weak nt? strong nt?

[ghow]

Say you have agreed to play some defense versus weak no trumps that incorporates a penalty double and a different defense versus strong nt where double is something other than penalty. Clearly nt ranges starting at 15 or higher are "strong" and those with an upper limit of 14 or less are "weak". Which defense would you play versus 13-15 nt? 14-16?

[Gerben42]

My guideline is that a NT is weak if all hands that are too weak to open 1NT would pass, conversely if there is a weaker range available, then the 1NT is strong.

 

13 - 15 is certainly borderline, but I haven't met a pair playing this...

[Finch]

Or a Precision type 13-17?

 

Our agreement is based on the minimum HCP in the 1NT opening. For us, 13 or fewer is 'weak', 14 or more is 'strong'.

[helene_t]

It is common to consider ranges that include 13 (or less) weak and those who require at least 14 (or more) strong. Some would say that a 3rd seat 14-16 is weak because players often upgrade here for tactical reasons.

[TylerE]

Gerben, imagine you were playing a pair with the following methods:

 

Strong Club (Including all 15-17 NT hands)

1♦ - Catchall, could be 10-11 Balanced

1NT - 12-14.

 

Would you really play your strong NT defense against that 1N?

 

 

My rule personally is that any NT range that includes 15 is strong:

 

So:

 

10-12/11-14/12-14 - weak

 

12-15/13-15/13-16 - strong

 

Seems to work well.

[Gerben42]

13 - 17?! In my league there is a pair playing 12 - 16, which has SOME merit because it's basically a weak NT with nasty surprises for all 3 other players, but 13 - 17 really sounds like a terrible choice.

[Finch]

13 - 17?! In my league there is a pair playing 12 - 16, which has SOME merit because it's basically a weak NT with nasty surprises for all 3 other players, but 13 - 17 really sounds like a terrible choice.

I'm making no claims as to its merit, or otherwise, but basic Blue Club has a 13-17 NT opening (sorry I was wrong when I said Precision).

[Hilver]

Google for ''Multi-Defense'' and You have got the answer.

[jdonn]

I used to play 13-15, that's what it was in the original version of precision I believe.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

our agreement, if more than 50% of the hands have at least

15 HCP, we consider the NT opening as a strong NT, we assume

that the amount of hands for each specific point count is equal.

 

=> 13-15 : it is 2:1 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence weak

=> 13-17 : it is 2:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence strong

12-17 : it is 3:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence the definition

fails, but we would fast agree that it is weak on frequence

reasons

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Echognome]

Hi,

 

our agreement, if more than 50% of the hands have at least

15 HCP, we consider the NT opening as a strong NT, we assume

that the amount of hands for each specific point count is equal.

 

=> 13-15 : it is 2:1 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence weak

=> 13-17 : it is 2:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence strong

12-17 : it is 3:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence the definition

fails, but we would fast agree that it is weak on frequence

reasons

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I think you have this slightly wrong in your definition. You presumably are using just the numbers in the point count in the range.

 

For a 13-15 NT, the probabilities are approximately:

13 41%

14 33%

15 26%

 

So only 26% of the hands have at least 15 HCP (and by your definition would be a weak NT).

 

For a 13-17 NT, the probabilities are approximately:

13 30%

14 25%

15 19%

16 15%

17 10%

 

So 44% of the hands have at least 15 HCP (so by your definition should be a weak NT).

 

For a 12-17 NT, the probabilities are approximately:

12 26%

13 22%

14 19%

15 14%

16 11%

17 8%

 

So 33% of the hands have at least 15 HCP (and by your definition should be a weak NT).

 

What I don't think you took into account are the relative frequencies. 13 HCP is more likely than 14 HCP is more likely than 15 HCP, etc.

[rbforster]

FWIW, I think a NT with a 14 point minimum is "strong" and others are weak. Too many people make the mistake of not playing a penalty double against stuff like 13-15 or 12-15 since the usual definition is strong since it could be 15.

 

12-17 : it is 3:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence the definition fails, but we would fast agree that it is weak on frequency reasons

I suppose you have similar issues with a split range NT - Woodson NT (10-12 or 16-18) is weak (avg 14), but a 10-12/18-20 is strong? Straight average on the latter is still 15 right, although obviously the weak ones are really more likely.

[ASkolnick]

I had this conversation once with my partner. Since someone played the wide range NT. Instead of saying "ST includes anything with 15 in it", we said if the total is over 27.5, its strong, less its weak.

 

Not saying 27.5 is the right or wrong number, but the point is make the agreement on the total, not any end condition.

[rogerclee]

13-15 is weak.

[paulg]

The Blue Club 13-17 1NT is normally 16-17, but can be 13-15 if 3-3 in the majors with 4 or 5 clubs.

 

Best to treat it as a strong 1NT.

 

Paul

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

our agreement, if more than 50% of the hands have at least

15 HCP, we consider the NT opening as a strong NT, we assume

that the amount of hands for each specific point count is equal.

 

=> 13-15 : it is 2:1 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence weak

=> 13-17 : it is 2:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence strong

      12-17 : it is 3:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence the definition

                  fails, but we would fast agree that it is weak on frequence

                  reasons

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I think you have this slightly wrong in your definition. You presumably are using just the numbers in the point count in the range.

yes, you are of course right, it is just an heuristic, and

I am aware of the error.

And the heuristic works well enough, although I did not

do the math, thanks for providing the numbers.

Only for 13-17 we differ (it is 55% weak NT vs. 45%

strong NT), the percentages say weak, but we would treat

it as strong.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

FWIW, I think a NT with a 14 point minimum is "strong" and others are weak. Too many people make the mistake of not playing a penalty double against stuff like 13-15 or 12-15 since the usual definition is strong since it could be 15.

 

12-17 : it is 3:3 for hands with less than 15 HCP, hence the definition fails, but we would fast agree that it is weak on frequency reasons

I suppose you have similar issues with a split range NT - Woodson NT (10-12 or 16-18) is weak (avg 14), but a 10-12/18-20 is strong? Straight average on the latter is still 15 right, although obviously the weak ones are really more likely.

Sure, and we would treat it as weak.

 

Your split ranges makes it 3:3, as someone else

said make sure you have an agreement which

both of you know and can remember.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

We had the agreement that anything that included 16 (or higher) was strong and weak otherwise.

[OleBerg]

If opener can have 13 or less, I treat it as weak. A somewhat simple agreement I use for pick-up partnerships. As Echognome writes, the lower ranges are much more likely, hence the lower range define the type.

 

In my regular partnership all doubles are penalty. Probably not the best, but not a big worry.

[ArtK78]

We had the agreement that anything that included 16 (or higher) was strong and weak otherwise.

This is my agreement as well.

[shevek]

The solution is to double all notrump openings for penalty. The dominant paradigm needs to be subverted.

 

The other day I doubled 1NT (15-17) with this

 

♠AKx  ♥KQx  ♦AT8xx  ♣Jx.

 

Tut, say the textbook writers. Rare hand, partner is broke, no good lead, end plays. Etc.

Well, partner had

 

♠xxx  ♥JT9xx  ♦J9x  ♣xx

 

and bid 2♥ for +110 and 5 IMPs when our team-mates were allowed to play & make 1NT. This is a frequent gain point - when you get to sit in partner's long suit.

 

The other big plus comes from limiting other actions. It's amusing when DONT players bid 2♥ with their balanced 17-counts.

[Lobowolf]

The solution is to double all notrump openings for penalty. The dominant paradigm needs to be subverted.

 

The other day I doubled 1NT (15-17) with this

 

♠AKx  ♥KQx  ♦AT8xx  ♣Jx.

 

Tut, say the textbook writers. Rare hand, partner is broke, no good lead, end plays. Etc.

Well, partner had

 

♠xxx  ♥JT9xx  ♦J9x  ♣xx

 

and bid 2♥ for +110 and 5 IMPs when our team-mates were allowed to play & make 1NT. This is a frequent gain point - when you get to sit in partner's long suit.

 

The other big plus comes from limiting other actions. It's amusing when DONT players bid 2♥ with their balanced 17-counts.

DONT players DONT bid their balanced 17-counts; silly wabbit, balanced hands are for defending.

 

You didn't mention what system you're playing along with your penalty doubles of 1NT. For every hand where I wish I was playing doubles of a strong NT, I get a number of hands where I get to be involved in the auction on a moderate 5-4 (or 4-5) hand that I'd have to pass (playing natural) or risk getting to the 3-level (playing Hamilton).

[jdonn]

The solution is to double all notrump openings for penalty. The dominant paradigm needs to be subverted.

 

The other day I doubled 1NT (15-17) with this

 

♠AKx  ♥KQx  ♦AT8xx  ♣Jx.

 

Tut, say the textbook writers. Rare hand, partner is broke, no good lead, end plays. Etc.

Well, partner had

 

♠xxx  ♥JT9xx  ♦J9x  ♣xx

 

and bid 2♥ for +110 and 5 IMPs when our team-mates were allowed to play & make 1NT. This is a frequent gain point - when you get to sit in partner's long suit.

 

The other big plus comes from limiting other actions. It's amusing when DONT players bid 2♥ with their balanced 17-counts.

Are you sure you didn't push your opponents to an always cold 3♣ for 110 or 130, or perhaps 2♠ for 140, when your teammates went down in 1NT since their ace of hearts was doubleton?

 

Anyway, if your point is simply to compete for more partscores, you will lose a lot more than you gain playing penalty doubles when compared to just about any other possible meaning for double. There is a reason penalty doubles are completely out of fashion, the expert world is not simply oblivious.

[Apollo81]

Say you have agreed to play some defense versus weak no trumps that incorporates a penalty double and a different defense versus strong nt where double is something other than penalty. Clearly nt ranges starting at 15 or higher are "strong" and those with an upper limit of 14 or less are "weak". Which defense would you play versus 13-15 nt? 14-16?

My rule is it is weak if it doesn't contain 17/higher or it contains 13/lower

[rbforster]

My rule is it is weak if it doesn't contain 17/higher or it contains 13/lower

A 13-17 NT sounds confusing under that scheme. Even a (13-14 or 17-18) NT would be. All these rules have lots of holes in them, but luckily no one plays the edge case ranges anyway.