balancing against a weak NT

[lowerline]

This is an interesting discussion. There are clearly two sides here. It does seem however that neither side really differentiates between 2nd seat and pass-out seat... Logic would dictate that the higher the requirements for the double in 2nd seat, the lower the requirements for double in pass-out seat and vice-versa... I also wonder if the same principles hold when defending against a strong NT? Assume you would still play penalty doubles against a strong NT, does that mean you would only double with 17/18+? How much would a double be against a strong nt in the pass-out seat?

 

Steven

[Finch]

While you should need fewer points to double in 4th seat, the problem is that stupid partner is on lead, so you can no longer double on the slightly weaker hands with a good lead. Having a balanced hand with honours in every suit is good in one sense, but worse in that you have no obvious source of tricks.

[phil_20686]

I moved to making balancing doubles on about twleve HCP (if the pips are nice), and I think its a winning strategy at both teams and imps. I also gave up penalty doubles in direct seat to play 5m4M. I really think a part score orientated defence is a winner in direct seat. Its so rare to be able to take a significant penalty, or to make game. This, of course, means that partner never has a bid when he is balanced. The fact that its tough to penalise them after they run cuts in both direction, as it is very hard for them to penalise you aswell if you can scramble.

 

I seldom worry about finding game in these auctions when you have two balanced hands. Its very rare. Better to be able to find games on distributional hands. They are a lot more common.

 

Also, one point that no one has made yet is that it is substantially easier to defend when the defensive assets are divided evenly. I would expect on average to beat 1NT by at least one trick mor when the points are 12-12 compared to 16-8. It is just easier to manage the defensive entries.

[han]

This is so confusing. MrAce was playing weak notrumps before Justin was born (!!!OMG!!!OMG!!!) and says top priority is finding games with 23+ points divided evenly. Phil_20686 is also talking from experience and also doubles lighter in fourth, but doesn't care about these games. I have to think about this.

[JLOGIC]

hanp will you marry me

[hanp]

hanp will you marry me

 

obv!

[gnasher]

Around about the time that Justin was born, I was experimenting with a defence to 1NT called Roche, in which 2♣ shows 12-14 balanced.

 

This neatly solves some of the problems mentioned in this thread: you won't miss game with 13 opposite 13, you won't reach game with 13 opposite 9, and you won't undercompete when one of you has a weak notrump and the other has a moderate hand with a bit of shape. Identifying the disadvantages of this method is left as an exercise for the reader.

[MrAce]

This is so confusing. MrAce was playing weak notrumps before Justin was born (!!!OMG!!!OMG!!!) and says top priority is finding games with 23+ points divided evenly. Phil_20686 is also talking from experience and also doubles lighter in fourth, but doesn't care about these games. I have to think about this.

 

I wonder where did you come up with me saying "top priority is finding games 23+ divided evenly"

 

I mentioned that i was talking about imps. And i never said top priority is to find 23 hcp games. They claimed it is hard to figure when the point range is wide, and i intended to say that even if they missguess their strength, they may still be in good shape due to knowing how to play the hand and defense will be made from one hand.

[whereagles]

Hi. On my conventions:

 

1. What range do you expect for the balancing double? Is this hand good enough? What if the colors were reversed?

 

11+ HCP. Same thing with colors reversed.

 

 

2. How much does North need to pass for penalties?

 

Majority of HCP, i.e. 10+ of them. Normally not much more because he himself didn't dbl 1NT.

 

 

3. Should South invite? (Double by either North or South over 2♣ would be takeout).

 

Yes. 2NT seems fine now.

[dake50]

1. About 14 not quacky. This is ok.

2. 5-suit (good lead) with an entry.

3. So we find a penalty bonanza that they escape with 2C? INSANE.!!

Bid if you together decide small penalty, sure partial plus/game.

[WellSpyder]

JLOGIC has already said most of it. I agree with everything he wrote (ha! I don't always say that!). The word 'unplayable' usually gets rude replies, so let me just say I don't see how you can possibly have a sensible sequence if you double on, say, all 12/13+ HCP hands as you seem to be suggesting. You will either get too high, too often or will miss a lot of games.

 

To me the real issue with doubling very light in the passout seat is particularly the one about the wide range. I play something which I am sure is horribly unsound theoretically: a passed hand double of a weak 1NT in fourth seat just shows a maximum pass, usually fairly balanced (good 9 - bad 11). This does pick up a surprising number of penalties, although obviously we are a bit more cautious vul at imps and less so love all at matchpoints. So it's not so much the absolute point count you want to double in fourth seat, it's the possible range. With this method I know when to run.

 

Obviously I could change to playing a double in fourth seat as some other well-defined range, but then I'd be stuck on the stronger hands.

Frances has already said most of it. I agree with everything she wrote (I don't always say that, but I often think it...). However, one issue that doesn't seem to have been mentioned much, is that if you double on, say, all 12/13+ HCP hands you will not only get too high too often or miss a lot of games, but you will also miss some juicy potential penalties!

 

It is much the same issue as doubling in the passout seat on a very wide range of hands - how will partner now when to leave it in? Suppose they have a modestly unbalanced 6-count (it's less of a problem with very balanced hands since there is no good alternative to leaving in the double anyway). Should they leave in the double and hope the doubler is non-minimum, or take it out to relative safety? Knowing partner has 15+ or the equivalent makes it much easier. So you may miss penalties with 13 opposite 10 if you keep 2nd seat doubles up to strength, but you can gain penalties with 15 opposite 6 because partner won't take it out and let the opponents off the hook.

 

No-one has yet talked about the strength of penalty doubles over a mini-NT, but the consensus where I play is more or less to keep it up to the same strength as over a weak NT precisely so that partner has a better idea of what to do....

[whereagles]

This is an interesting discussion. There are clearly two sides here.

 

1. It does seem however that neither side really differentiates between 2nd seat and pass-out seat... Logic would dictate that the higher the requirements for the double in 2nd seat, the lower the requirements for double in pass-out seat and vice-versa...

 

2. I also wonder if the same principles hold when defending against a strong NT? Assume you would still play penalty doubles against a strong NT, does that mean you would only double with 17/18+? How much would a double be against a strong nt in the pass-out seat?

 

1. There should, in my opinion, be a distinction and the logics you point out seems correct to me. I have defined a dbl of 1NT as 14+ in direct seat or 11+ in the balancing seat. Pard passes accordingly with 7+/10+, give or take a point. It's a two-edged sword, but hey so is the weak NT.

 

2. No, they do not. The reason is the usual one: our side doesn't normally have game on after opps open 1NT and, even if we do, it will be a shape-based game. So dbl is best used to show some sort of distributional hand, not a strong balanced penalty. With that hand it's best to pass and leave declarer stranded in 1NT, be it in the direct or balancing seat.

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, one of the theories of defences without a penalty double, such as Lionel, is that 11 opposite 11 occurs much more frequently than 16 opposite 6. Therefore if your double shows 11+ or 12+, etc you actually end up with more penalties than playing a stronger double. The downside is that when you do hold the stronger hand it is difficult to get it across in a constructive auction. One solution to this that used to be popular but has fallen out of favour is to play 3-suited overcalls, which can also be made with balanced hands (4333, 4432, etc). This lets you get into the auction with most decent hands at the expense of being able to show more shapely 2-suited hands.

[phil_20686]

This is so confusing. MrAce was playing weak notrumps before Justin was born (!!!OMG!!!OMG!!!) and says top priority is finding games with 23+ points divided evenly. Phil_20686 is also talking from experience and also doubles lighter in fourth, but doesn't care about these games. I have to think about this.

 

I definitely did not claim experience based on age. I am too young to know who MC-Hammer is.

 

I do however have to play against a wk nt nearly every week, whereas I imagine that for most of you guys its a comparative novelty.

[han]

No, I wouldn't say that weak notrumps are rare here.

[gszes]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq73hakqd543ckt63&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n(12-14)ppdpp2c(natural)pp2hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

A couple of questions about this situation:

 

1. What range do you expect for the balancing double? Is this hand good enough? What if the colors were reversed?

2. How much does North need to pass for penalties?

3. Should South invite? (Double by either North or South over 2♣ would be takeout).

 

One thing that seems to be missing here is the inference that N has already shown a

tolerance for playing 1N X and rho has shown a lack of tolerance for the same with the

2c bid. IMO p has shown they are not broke and we assuredly have over half the deck.

 

There seems to be zero good reason to use X (by south) for takeout when it can be use much more effectively for penalty. S original x pretty much showed a balanced type hand (or a stronger 1 suiter) so playing x here as takeout behind the club bidder seems give up way too much for almost zero gain. All s has to do is pass 2c and that works effectivly as TOX.

 

Since we have zero idea how the bidding would have gone if S was capable of a penalty x of

2c we have to look at our hand and see if it has improved or not after p bids 2h.

The club K is now a certain trick either via position or length so it improves. The

three top heart honors (in p long weak suit) are golden assets virtually assuring no

penalty x from opps if we get to a hopeless game. The only card that might have lost value is the spade Q. There are many great things about this hand plus virtually any finesses we might need are pretty much guaranteed to work. I would be more than willing to bid 3h here. At IMPS I would consider the 3h bid mandatory but MP you might already be

ahead of the game just not allowing opps to play 1n undoubled so it is a bit more

speculative to bid 3h.

 

To answer the questions

1. QJx QJx QJx QJxx is probably minimum for to in po seat

2. N should be happy to pass with any reasonable balanced 6 count

3. raise to 3h since your hand is around a K better than minimum with virtually

no degradation of point count due to position and superb trumps.

[Zelandakh]

There seems to be zero good reason to use X (by south) for takeout when it can be use much more effectively for penalty.

Quite alot of expert pairs play double as take-out here. Pass is obviously forcing and therefore denies a shortage. You still get your penalties since partner will double after you pass if they would have passed a penalty double.