Coping with their 10-13 NT

[TimG]

Nobody vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 1NT (10-13) and you hold:

 

♠AJxxx ♥Kxxx ♦A ♣Qxx

 

You aren't using any artificial methods to show two-suiters.

 

1) With a balanced hand, what is your usual agreement about the minimum strength needed for a double?

 

2) If you've agreed that double shows a better hand than their NT, would you double with this hand? Or, would you prefer 2S? Add a Jack or Queen if this hand isn't good enough for direct action. I'm interested in knowing whether you prefer double or 2S with a 5=4=1=3 hand.

[MickyB]

Really want to bid 2♣ for majors, but without that I'll start with a double and hope I get a chance to show the majors at my next turn :P

[jdonn]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

[Gerben42]

Let's clear first that this is not a dbl. If you have no bid for both majors, 2♠ is the bid. Might get expensive, but so can Pass.

 

A weak NT opening is tough for both sides!

[mikeh]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

exactly my thoughts

[JLOL]

Agree with 15+ and some very nice 14s. I am less apt to double with 14 than most I think.

 

In balancing seat you can double with 13, and always with 14.

 

I hate to abstain, but it is really vital to have a way to show the majors. Other than 1 suiters in the majors a 2 suiter with the majors is when you are most likely to have game and also when you are most likely going to be able to win a partscore battle. Not having a way to show the majors over their weak NT is on the same level as not playing takeout doubles over a preempt.

 

Anyways I guess I would bid 2S and hold my breath.

[TimG]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

Let's make it 5314 so that inability to show both major is not an issue.

 

Are you saying that with minimum values (whatever that is) you are more likely to overcall 2♠ and with a bit more than minimum (but not significant extras) you are more likely to double?

 

So, you think ♠AJxxx ♥Qxx ♦A ♣Kxxx is minimum for action and with this hand you would overcall 2♠. With a bit more, maybe ♠AJxxx ♥Qxx ♦A ♣KQxx, you would double?

[JLOL]

OK, I understand your question.

 

I don't think bidding something other than double means that I didn't have enough to double. In general with an unbalanced hand I would want to start getting my suits in. I would overcall 2S with both of your examples.

 

I would only double with unbalanced hands if they were hands that are the equivalent to doubling and bidding a new suit over an opening bid.

[jdonn]

Are you saying that with minimum values (whatever that is) you are more likely to overcall 2♠ and with a bit more than minimum (but not significant extras) you are more likely to double?

Yes exactly, although I have no idea of the exact cutoff since I just haven't been in that position enough times. I think I would double with your 16 point example, but it would probably take very little persuasion to convince me that bidding is better (or worse).

[mtvesuvius]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

exactly my thoughts

Ditto. Pass is not an option here.

[jdonn]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

exactly my thoughts

Ditto. Pass is not an option here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say at some point in the not-too-distant pass that you double a weak notrump with the top of their range or better? I seem to recall that.

 

If your opponent opens a 9-11 notrump, what is your minimum to double?

[mtvesuvius]

1) My usual agreement is a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. Can easily be stretched down to 14 to be practical.

2) It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening. However I don't care for a penalty double when my hand has so many holes. Granted those holes exist in spades too but I still prefer 2♠.

 

I don't think an agreement like 'double shows 14+' means you must double with 14+, just that if you double that's what you have. Of course the more you have with a given shape, the more likely you double.

exactly my thoughts

Ditto. Pass is not an option here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say at some point in the not-too-distant pass that you double a weak notrump with the top of their range or better? I seem to recall that.

 

If your opponent opens a 9-11 notrump, what is your minimum to double?

You are correct Josh... I did say that, however if the opponents played a 0-2 NT opener do you think that X should show 2+ Points? :) Although I have only played against a 9-11 NT once, I think X is 13+ or so. X here is 13+. Imo Xing with 13 is the lowest that it should go...

[keylime]

I wish I had this hand in passout just to see what happens. Alas I don't. I probably defend quietly here with no agreements. I think overcalling runs into some risks.

 

And over the weak NT Larry and I do have a way to show majors.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Lionel - 11HCP, 4+ (spades) + 4+ (?).

#2 No, if the double does not promise a certain shape,

I would need 15+ (given the single Ace, you need

to add a queen).

I would also prefer to introduce the majors instead

of showing the 15.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say at some point in the not-too-distant pass that you double a weak notrump with the top of their range or better? I seem to recall that.

 

If your opponent opens a 9-11 notrump, what is your minimum to double?

You are correct Josh... I did say that, however if the opponents played a 0-2 NT opener do you think that X should show 2+ Points? ;) Although I have only played against a 9-11 NT once, I think X is 13+ or so. X here is 13+. Imo Xing with 13 is the lowest that it should go...

Ok I felt we needed clarification since you dittoed me when I said I double with a strong notrump or better regardless of their notrump range. BTW that is 'expert standard' or whatever you want to call it, doubling with top of their range or better is old school and really not best. It gets you in trouble when partner is broke, and makes bidding accurately a lot harder when partner isn't broke since you have a very wide range of strength and shape to be starting at the 2 level.

 

As for 0-2 you tell me, 3+ is closer to your agreement than mine. :lol:

[jmc]

I think bidding a suit over the weak NT should generally show a normal overcall range. This means, unless the hand is shapely, I would start with a double on most 17+ hands 5431 or worse.

 

After a simple suit bid or convention showing a 2 suiter, I wont expect my partner to act with 9 or less, as raises should be invitational. Things get muddier in competition.

 

jmc

[TimG]

It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

[jdonn]

It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

I'm happy with either landy, or woolsey with penalty doubles.

[mtvesuvius]

It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

Multi Landy works nice over a Weak NT:

 

X = Penalty

2♣ = Majors

2♦ = Long Major

2♥ = ♥ + Minor

2♠ = ♠ + Minor

2NT = Minors

[jdonn]

It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

Multi Landy works nice over a Weak NT:

 

X = Penalty

2♣ = Majors

2♦ = Long Major

2♥ = ♥ + Minor

2♠ = ♠ + Minor

2NT = Minors

That is of course what I meant by "woolsey with penalty doubles".

[JLOL]

I don't love the multi part of Multi Landy, sometimes it's important to get your suit in immediately before the next guy does something, and I don't think major/minor 2 suiters are that important.

 

TimG you might like this one since you made this thread:

 

X=(14)15+

2C= majors

2D= weaker 2M overcall

2M= natural, stronger 2M overcall

 

of course the 2D bid suffers from the same problem but this is the best for bidding games accurately imo.

[mtvesuvius]

I don't love the multi part of Multi Landy, sometimes it's important to get your suit in immediately before the next guy does something, and I don't think major/minor 2 suiters are that important.

 

TimG you might like this one since you made this thread:

 

X=(14)15+

2C= majors

2D= weaker 2M overcall

2M= natural, stronger 2M overcall

 

of course the 2D bid suffers from the same problem but this is the best for bidding games accurately imo.

What about:

 

X: (14)15+

2♣: 5+M; 4+M (Relays 2♦)

2♦: Majors

2♥: Natural

2♠: Natural

 

 

IDK if this has any merit, but it was the first thing I thought of when I read your post...

[mikeh]

It's hard to answer since I never can't show the majors after an opposing 1NT opening.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

My choice... not saying it is best, but it works ok and is good for bidding games:

 

x : 15+ may be less with good lead

 

2♣: majors

 

2♦: transfer to ♥

 

2♥: transfer to ♠

 

2♠: single suited minor, good hand

 

2N: both minors

 

3minor: semi-preemptive

 

We don't double with shapely hands unless we have significant extra strength... we prefer to bid our hands... the double tends to be balanced.

 

The transfers allow for bidding good 2-suiters.

 

If memory serves, in one partnership we flip the 2♠/2N calls, but not much turns on it so long as I remember who partner is.