Constructive or Obstructive 1NT overcalls.

[Chamaco]

But since I'm balanced, the 4-4 fit is less likely to be useful to us.

 

I am sure you know the Law of symmetry: if you are balanced, thgey are balanced.

So why do you think making balanced opps lose the fit will matter but it does not matter if YOU lose the fit ?

 

In the real world, anytime you'll play weak NT, you'll lose as many fits as opps in the long run.

So this argument is neither a big plus nor a big minus.

 

other issues matter more, such as the "stealing" power of the weak NT, which loses effectiveness after they have opened striking the 1st blow.

 

If the bidding goes 1♠  P 2♠ P P, you aren't balancing with 1NT.  It's very difficult to know whether to bid or not, especially if you have length and strength in spades.  If you had bid 1NT, you can trust partner to know what to do.

 

If the bidding goes that way and you and pard have a combined 25-26 count, as you say, you can bet that the one with the spade shortness will double for takeout.

 

Almost any intermediate knows that when opps bid and raise we should strive to bid, and with the appropriate methods, if we have a combined 25 count, game will be bid without too much trouble.

 

I enjoyed your reply, and it did make me think.

But not enough to get rid of the 12-15 range, at least not until I'm ready to make the bid artificial.

 

Bridge is a partneship game, so as long as you and your partner are in tune, I think everything is fine.

At least you are forewarned of the potential risks of such approach :-)

[jtfanclub]

Various people:

 

Ulrich:

You ask a question

 

I asked the question of given a 12-15 NT overcall, what would you do in this situation? I didn't ask what people thought of a 12-15 NT overcall.

 

Don't get me wrong- I appreciate replies like pclayton's and chamaco's. Even if I plan to play 12-15 NT overcalls until I die (which I don't), it's still good to realize its weaknesses.

 

Chamaco:

I am sure you know the Law of symmetry: if you are balanced, thgey are balanced.

 

That may be a law from somewhere, but I call BS on it.

 

Take two cases:

1. I have four clubs and three diamonds, partner has three clubs and four diamonds.

2. I have six clubs and one diamond, partner has six diamonds and one club.

 

There's isn't a single mathematical reason why the opponents would tend to be balanced in the first case but not the second.

 

I've overcalled 1 NT, therefore I'm most likely balanced. RHO has opened one of a suit, therefore she's most likely NOT balanced (she didn't pass, she didn't bid 1NT, so the point range for unbalanced hands is much higher than the range for balanced ones). Therefore, fits for them are likely to be more powerful than fits for us.

 

Pclayton:

Both sides will present information that supports their position, so the discussion becomes more subjective than objective

 

Yes. I like responses where the positions are supported.

 

Doubling 2 of a minor is not dangerous at all to the defending side, but can be an absolute disaster playing the hand.

 

I disagree. If they have any fit at all, doubling two of a minor can be very dangerous to them. This system is designed for matchpoints, so making 2 of a minor doubled is a top board, even though it isn't game.

 

The original example you gave had QTxx in RHO's suit. This is a huge red flag for getting involved in the auction; since our having a fit is greatly diminished; as we have a stack in one of the opponents announced strains.

 

I agree, but that was part of the original question: if you were to play a 12-15 hcp NT overcall, would you use it only with 'takeout' points or shape, or would you use it as a general obstructive bid? I didn't realize it would turn into an argument about whether 12-15 NT should exist at all.

 

You seem to be under a mistaken assumption that the stronger we are, the weaker partner has to be.

 

Well, I'm under the assumption that the stronger I am, the weaker partner will be on average, yes.

 

I'm guessing the reason that the 12-15 NT doesn't get punished as often as you might think is that people are unfamiliar with the approach.

 

Perhaps. Perhaps I should run the odds that we have 17- HCP (with 18, we can most likely make 1NT), AND opener's partner has a penalty double, AND opener leaves it in (or opener has a penalty X and responder leaves it in), AND we don't have a good place to run. Pretty sure we can actually check that. I'll get back to you on that.

 

 

Many pairs have methods over 1N overcalls to ferret out their 4-4 major fits. One of the obvious is a 'raise' of the minor as sort of a negative double. Others play a version of capp or suction or DONT.

 

That's fine, but generally speaking you can't do both. You can double me for penalties, or you can look for your major suit fit. If you decide to look for a fit and you don't have one, or you decide not to look for a fit when you do, the results can be very good for us.

 

As far as getting posts like this when you suggest a method, well , sorry. We try to be objectivist here, and I for one won't always say what you want to hear. I only offer these ideas to help others, with the contract that my ideas will be objectively listened to and feedback granted.

 

When you put that much effort into a post, believe me, I will read it as objectively as I can, and try to give useful feedback.

 

I simply haven't found penalty X's to be a problem. Sure, they come up maybe 1 time in 10, and we don't have a good fit and can't leave it in maybe half the time, so perhaps 1 time in 20 we get a 0 from using it. But it's matchpoints, so it's just a 0.

 

We win when 1NT is the limit of the hand, or we find a good contract, or they miss out on their contract. Or when our partner doesn't balance, thinking I have a 12-14 point balanced hand. So far, it's worked to our advantage, but then I haven't played it in Australia or Irvine. So it could very well be our opposition.

[Chamaco]

There's isn't a single mathematical reason why the opponents would tend to be balanced in the first case but not the second. 

 

I've overcalled 1 NT, therefore I'm most likely balanced.  RHO has opened one of a suit, therefore she's most likely NOT balanced (she didn't pass, she didn't bid 1NT, so the point range for unbalanced hands is much higher than the range for balanced ones). Therefore, fits for them are likely to be more powerful than fits for us.

The whole point was:

 

Weak NT overcall may conceal opponents' fit, if the hcp split about evenly.

But the same applies to the weak NT overcaller, often he will lose a 44 fit.

 

My point was:

in the long run you will lose your own fit as often as you will have opps loe their fit.

 

 

Your point on this was the following: "since weak NT overcaller is balanced, if his pard is blanced, it's not so bad to lose a fit"

 

This concept does not seem sound, for at least 2 reason:

 

1- it is a proven fact that 4-4 fits, even if the 2 hands are balanced, tend take more trick that in a NT contract; there some occasional exceptions (e.g. 4333 hands, etc), and I am sure you'll build a hand to demonstrate the opposite :D , but you may ask any expert and he'll confirm that.

The fact that often a NT contract is preferable to a 44 MINOR fitdepends only by the form of scoring (Matchpoints), but when the fit is major, losing the 44 fit is a big loss, regardless of whether you are the opener or the weak NoTrumper;

 

2- you say that you do not care losing your fit if you and pard are balanced; but when both you and pard are balanced, opponents are also balanced most of the times.

If instead opener (or his pard) are unbalanced, then overcaller's pard will be unbalanced too, most of the times.

I won't argue with the mathematics, this (the Law of Symmetry) is a well known fact, but if you do not believe that, just try to run, say, 100 simulations.

 

So in this situation, with the 4 players balanced and hcp split, there is not a single reason why losing a fit shouldfavour more the weak NT overcaller rather than opener's side.

[jtfanclub]

1- it is a proven fact that 4-4 fits, even if the 2 hands are balanced, tend take more trick that in a NT contract; there some occasional exceptions (e.g. 4333 hands, etc), and I am sure you'll build a hand to demonstrate the opposite  :D , but you may ask any expert and he'll confirm that.

 

Um, I agree that if the two hands are balanced, that a 4-4 fit is worth one more trick. My point was if the two hands are unbalanced, a 4-4 fit is worth more than one more trick. So us losing our fit isn't as bad as them losing their fit, if we are balanced and they aren't.

 

The fact that often a NT contract is preferable to a 44 MINOR fitdepends only by the form of scoring (Matchpoints),

 

This system is designed exlusively for MPs. I wouldn't want to try it at IMPs. At MPs, getting -50 when they could get 120 is a top, and getting -1400 when they could get 120 is a bottom, and they cancel out. At IMPs, those phone numbers get to you quickly.

 

I won't argue with the mathematics,this (the Law of Symmetry) is a well known fact, but if you do not believe that, just try to run, say, 100 simulations.

 

I shouldn't have to...if it's a well known fact, there should have been some studies of it somewhere, right? Can anybody provide a link?

 

What I am claiming is, for any given total fit (say, 8-7-7-4), whether we're balanced has no bearing on whether they're balanced. I have no idea if that violates the Law of Symmetry or not. It does mean that if you're balanced, fits are less important to you than they are to the opponents, and if you're unbalanced, fits are more important to you than they are to the opponents.

[Gerben47]

Anyway, if partner is balanced it might not be so important not to find your fit, but overcalling 12-15 balanced means is just soliciting for double by third hand regardless of who is balanced or not.

[pbleighton]

"This system is designed exlusively for MPs. I wouldn't want to try it at IMPs. At MPs, getting -50 when they could get 120 is a top, and getting -1400 when they could get 120 is a bottom, and they cancel out. At IMPs, those phone numbers get to you quickly."

 

Well, OK :D

 

As I said in my earlier post (which wasn't meant to anger you), I might play it NV at matchpoints.

 

Vul at matchpoints, here's my problem (apart from reduced preemptiveness) - down two (and sometimes one) undoubled. As you say, the doubled contracts are infrequent enough that they can be mostly ignored at matchpoints, but not at IMPs. You do go down a fair amount opening a weak NT, as you know from playing it. You go down more frequently in an overcall than in an opening, given that, in an overcall, at least one opponent will always have an opening bid. -200 and -100 score quite differently at matchpoints than -100 and -50. It's frustrating for me to open a hand vul, go down, get a bottom, and realize that if we had been NV, we would have got a top. This will be more frequent as an overcall than as an opening.

 

I am considering abandoning the 12-14 NT vul (going to 14-16) because of the non doubled penalties (keep the 10-13 NV though). I probably won't in the short term, because my partner likes it, the opps make very silly bids over it sometimes, and I'm not quite ready for the complications of a weak/strong NT system, different inverted minor responses in particular.

 

Consider playing this only NV.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I'm not angry any more...what I thought was going to turn into a shouting fest evolved into a good, supported conversation IMHO.

 

Want to know the odd part? The system my partner was playing last had 10-13 NT overcalls NV, 12-15 V. I was too uncomfortable with the range NV and asked that it be moved up. I find it much easier to bid as overcaller's responder with a 'solid' range (any hand that evaluates to 12+ is overcalled or doubles).

 

The NT is safer NV, but the pass becomes safer V. Knowing that I don't have 12 hcp may keep partner from balancing when it would turn out badly.