1NT and Penalty Doubles

[glen]

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?

We have played this for 3+ years, see:

 

Maestro Doubles

 

The bad news is that the murder occurrence is very low - we almost never have 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Pass(10+). The good news is that the 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Bid showing less than 10 comes up all the time, and with advancer becoming limited, the doubler stays low. We are happy with the approach even though the murder rate is dismal.

[jdonn]

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.

Playing as I do double is 4 major 5+ minor (among a host of other possible options) is much more frequent than a penalty double even without being ridiculously aggressive. Plus it's a bid partner occasionally passes, so you still get some penalties. It also adds definition to any other overcall. By your argument my sister is a safe driver since her being in a car prevents her from jumping off a cliff. Strictly speaking there is logic in that argument, but I don't really consider it rational thought.

[Echognome]

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?

We have played this for 3+ years, see:

 

Maestro Doubles

 

The bad news is that the murder occurrence is very low - we almost never have 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Pass(10+). The good news is that the 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Bid showing less than 10 comes up all the time, and with advancer becoming limited, the doubler stays low. We are happy with the approach even though the murder rate is dismal.

Sounds similar to the double in Meckwell.

[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.

Playing as I do double is 4 major 5+ minor (among a host of other possible options) is much more frequent than a penalty double even without being ridiculously aggressive. Plus it's a bid partner occasionally passes, so you still get some penalties. It also adds definition to any other overcall. By your argument my sister is a safe driver since her being in a car prevents her from jumping off a cliff. Strictly speaking there is logic in that argument, but I don't really consider it rational thought.

I would think of it more along the lines of: taking public transportation rather than driving makes her a safe driver.

 

As someone else pointed out, it is a matter of discipline. How frequently we can interfere is not necessarily the same as how effective our method is. If double showing 4M and 5+m nets us -.10 IMPs per use while a penalty double nets us -0.5 IMPs per use, we're way ahead playing penalty doubles because they come up less often. Then again, maybe we score -.25 IMPs per board when the opponents have an uncontested 1NT auction.

 

Anyway, it's not enough for the method to come up frequently, you need the method to produce beneficial results when it does come up. My opinion is that getting into the auction without a real chance of buying the contract (or getting partner off to the right lead) will help the opening side considerably.

[jdonn]

I think I understand now. You agree that there are many more cars than busses available to take, but for some reason you are in denial that cars are faster than busses :)

[TimG]

I think I understand now. You agree that there are many more cars than busses available to take, but for some reason you are in denial that cars are faster than busses :)

You finally got it!

[pclayton]

If the average of the NT opening is less than 14, dbl = penalty. If more = conventional.

 

13-16 is always the sticky range, but I think its best if its considered strong. Pairs that play this are usually in a systemic bind when they open 1N with a 13.

[Finch]

You have given no mention of position or vulnerability.

 

I happen to play double as penalty of all natural NT openings (unless the doubler is a passed hand). I am probably persuadable that this is not technically best, but I really don't think it makes a big enough difference to my results that it is worth worrying about. True, the penalty double of a strong NT doesn't come up very often, but I don't find that I am missing out with my other defensive hands, and it acts as an upper limit to all other actions (in the same way that a 2C opening is rare, but it limits all your one-level openings).

 

However, I do think it is important to play a double of a third seat 1NT as for penalties, particularly a NV one. In my experience this is one of the most common psyches and distortions around, particularly of a (nominally) strong NT.

[JanM]

Yes, I know a lot of people who play their weak NT defense vs Strong NT in 3rd seat favorable (some do it vs 3rd seat NV vs NV as well). People psych a strong NT in 3rd favorable a lot :P

[gnasher]

I don't think the problem of distortions is limited to 3rd seat openings. Some players (including me) would treat xx Axx Qx AK10xxx as a strong notrump in any position.

 

This has potential consequences not only for the best meaning of double, but also for your general strategy against 1NT: a destructive approach is much less attractive when they might have this type of hand.

[Gerben42]

I happen to play double as penalty of all natural NT openings (unless the doubler is a passed hand). I am probably persuadable that this is not technically best, but I really don't think it makes a big enough difference to my results that it is worth worrying about. True, the penalty double of a strong NT doesn't come up very often, but I don't find that I am missing out with my other defensive hands, and it acts as an upper limit to all other actions (in the same way that a 2C opening is rare, but it limits all your one-level openings).

 

On the other hand, I prefer to play Woolsey vs strong NT and I've never felt I missed out on the penalty double. The real powerhouses double first (Woolsey) and then bid again.

 

I am not using a "destructive" approach like DONT or Lionel.

[MFA]

I prefer penalty doubles regardsless of the 1NT opening strength.

[benlessard]

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.

 

In MP & in weak field IMPs its true also. But once you start missing some games because RHO opened 1Nt 15-17 with

Kx

xx

QJT9xx

AKx

 

Its a different story. A pro just told me lately that he find the strong Nt much more preemptive then the weak Nt. He said that hes constantly upgrade any hand with a 5 card suit and frequently open 1Nt with 6m just because people dont bid game over it.

 

IMO Against agressive opps that play 14-16 using a penalty X is essential because they will rob you big time.

 

Playing weak Nt its clear that the opps will make game much more often then they will punish you. But that doesnt mean they shouldnt play penalty X.

[awm]

There is perhaps some disclosure issue here...

 

Several people have said something like "if opponents are good players and their range is 15-17 then they will often open 1NT with 12-13 points and a six-card minor so I want to play penalty doubles."

 

But isn't this a failure to disclose, if you often open 1NT with hands 2-3 points lighter than your announced range? While these hands might have the offensive value often associated with a 1NT opening, they are quite far from the defensive value (which is perhaps part of the point of opening them, because you have no defense and it might keep opponents out of their game).

 

My view is that if opponents often open 1NT with thirteen or fewer high card points (and I mean high card points here) then I would like to play a penalty double. Unfortunately it's not clear from their disclosed range what is really going on, because I know plenty of people who disclose "14-16" but 13 points is actually more common than any other number of points. It's frustratingly hard to get this information -- I often ask "how frequently do you upgrade 13s" at the table especially when I see a 14-16 or 14-17 range but I've never been convinced I get honest answers.

[han]

Several people have said something like "if opponents are good players and their range is 15-17 then they will often open 1NT with 12-13 points and a six-card minor so I want to play penalty doubles."

Who said anything about 12 points?

[neilkaz]

13-15 is the highest range that I want to play penalty double against and I haven't found them terribly effective vs 15-17 and prefer some defence where double is artificial although I have to admit that I have found any artificial defence terribly effective vs 15-17 either although I prefer DONT.

[gnasher]

When the ACBL first introduced announcements, I asked them how I should announce a notrump opening that was 15-17 if balanced, but might also be a 13-count with a six-card minor, and gave an example something like xx Axx Qx AK10xxx.

 

In reply, they suggested I describe it as 14.5-17. In a postscript, they asked "By the way, would you really open that 1NT?" I found this answer rather unsatisfactory, but didn't bother to pursue the matter.

 

The English Bridge Union introduced announcements a year or two ago, and I asked them the same question. They advised "15-17, or a bit weaker with a five- or six-card minor." That's what I now do (or sometimes "15-17, or whatever he was dealt"), but I've never heard such an announcement from anybody not playing in partnership with me.