your opinion on dbl over 1 nt

[patroclo]

i use dbl over 1 nt as punitive. playing in bbo i have found partners that don t use it in this way. Can an expert tell me what is better ?

[Quartic]

i use dbl over 1 nt as punitive. playing in bbo i have found partners that don t use it in this way. Can an expert tell me what is better ?

 

I play double as penalty against all 1NT openings. However, almost all players at my club play a weak (12-14) NT. If more played a strong NT I might well consider playing an artificial double of some sort. That said, I think most important is that you and your partner are comfortable with however you play double.

[mgoetze]

I estimate that a majority of experts consider a penalty double superior against a weak NT, and an artificial double superior against a strong NT. However, it is not at all clear, even at the very top some players play penalty vs. both or artificial vs. both.

 

As for which artificial meaning is best, it really depends on the rest of your NT defense. There are a lot of different schemes which vary in popularity regionally.

 

My personal favourite is:

 

DBL penalty vs. weak, 4 card major with a 5+ card minor vs. strong

2♣ both majors at least 5-4 or 4-5

2♦ Either major 6+ cards

2♥ 5 hearts with a 4+ card minor

2♠ 5 spades with a 4+ card minor

2NT Both minors 5-5 or better

 

I could describe this as "Multilandy vs. Weak NT and Woolsey vs. Strong NT" but this description confuses at least 98% of my opponents. I could also describe it as "Jassem" which might help if my opponents are Polish.

[mikeh]

There have been a number of threads commenting on this, and to some degree the answer depends on the level of the game you play in.

 

If the opps play a weak 1N, then I think we can safely say that the expert consensus is that double ought to be used to show a strong hand....primarily geared towards penalties.

 

If the opps play a strong 1N, then for the past 30 years or so the general expert practice has been to use double as part of a conventional approach designed to increase the types of hands one can overcall...in other words, the double becomes artificial and geared towards disrupting their auction or permitting your side to compete more frequently.

 

Most artificial conventions like to allow competition with both one-suited and two-suited hands. The double can be used as part of this: thus, in one of the simpler defences (DONT), double shows a one-suited hand and bids of 2♣/♦/♥ show that suit and a higher one.

 

However, while many top pairs continue to announce 15-17 1N openers, there is a real trend in expert bridge to actually open on far different hands....see the current 'ominous hand' thread for the approach espoused by Clee, who won the Blue Ribbon Pairs in the Fall.

 

This means that there is now more opportunity than formerly to collect a number or, perhaps more accurately, to make a game. If the opps are going to open 1N on a semi-balanced 1 Suiter with almost zero defence, then we need to start bidding constructively. Most defences to strong 1N openings are designed around competing for partscores or disrupting their constructive sequences.

 

So we are seeing a comeback of the penalty double because it informs partner that we have real values....to trust us, not the opps.

 

If the players you usually play against tend to be solid citizens, who almost always have 15-17 balanced and would shudder at the thought of opening 1N on Jxx 10x AKQJxx Qx, then I'd suggest not using the penalty double and, instead, use double as part of a decent conventional defence to 1N.

[aguahombre]

Over a strong NT, many experts will tell you which is better (big NT yourself, or artificial). But they won't give you the same answer. The trend seems to be moving toward penalty oriented, but I think the majority still use artificial.

 

The balance tips heavily toward "penalty oriented" over a weak NT, but there will still be disagreement.

 

The "best" use of double is clearly the use with which partner agrees.

[CSGibson]

In experienced partnerships, you will often find that they have different defences over weak NT than strong NT, because the value of X as penalties decreases as the opposing NT range gets higher. My own agreement is to play a strong NT defense, where double is artificial, when the opponents range includes 15, or is higher, and a penalty-double oriented double defense agreement when the NT range is less than 15, or when opponents have opened 1N 3rd seat when they are not vulnerable (the latter part of the agreement being our own "defense" against the expert trend MikeH is referencing in the other thread to open non-traditional hands 1N, which tends to happen most frequently NV 3rd seat in my experience).

[wank]

weaker players don't open strong 1NTs on the sort of hands the above posters are referring to. in fact i would say a weaker player is as likely to have 18 points as 14.

 

as such the value of a penalty double is reduced against such people, hence an artificial double is more useful.

 

if i sat down with a random though, i would assume X was penalties unless we had agreed something else.

[bluecalm]

Don't worry about which is better, just pick what you would like to experiment with.

There are elite players who use as penalty oriented (most Italian pairs), pairs where it's 4M-5m or other way around (Balicki-Zmudzinski, Bocchi-Madala) or some other things (Meckwell, Greco-Hampson).

 

As the question which is better is still out for the best of the best I would stay away from giving definite opinions either way.

[Zelandakh]

I think most relevant stuff has already been said but just to add that there is also a hybrid way where double is artificial but still shows values to allow it to be left in for penalties. Lionel is the prototypical example of this where double shows constructive values and spades. There is actually some good maths behind this approach too - 11 versus 11 is much more common than 16 opposite 6. I cannot tell you what is best, only that my choice is penalty versus weak and artificial versus strong. Luckily I do not meet (m)any players with Clee's style of 1NT opening so this is not an issue for me.

[ggwhiz]

there is also a hybrid way where double is artificial but still shows values to allow it to be left in for penalties.

 

I agree with all of the above especially the need to discuss the follow up auction in a regular partnership or at least have a handle on it in a casual one.

 

Against a strong nt if a casual pard pulls the double should it be natural? or a scramble?

 

Against a weak nt pard may pull the double if either broke, going for a red game or bid if/when they run.

 

I'm not clear at all on what a casual partner would show on BBO if they have to remove the double and would bow to other opinions.

[kenrexford]

You might like some of the tools I have in my book, Overcalling Opponent's 1NT. I have introduced a whole bunch of new overcalling structures, many of which allow extreme pattern development while still maintaining the option of a penalty double, including even canape hands (longer minor with a 4-card major). Much of this, I believe, is better than Woolsey, and GCC-legal to boot.

[sasioc]

The only thing I think I can add to this is that which one is right for you could depend on what defence you play to 1NT - is there a hand type that double could show that you want to get into the auction on reasonably frequently and cannot show with a bid?

 

Otherwise, as people have said, whether you want to be able to double a strong NT player for penalties could depend quite a lot on the ability of the player and their bidding style, psyche frequency etc. I am certainly aware of players who psyche a strong NT with sufficient frequency that I would not consider not having a penalty double available playing against them!

 

Personally I like being able to play the same thing facing all NT ranges (at least saves on the awkward moment when p doubles a 14-16 NT and you don't know if it's penalties or whatever artificial meaning you play it as) and rate the defence I play to allow me to get in when I need to so play a non-passed hand double of 1NT as penalties.