd seat has 15+HCP [space] [space] [space] [space]frequency of dbl 
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space](average combined HCP seat 2 and 4) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]over 1NT opening
10-12 [space] [space] [space] 124299 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 13835(22.9) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]11.1%
11-13 [space] [space] [space] 112541 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 10665(22.3) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]9.5%
12-14 [space] [space] [space] [space] 97427 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]7594(21.8) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.8%
13-15 [space] [space] [space] [space] 80993 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]5119(21.2) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3%
14-16 [space] [space] [space] [space] 64398 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3203(20.7) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 5.0%
15-17 [space] [space] [space] [space] 48782 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1919(20.1) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3.9%
16-18 [space] [space] [space] [space] 35447 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1068(19.6) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3.1%

For comparism:

NT range 16-18, dbl has a 6+ card suit any HCP range: count 6604(15.6) 18.6%

[skjaeran]

I play the same defence to any 1NT opening (though different defence with different partners). A penalty double is part of my defence. Of course, my overcalling style differs with the range of opps 1NT - the stronger it is, the more active I am when it comes to overcalling (in direct seat).

[jdonn]

If we define a NT opening with 2-4♠, 2-4♥, 2-6♦ and 2-6♣ we have the following probabilities (based on 1,000,000 random deals):

HCP range count [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]count additionally 2nd seat has 15+HCP [space] [space] [space] [space]frequency of dbl 
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space](average combined HCP seat 2 and 4) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]over 1NT opening
10-12 [space] [space] [space] 124299 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 13835(22.9) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]11.1%
11-13 [space] [space] [space] 112541 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 10665(22.3) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]9.5%
12-14 [space] [space] [space] [space] 97427 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]7594(21.8) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.8%
13-15 [space] [space] [space] [space] 80993 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]5119(21.2) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3%
14-16 [space] [space] [space] [space] 64398 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3203(20.7) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 5.0%
15-17 [space] [space] [space] [space] 48782 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1919(20.1) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3.9%
16-18 [space] [space] [space] [space] 35447 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1068(19.6) [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3.1%

For comparism:

NT range 16-18, dbl has a 6+ card suit any HCP range: count 6604(15.6) 18.6%

Doubling a strong notrump is a lot less frequent than even this would show, since the double is a lot less frequent than any 15+, which is what I think you were showing. I have thought for a long time that playing penalty doubles of a strong notrump is a total waste, and I still think so.

[ArtK78]

I have thought for a long time that playing penalty doubles of a strong notrump is a total waste, and I still think so.

Totally agree.

[TimG]

I have thought for a long time that playing penalty doubles of a strong notrump is a total waste, and I still think so.

Totally agree.

I'm not convinced the alternatives are necessarily good things. I agree that penalty doubles of strong no trumps are not frequent. But, neither am I convinced that being hyper-active over their no trump is a particularly good thing. It's possible that penalty doubles gain by reducing one's options and thus acting less frequently.

[OleBerg]

I have thought for a long time that playing penalty doubles of a strong notrump is a total waste, and I still think so.

Totally agree.

I'm not convinced the alternatives are necessarily good things. I agree that penalty doubles of strong no trumps are not frequent. But, neither am I convinced that being hyper-active over their no trump is a particularly good thing. It's possible that penalty doubles gain by reducing one's options and thus acting less frequently.

Thats not a question of what is good or bad, but only of discipline, or lack thereof.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg