Defence to weak NT

[NickRW]

For quite a while now I've been playing Lionel against all strengths on NT openings (though I mainly encounter weak in a MP setting). Lionel uses X to show 11+hcp and spades + another 4/4 or better - can be strong too - but it doesn't guarantee it. However, this post is not about the merits or otherwise of Lionel in particular, rather it is thoughts about the merits of using X for anything else other than penalty against a weak NT.

 

My thoughts are that this seems to work just fine for 5th and subsequent seats (we don't have a penalty double anyway - we passed). And it also seems to work fine in 2nd seat (partner is not a passed hand and the frequency with which partner can convert the X to penalties seems adequately high to compensate for the loss of the normal penalty double.

 

However it seems to be quite poor in 4th seat (the frequency with which you hold a hand adequate for a normal penalty double over a 3rd seat weak NT seems quite high and the loss of the axe is quite a price to pay for better competitive tools).

 

3rd seat seems to be swings and roundabouts. The frequency of holding a big hand in 3rd is a little lower on the one side - so a competitive option for the X is attractive - but with opener's partner unpassed and your own partner being a passed hand - well you have to watch your step jumping in when red anyway.

 

Does this match other people's observations and experience?

 

The upshot of this is that one might consider playing a different defence in 3rd and 4th versus other seats - anyone try that? Do you run into problems forgetting which defence you play in which seat?

 

What about IMPs? I don't play enough of it myself to really comment - but the loss of the axe in 2nd seems well compensated for by advancer being able to convert quite a number of Xs - so maybe the same can be said of IMPs - never the less it runs contrary to a lot of expert advice - but I don't see the expert advice discussing the merits of different defences in different seats - so maybe they just didn't consider that as an option...

 

Nick

[nigel_k]

I would definitely play penalty doubles if they open a weak NT in third seat and wouldn't differentiate between their 1st and 2nd seat weak NT because those two situations aren't noticeably different.

 

At matchpoints I like Lionel, DONT or other non-penalty doubles because you really want to compete and it's hard to get a good result defending 1NT undoubled unless they are vulnerable and you beat them two tricks. Playing penalty doubles when they are vul and Lionel when they are not could be an option though.

 

However you are giving up more than just doubling them for penalties by doing this. You also make it harder to bid constructively with a good hand. Against a weak NT you have a game often enough that this is a problem. Therefore at IMPS I prefer a penalty double.

 

Incidentally I learned Lionel from Lionel Wright himself back in 1989 and not long after he invented it.

[NickRW]

However you are giving up more than just doubling them for penalties by doing this. You also make it harder to bid constructively with a good hand....

Good point, of course

[helene_t]

My experience is that penalty doubles against a 12-14 1NT do not come up very often, and they don't often lead to good results as p often has a bust so he takes it out when we dont have (or can't find) a fit, or he passes and it makes. Or you help opps escape to 2m or to scramble.

 

This could be because at our club everyone has agreements about run-outs but most don't have good agreements about follow-ups after their own penalty double.

 

Maybe it's sensible to agree that a non-penalty double opposite a passed hand should be based on 12+ points so p can convert it with 9-11, or something like that.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

We play Lionel since 5-6 years, and it works, even if we are moving up, ...

and we are still being able to bid constructivly game.

We usually dont have a problem dealing with weak NT openings.

....................................................................................................

The adv. / dis adv. of non. pen. X is, that you are more focusing on the

part score fight than on going for blood, i.e. you need to believe that

the wins on the part score side are enough to offset the loses on the

penalty / game bidding side, currently our feeling that this is the case.

 

The main issue I have with playing pen. X is, that you need more

agreements than just X is pen., you need also to discuss the follow ups.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The other thing was already mentioned - that playing a pen. X against

a strong NT does not make a lot of sense, i.e. a method, which works

reasonably well against all strength reduces the memory load.

This means, the adv. to change method according to position would need to

be overhelming.

[benlessard]

If they are vul its obvious that you should keep the penalty X.

If they are not vul i still prefer penalty double but I could be convinced otherwise.

 

A quick comparaison for why i think my method is superior to Lionel.

 

2M = natural the same thing on both side

 

2D = long D + shorter M (5D+4M, 6D+4M vs D+H)

 

Here knowing that the M is shorter than D is a big gain compared to pinponting H. Its almost impossible to have 24?? or 1327 and play in 2D instead of 2H because opps will bid S anyway.

 

The only problem case is

3433, vs 3451

or

4333 VS 4351

where you would pass 2D instead of playing 2M. Not frequent and not a big deal anyway,

 

The case where you are 3/3 or 2/2 in the reds facing a 54,45 and picking the right suit is important they are 5224,4225, 4333,3335,2335,5332.1336,3226 all these cases you play a sure 5-2 instead of half a time reaching a 4-2 fit

5-3 fits instead of half the time reaching 4-3 fits.

 

For 2C = 5/6C + 4M or both m VS C+H

 

My 2nd suit isnt pinpointed but it allow to show longer clubs. (or both m). The downside is that the advancer cannot show long D over 2C. Again my method make a gain here because the number of hands where picking the right suit outweight the misfits hands where 2D is the best spot. Clear gain for me here

(note that by sacrifing the both m in 2C I could keep the 2D Soff)

 

A double is showing a unknown 5M VS showing 4+S.

 

The upside is that the longer M is showned vs no difference between 54/45. Also if they compete my method make it more easy to bid further.

 

(1Nt)-----X-------(2H)---------???

 

Playing Lionel here with 3S and a balanced hand you might not be tempted to compete. But in mine the confirmation of a 5th S is nice.

 

(1Nt)-----X-------(2S)---------???

here im more likely to compete to 3H (either by trusting the opps our by doubling to show Hearts)

 

(1Nt)-------2D (D+H)-------(2S)----------??? where partner may easily have 5/6 D and only 4H.

 

 

The downside of my method is that over the X, 2RED isnt to play its pass or correct (2D showing longer D than M and 2H showing both M) so in case of big misfit we will play 2 black in the non-fit instead of 2 red in the advancer one suiter. I think my method make a gain here too but its not convincing. It could be an even case but the 2m cases make it convincing that unless ive made a mistake in my analysis my method is bringing more gains.

[MFA]

Giving up the penalty double of a weak NT is a crime, nothing less IMO. I would never ever consider a weak NT defense without the penalty double, and I have never heard about a strong international pair not playing X of a weak NT as penalties.

[jdonn]

I would rather play a penalty double and all bids natural than play all bids including the double as conventional. And it's not close.

[NickRW]

Giving up the penalty double of a weak NT is a crime, nothing less IMO. I would never ever consider a weak NT defense without the penalty double, and I have never heard about a strong international pair not playing X of a weak NT as penalties.

Well, I dare say they do like to weild the axe at IMP scoring - though MP is a different kettle of fish.

 

Anyway, thanks for the responses. Partner and I elected to go with the axe for our team match - not that it made the slightest bit of difference as there were precious few 1N openers and nothing much that looked like any sort of double over the few that did happen!

 

Nick

[nige1]

I play _X = penalty but, on reflection, I think it would be better to play _X as either

• Penalty or as
  
• Any single-suiter with opening + values.
  

Effectively, the latter is also a kind of penalty double but has a greater frequency.

[Jlall]

Yeah the big reason to play penalty doubles over weak NT is not so that you can get a penalty, its so that you can differentiate between sound overcalls and light ones so that you can bid game effectively.

[Fluffy]

we play transfer overcalls to show strong and 2 suited overcalls, but it goes to the 3 level.

 

We used to play X as a minor-mayor 2 suiter wich could be passed out. This left responder with a decision since he could not know if 1NT was gonna be the final contract of if he would be escaping to RHO's suit. But the problemis that strong balanced hands are just much more likelly.

[phil_20686]

I actually found that when i switched to playing t/o oreinetated defense that i made more penalty doubles, as its easier to pass out. I think playing MP t/o is a big winner. I aim to get all 5-4 hands into the auction over a nt, as well as all hands with a 6cM (obviously with some caveats about suit quality strength) and found that the gains on partscore hands well out weighed the losses on game hands. Particularly as you can still mostly find your major suit games with a bit of judgement, though you ahgve realistically given up the possibility of playing in 3N.

 

There are a lot of hands where just getting into the auction gives you a small gain by interfering with their constructive auctions. Particularly when you have p/c respopnses, it can really trouble the nt opener as he has no idea about his partners strength.

 

eg

 

1NT x* p 2c*

?

 

With dble showing 5m 4M does partners double show a desire to play in 1TN dbled? or looking to penalise 2c, or a hand that wants to run but has no where to go and has decided to sit. Should the weak nt bidder treat this as forcing and play an assumed fit t/o double of clubs - could mean trouble if the hand belongs to the opposition, and trumps will break badly even if you compete in your fit. If you dont then partner may have no avalable action after it comes back to him in 2c seeing as you have shortage. Remeber that a weak nt is not a strong nt and cannot normally risk protecting without some indication that partner has values - after all we could have game values and be missing game, that won't be pleasant.

 

This post has become a bit longer, but there are basically 3 things:

Playing t/o double of some description does not mean that you have given up taking penalties, as partner can still pass and convert, and 10-10 HCP splits are much more likely and play better than 15-5.

Secondly, getting into as many auctions as possible has good nuiscance value. This leads to many small gains even though you will miss out in some game auctions.

Thirdly Penalty doubles requires a lot of work on follow ups, as the penalty doubler is incredibly poorly defined.

[MickyB]

Giving up the penalty double of a weak NT is a crime, nothing less IMO. I would never ever consider a weak NT defense without the penalty double, and I have never heard about a strong international pair not playing X of a weak NT as penalties.

One of the winning pairs of the recent Seniors Bowl play Lionel, but I certainly haven't noticed many other good pairs using it.

[MickyB]

Yeah the big reason to play penalty doubles over weak NT is not so that you can get a penalty, its so that you can differentiate between sound overcalls and light ones so that you can bid game effectively.

Then play 2♦ as a good overcall in any suit...or X as ART including a good overcall in any suit :)

[fromageGB]

I've only been playing non-penalty doubles for a few years, but I wouldn't go back. When you have a penalty double it seems that often either partner rescues or the opps get to their 2m contract they could not reach otherwise.

 

For me the big benefits are particularly :

Having some of your 2-suiter takeouts in the X means that the other overcalls are more closely defined or you have more options available

You get in the auction more often

With an agreed minimum (say 11) partner can convert to penalty if it is right

 

In MPs I'm happy to give up on the rare chance of a game - better to find the fit and fight the partscore.

[ggwhiz]

We've had above average success playing the double to show a strong notrump (14 will do) and then playing our full front of card as if WE opened the notrump. In fact, having rho's 11-14 surrounded can make some 13's feel like strong nt's.

 

We alert that we are treating it as a strong nt but it's allowed to stray a point or two in either direction as the primary goal is penalty.

 

Comes in handy when pard is broke and/or shapely and our game is worth more. Lebensohl, negative and re-opening doubles are on if the next hand bids.

 

Our direct overcalls are landy and 4 suit transfers so that the bidder always has a second kick with decent two-suiters for those weak nt's with 6-card minors in them.

[TMorris]

I play weak NT all the time and would love it if I found an an opponent who did NOT play a penalty double. Life would be sooo much easier it's untrue. No worries about opening 3rd vul with a so-so 12 or bad 13, opening with 11s all over the place it would be great.

 

You have to have a penalty double over a weak NT. You can show the 2-suited hands easily enough if you want to - possibly not if they are vulnerable and you are not at MP and you have a decent 5-card minor but most of the time showing a 2-suited hand is to play in a part score. It's only if someone doubles that game is likely.

[hotShot]

How do you define a penalty double over a weak NT?

I would say if it's penalty, then partner has to pass. If partner is allowed to bid as suggested above than it's sort of optional and I would like to know the options/conditions that allow partner to bid.

 

How weak is the weak NT?

If the weak NT is 12-14, I don't think you will benefit much from a pure penalty dbl.

If the range is 9-11, having a penalty double is much more interesting.

[ggwhiz]

How do you define a penalty double over a weak NT?

 

Maybe that's why defining our penalty double as a balanced strong nt works for us. Pard is not shut out and has something to go on. I agree that a penaly double of a weak nt has to mean SOMETHING reasonably well defined.

[dake50]

What consideration for weak 1N has pre-planned scrambles.

 

Now X is penalty AND X of pre-scramble is penalty AND know to sit for 2C-X when D-xxxxx C-QJxxxx with a few D-ruffs from 1N opener = DISASTER double game swing.

[barryallen]

Giving up the penalty double of a weak NT is a crime, nothing less IMO. I would never ever consider a weak NT defense without the penalty double, and I have never heard about a strong international pair not playing X of a weak NT as penalties.

The ability of the top pairs to extract a penalty from sometimes unclear / marginal situations over a weak NT never ceases to amaze me. But you do not have to go far down that ladder to find that no longer to be true. If you don't use a penalty double the weak NT opener has all the benefits without any real negative, but it cannot regularly pay without a disciplined and comprehensive structure.

[MFA]

Bidding after a penalty double of a weak NT is difficult. It's hard to investigate strain and level and also cater to defending their possible runout.

 

But imo there is no way out. We have lots of games to bid and lots of penalties to extract. We can't afford the luxury of thinking that it's usually just a partscore battle, because often it's not. That goes for MP as well.

 

After a penX I'm used to playing one negative double in total for the partnership (if they run), forcing passes until 2♥ (advancer is allowed to pass out a complete bust though). This gives us many options in he bidding.

 

Lebensohl in the first round - scramble in the second round. 2NT from doubler is always natural. Free bids (not escapes) at 2-lvl from advancer shows some values, but is not invitational as such.

 

Advancer's runout to 2♣ is often suspect with a balanced hand.

 

Aggressive penalty hunt after their runouts, especially if their bidding suggests two balanced hands.

[Zelandakh]

The theory of Lionel is to find 11:10 hcp fits instead of 15:6 hcp fits to penalise the opponents. Since this happens 6 times as often the theory is perfectly sound. Where partner does not have a suitable 10+ count to convert, you are in a part-score scrap and the spade suit will be a strong asset. So the double itself is not a disadvantage in Lionel.

 

The problem is how to bid those strong hands without spades. That is where the penalty double can gain, irrespective of whether they land in a workable fit or not.

 

Whether Linoel is a good concept with a passed partner is a more interesting discussion. At first thought it seems that your opening strategy might have some bearing here. How often do you pass 10 counts? If rarely, because (for example) you use a mini-no trump, assumed fit, or just open very light, then Lionel is likely to be poor. As with most questions of this nature a simulation would be helpful.

 

One final point. Several posters seem to be saying that Lionel is rare in expert practise. I suspect that this is due to an American bias in their observations. Lionel is very well tested at a very high level in the Antipodes, and (I understand) reasonably common there.

[WesleyC]

At IMPs I think the penalty double is indispensible (by an unpassed hand). Matchpoints is a completely different story and something like constructive Lionel seems a fine choice.

 

I've been playing a weak-NT (and also very weak-NT) for a few years now and I've noticed a strong (stronger than normal) correlation between the quality of the opponents and the effectiveness of the opening. Weaker opponents often dig themselves into big holes with wide ranging over-calls and poor constructive judgment and rarely manage to effectively double us for penalties. Switching to a weak NT might be a good option if you are ever playing against weaker opponents and need to generate a big result.