Weak NT overcall - your opinion?

[jillybean]

I find a frustrating number of balanced hands that I can't bid so I am thinking of playing a weak (12-14) nt overcall in direct seat, not vulnerable.

 

Your comments, experience and usual unrestrained criticism would be appreciated.

[aguahombre]

Not being able to bid with a balanced 12-14 after an opening bid on your right is a good thing.

[akwoo]

You do realize you're making a bid that is going down more than half the time, and, furthermore, most of those times, you won't have a safer place to run to. When opps haven't bid and you have 12-14, your partnership is more than 50% likely to have more than half the points. When one of them has, that's not true.

 

Also, a good chunk of the benefit of the 12-14 1N is that you get to play lots of thin 3N contracts with the opponents making a blind opening lead. This isn't happening very often when one opp has opened.

 

If you want to bid more, let me suggest something else. Make the takeout double on the weak NT type hands (even though they don't have takeout double shape), and use a 1N overcall as a more standard takeout double.

 

The too strong to overcall hands still double rather than bidding 1N.

 

When you double with these less suitable hands, you probably want a negative step response to the double (i.e. next step shows any hand 0-5, or 0-7 w/o a five card suit), on which you scramble with the weak NT hand and jump with the too strong to overcall hand (and cue bid opps suit on the really strong hand).

 

The point is that, with a normal takeout double, you are likely to have LOTT protection to the 2 level, so bidding 1N likely won't be bad, but a lot of the weak NT hands won't have that protection and you want to have the possibility of getting out at the 1 level.

 

Of course, this matters most when opps open 1♣ and makes almost no difference when opps open 1♠. If you don't mind the memory load, you could play this over a minor opening but go back to usual takeout doubles and strong NT overcalls over a major opening. With most people playing 5 card majors, you're much more likely to have the weak NT hand with a stopper in opps suit over a minor anyway.

 

I don't particularly like this system, but it allows you to bid all the hands you want and is safer than the 12-14 1N overcall.

[mike777]

I find a frustrating number of balanced hands that I can't bid so I am thinking of playing a weak (12-14) nt overcall in direct seat, not vulnerable.

 

Your comments, experience and usual unrestrained criticism would be appreciated.

 

prefer double rather than 1nt

 

edit..ahh see akwoo made same point.

[ArtK78]

A 12-14 balanced 1NT overcall is plain silly.

 

I could use a stronger word, but silly will have to do.

 

That is not to say that I have not seen players who play it. But no one who I respect as a bridge player.

[nigel_k]

I don't think it is silly. It is unsound but still could be very effective if you have a good runout mechanism and don't play a lot against strong opponents,

[MrAce]

What Aguaman and Art said.

[helene_t]

If you want to bid more of the weak balanced hands then I think a looser t/o double style, and allowing for more 4-card overcalls, is better. But having to pass when you have a doubleton in an unbid major and the other major is not good enough to overcall is nothing to be worried about imo. The balanced hands with length and strength in opps' suit are better suited for defence. Even when you don't go for 800 you still have the disadvantage of having warned opps about you defensive values.

 

If you think the strong notrump overcall is too infrequent, you might consider playing raptor. I think that is a lot more useful than a weak nt overcall because the raptor hands are hands with which you actually should be entering the auction.

 

In any case, if you sacrifice the strong notrump overcall for something else, you will end up making off-shape take-out doubles with many 16 counts, and it is nice catering to that in your responses to t/o doubles, for example:

 

(1♥)-x-(pass)-?

- 1♠: normal

- 1nt: negative ("this is what I want to play if you have a strong nt overcall")

- 2m: semipositive

[Cthulhu D]

You can definitely play that you can overcall with this stuff. I play 4 card overcalls and 1NT as a wide ranging weak takeout and it rarely gets nailed (though I have definitely got nailed). I you are willing to contemplate that level of aggression, here is what I play, and Jeff goldsmith has a very good writeup on his website as well.

 

 

http://www.fernside.com/bridge/TheOvercallStructure.html

 

Its a lot of fun, and radically increases the % of time you can take action in the direct seat after an opening. I'm not sure its massively plus style - its probably not, but you can generally take action (the exception is a (32)44 hand when they've opened your short major

[kenberg]

It seems to me that after 1♣-(1NT)(showing 12-14)-?, third hand will often know what to do and after s/he does it, fourth hand won't much know what to do. I don't mean that third hand will always double, but third hand will know that partner has an opening, that there are some scattered values on his right, and will often be pretty clear on what he should do. Another way of saying this: An opening weak nt has bothe a constructive and a pre-emptive values. It seems to me that the pre-emptive effect of a weak nt overcall is much reduced. Imagine 1♣-(1NT)-X. Fourth hand does what with what? It seems likely that neither side has a game anywhere, and that you are guessing where, if anywhere, you have a home.

 

If you do this, please report back on how it works.

[ggwhiz]

Step away from the bidding box slowly.

 

You are going to be doubled and down way too often. If you declare OR defend you might as well show the opponents your hand.

 

As opposed to an upside of...... nothing I can think of.

[jillybean]

This was more or less my partners response when I suggested it. Back to the drawing board.

[gwnn]

While a weak NT overcall is almost certainly unsound, how much sense does it make that most people apparently have the same range at every vulnerability? Maybe we should be playing 14-16 when NV and 15-18 when V. And maybe 12-15 or so is not bad when favourable.

[mycroft]

I play a weak NT by preference and would never even contemplate this. When it goes 1NT-X, we know that sometimes we can scramble a good place, sometimes we can scramble a better than before place, and sometimes they will guess wrong on what to do because the double is so badly defined (and they have the additional load over an opening NT, even if that's what the double can be assumed to show, that they not only want to play their system to the right offensive contract, but double when it's the right defensive contract). Also, the doubler is frequently on lead (especially if we pass it out), and not everybody doubles "with a good lead" as well as points. Oh, of course, sometimes we get burned, but it's still usually a matchpoint burn.

 

With the overcall all of that goes out the window. When responder doubles, she knows a *lot more* about the hand than when overcaller doubles the opening. They're going to guess wrong a lot less often, and you don't have the safety that your partner has the balance of the rest of the points half-ish of the time. Also, doubler has a great lead - the strong hand's long suit.

 

One of the benefits of a Raptor NT overcall is that it stops you from bidding 1NT on a random good 15 balanced - and getting doubled by any random 8 on your left. It's only going to get easier if you drop the range.

 

There are some places and some times where this wins due to the unexpectedness (opponents don't know and misplay). Unfortunately - except for the ethics of it - the ACBL now isn't one of those places and times, that overcall is explicitly Alertable ("Natural 1NT overcalls in the range of 14 to 19 HCP require neither an Alert nor an Announcement. If the top or bottom limit of the natural notrump overcall is out of that range or conventional by an unpassed hand, an Alert is required.")

[wank]

you don't have to be ashamed to pass. if you've got a similar strength hand to your rho with his suit (hence no double), defending will often be your best option.

[Lorne50]

How many experts do you see playing a weak NT overcall? Pass is the winning call most often when weak and balanced - if your side has the balance of power partner will often bid or you will get a chance to protect later.

[aguahombre]

you don't have to be ashamed to pass. if you've got a similar strength hand to your rho with his suit (hence no double), defending will often be your best option.

YES

How many experts do you see playing a weak NT overcall? Pass is the winning call most often when weak and balanced - if your side has the balance of power partner will often bid or you will get a chance to protect later.

And, YES.

 

As a result of these learned pieces of advice, people who must always "do something" will Double instead,, despite Wank's "hence, no Double". Yet, the same thoughts in the above posts should apply to Doubles.

[gwnn]

Yes, except for the 'how many experts?' part. There are more and more experts you see making very flat first-round doubles with weak NT strength (assuming they have 3+ cards in unbid majors).

[Lurpoa]

What Ace said !

 

Be The Heart with him !

[aguahombre]

Yes, except for the 'how many experts?' part. There are more and more experts you see making very flat first-round doubles with weak NT strength (assuming they have 3+ cards in unbid majors).

And their partners need to adjust how or whether they dare advance these doubles. Their expert partners can figure out the strength across the table without this assistance, and the Double merely gives the other side more tools without taking up any room.

 

Players do well to learn from experts, but I don't believe so in this case. At least the ill-advised weak NT overcall takes up a bit of the opponents' space on occasion.

[gwnn]

And their partners need to adjust how or whether they dare advance these doubles. Their expert partners can figure out the strength across the table without this assistance, and the Double merely gives the other side more tools without taking up any room.

 

Players do well to learn from experts, but I don't believe so in this case. At least the ill-advised weak NT overcall takes up a bit of the opponents' space on occasion.

So you're saying that this double is unnecessary for the experts too? Your second sentence seems to imply this. Maybe you should apply as a bermuda bowl non-playing captain, since you obviously know what expert partners can figure out better than the experts themselves.

 

If you're not saying that, it seems like your second statement is arguing against your point - if experts don't need the double that much from their partners yet they still make it, it would mean that non-experts need the double even more (because they're not so good in gauging the strength across the table without the X).

 

Finally, about the figuring out the strength across the table bit, let me say that even expert partners can be at a loss whether their partner has a 6 count or a 13 count when it goes 1m-p-1M-p; 2M-p-p. Opps could have anywhere between 15 and 25 HCP between them. Partner doubling in second seat would have made it much easier for fourth seat.

 

Yes, I know that if you X and it promises 4441 or close to 4441 and 13+, your partner will do better than mine who will only know that I could have a bunch of possible distributions and only 11+. But equally true is the fact that my partner will do better than yours when I double and you pass. Your partner can be a super genius if you like but she can still not guess whether you have xxx xxx KQxx Kxx or Axx xxx KQxx Axx and many times the opps' bidding will proceed the same way. The way you state this problem is always about me overloading my double but you never seem to admit that you are overloading your pass. You just shrug and explain that people like me just "always must do something" as if we're somehow addicted to these doubles. Maybe you're also a bit addicted to these disparaging remarks?

[aguahombre]

Actually, it wasn't about you at all. You disagree with my contention about takeout doubles with flat, minimum, opening bids. We now have your take on them and my take on them.

 

In fourth chair it is true Partner --expert or not---does not know 2nd hand's strength at that very moment. But I believe it is more important to know whether she has a takeout double hand at that moment.

[Vampyr]

How many experts do you see playing a weak NT overcall?

 

I think that this question can prevent wasting time and effort on system design. When an idea is as basic as the one brought up by the OP, someone will have thought of it before. The fact that nobody plays it must mean something.

[gwnn]

Actually, it wasn't about you at all. You disagree with my contention about takeout doubles with flat, minimum, opening bids. We now have your take on them and my take on them.

 

In fourth chair it is true Partner --expert or not---does not know 2nd hand's strength at that very moment. But I believe it is more important to know whether she has a takeout double hand at that moment.

I just used you vs me as a shortcut for '4441 13+' vs 'can be flat.' I thought it would be obvious to you but I guess not.

 

It's a bit annoying to talk about this since you readily abandon points you've made and I addressed. I asked for clarification on your point on why experts make these doubles even if they don't need them. All I got was a clarification on whether your original post was about me personally or not even though that should be clear to anyone who can read and your point on experts not needing them but still making them is not clear to anyone in the universe. Is your point that:

-you know better than those experts and they should listen to you?

-those experts are in a state of cognitive dissonance?

-the experts are addicted to these doubles?

-there are no experts who make them?

-do you dispute my point that in many situations even an expert can't judge to a reasonable degree (say, within a 3-point margin) how strong their opps' hands are?

-some combination of the above?

-did you fail to read that part of my post?

-or do you just concede that your point was self-contradictory?

[Zelandakh]

As a junior I experimented some with having a 1NT rebid after a takeout double being 13-15. That was not as bad as you might think it is but overall the losses outweigh the gains.