w/w MP Decision

[broze]

[hv=pc=n&w=sakqjht92dkt64cq3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(12-14)]133|200[/hv]

 

MPs

 

1NT = 12-14

 

You play Multi-Landy and penalty doubles here. Agreement for 2S is 5S, 4+ in unknown minor

[whereagles]

that looks like a penalty dbl to me WTP?

[gszes]

The concept of penalty double is not that we have 1n set so much as we

feel there is a strong probability we have it set. Most x have a run out

for partner (for ex I want my p to leave the x in with as little as an

ace (not 2 scattered queens). My partner average hand rates to be around

6 and loses only a small amount of top side potential due to being a

passed hand. Will this always work? (no) but p with a weak freak can still

bail us out at the 2 level so go for it-----------------

[ArtK78]

If you won't double a weak NT with this hand, when will you double a weak NT?

 

Admittedly, this is at the low end of what I consider a double. But it is a double. We have to get into the auction. Otherwise, the opps will steal us blind.

[broze]

Fair enough. I thought maybe it was a touch light - though I did double at the table. w/w MP you have to act but I think I would have passed at teams - maybe that is wrong.

 

If you won't double a weak NT with this hand, when will you double a weak NT?

 

Seems like an odd question. I guess the answer might be "a better hand"... 16+ or something.

[ArtK78]

Fair enough. I thought maybe it was a touch light - though I did double at the table. w/w MP you have to act but I think I would have passed at teams - maybe that is wrong.

 

 

 

Seems like an odd question. I guess the answer might be "a better hand"... 16+ or something.

My question was rhetorical. In my opinion, if you are not willing to act directly over a weak NT opening holding this hand, your standards for direct action are too high.

[EricK]

On borderline hands for a double, what swings it for me is whether I have a good lead I.e one which is guaranteed to set up tricks and/or guaranteed not to blow a trick. So here I double. After a few rounds of ♠, it should be clear , from the sight of dummy and partners cards, how best to continue.

[jdgalt]

I prefer double here to be for takeout (but only when 1NT is weak). But I'll double whether it is or not.

[bluechip10]

I typically play DONT against strong NT and Capp against weak NT. So, double for penalty is the best option here.

[1eyedjack]

I prefer double here to be for takeout (but only when 1NT is weak).

I see this occasionally. Have never understood the logic, and still don't.

 

A take-out double shows tolerance for the unbid suits. Here there are 4 unbid suits, so a takeout double shows a balanced hand.

 

If you have a balanced hand sitting over a 1N opener, no information to suggest that you have a suit fit, or that you will necessarily find it if you have one, what makes you think that declaring will be better than defending?

 

And if it is "take-out" is there any hand that partner may be permitted to pass and convert to penalties? If so, what are those limitations?

 

And if it is for "take-out", what action do you take if you wanted to make a penalty double?

 

But I'll double whether it is or not.

To take the OP hand as an example, playing a take-out double, what is your follow-up plan when partner obeys your double and bids 2C?

[akwoo]

I see this occasionally. Have never understood the logic, and still don't.

 

The logic is that my partner and I suck at defense, and we declare a trick better than we defend, and the opponents similarly suck at defense. At club level, this is surprisingly frequently true.

 

(To be fair, w/w at MPs, there is the argument that +110 scores better than +100, and the penalty double is risky since -180 is worse than -100.)

[whereagles]

Here's a 1NT overcall structure that has "take-out" and penalty doubles. It's attributed to Johnathan Cansino

 

(1NT) ..??

 

Dbl = penalty. Any 16+, maybe less with suitable hands and/or vs. weak NT.

2♣ = 4+ hearts, 3+ clubs, 3+ in another suit, 10-15 H. The less HCP, the more three-suited the hand is. (4333 ok with a max, 4432 med, 4441 min, etc.)

2♦ = 4+ spades, 3+ diamonds, 3+ in another suit, 10-15 H. blabla.

2M = natural.

 

Works in 4th seat as well. If opps get busy, all subsequent redoubles are for take-out.

 

The novelty here is allowing overcalls on relatively balanced hands, which are by far the most common ones.

[1eyedjack]

It could just be an issue about disclosure.

 

Neither a penalty double nor a takeout double of 1NT is prescriptive in the way that it might be regarded against suit contracts.

 

White v red, presumably a conversion of takeout double to penalty on a balanced 15 count opposite the double is mandatory

And presumably removing a penalty double with a Yarborough and a 6 card Spade suit is no less automatic.

 

The demarcation between the two is reflected in the cut-off point that defines a minimum balanced hand double and, in consequence, the cut-off point at which you might, opposite such a double, consider converting by passing.

 

Describing the double simply as "penalty" or "take-out" is probably less than complete in either case.

 

The difference is that a double described as "penalty" is familiar territory for most players and as such requires little elaboration when all parties visualise the same expanded definition. I don't think that the same can be said for the "takeout" variety.

[Zelandakh]

Here's a 1NT overcall structure that has "take-out" and penalty doubles. It's attributed to Johnathan Cansino

Cansino and Sharples were practically the standard defences to a weak NT once upon a time in England. Only Cansino was given differently to the one you have, with 2♣ showing clubs and 2 other suits and 2♦ both majors. Sharples was closer with 2♣ showing spades and 2♦ showing short clubs. As a junior I played a variation with 2♣ showing short clubs and 2♦ showing clubs and 2 others.

 

The emphasis in defences like this is different from 2-suited ones. Rather than the hand with shape acting it is rather the hand with strength. And it is remarkable how often you can scramble to a playable contract. To be honest it was fun to play but there are better options around and just occasionally the best fit you can stop in is a 7 card minor at the 3 level.

 

You can also play 3-suited overcalls without giving up on 1 and 2 suited hands if you want. That is the basis of Marvin French's defence. His Strong NT defence runs something like

 

X = ♥; or ♥+♦; or ♥+♦+♣

2♣ = ♠; or ♠+♥; or ♠+♥+♦

2♦ = ♣; or ♣+♠; or ♣+♠+♥

2♥ = ♦; or ♦+♣; or ♦+♣+♠

2♠ = ♠ (weaker than 2♣)

2NT = ♣ or ♦ (weaker than 2♦/2♥)

3♣ = ♣+♥

3♦ = ♦+♠

3M = nat, strong

 

His weak NT defence works similarly but is more awkward due to using the double in the traditional way. I am not so fond of that but his ideas were an influence on the alternative defences I came up with.

[mikeh]

easy double. easy lead if they leave it in.

 

would double at imps, tho partner's passed hand status makes it riskier.

 

FWIW, my advice is that one should treat all opening 1N bids that have an upper limit of 14 or less as weak, and all that can include 15 counts as strong. It is a simple agreement and prevents misunderstandings when, for example, the opps announce 13-15, as was once quite common in some big club methods, and one of you thinks 'weak' and the other 'strong'.

 

This or a similar agreement is needed, imo, since one should play different methods against weak than strong, with different goals and expectations.

 

Against weak, my preference is that doubles are strength showing (treated as penalty, and pulled only with weakness OR significant shape, and in the latter case, pulled in a forcing method), and my preference is that double shows 15+.

 

We have 15, hence double. Indeed, it is easy because we expect to rattle off the 1st 4 tricks and by then know quite a bit about the hand.

[ArtK78]

FWIW, my advice is that one should treat all opening 1N bids that have an upper limit of 14 or less as weak, and all that can include 15 counts as strong. It is a simple agreement and prevents misunderstandings when, for example, the opps announce 13-15, as was once quite common in some big club methods, and one of you thinks 'weak' and the other 'strong'.

That is very close to the agreement that I have with most of my partners. The agreement that I have is that if the opponents' range includes 16, we treat it as a strong NT, but if the upper limit is less than 16, then we treat it as a weak NT. So you would count the 13-15 range as strong while I would treat it as weak.

[whereagles]

1. Cansino and Sharples were practically the standard defences to a weak NT once upon a time in England. Only Cansino was given differently to the one you have, with 2♣ showing clubs and 2 other suits and 2♦ both majors. (...)

 

2. The emphasis in defences like this is different from 2-suited ones. Rather than the hand with shape acting it is rather the hand with strength. And it is remarkable how often you can scramble to a playable contract. To be honest it was fun to play but there are better options around and just occasionally the best fit you can stop in is a 7 card minor at the 3 level.

 

3. You can also play 3-suited overcalls without giving up on 1 and 2 suited hands if you want. That is the basis of Marvin French's defence. His Strong NT defence runs something like

 

1. Hmm.. I see. Well, I got my Cansino version from a nebulous source. The person probably fiddled around with it before I got it.

 

2. I have good experiences from the modified version of Cansino I played. Can't remember having been caught speeding :)

 

3. Thx. I'll refrain from showing Marvin's defence to the person of #1 lol.

[broze]

I'm thinking I should have posted this without the J♠...

[mikeh]

I'm thinking I should have posted this without the J♠...

then I pass. One needs a dividing line somewhere. My subjective view of my extensive experience playing virtually every range of notrump opening bids, and defending, is that flat 14 counts ought to say pass. It's obviously close, since with 15 I double, but one has to make choices, and that is my dividing line.

[cherdano]

That may be the first time I have seen anyone suggest to treat 13-15 as a strong NT. That doesn't mean it's bad, obviously it's a close decision - but I would also think that treating it as strong is just a bit inferior. I think there is a reason that it has become popular to treat 14-16 as weak if the opponents like to upgrade into 1NT.

[rmnka447]

Double. Typically, I play these as higher end equal plus value hands or, if playing Cappelletti, penalty. So here my double would show a good 14 or decent 15 exactly what this hand is.

 

A bit more caution is needed when competing over a weak NT. But at some point if you don't compete, you'll find yourself getting stolen blind from the weak NTers. If partner has a good 9 or 10, game may be in the works -- even 3 NT. But if you pass this hand now, you may never get there, even if partner backs into the auction. With a max of 13 points in the remaining hands, there's a good possibility partner might not have enough to bid even though the par result would be a part score your way.

 

The danger is that NTer's partner might hold the 9 or 10 and you'd be stepping into big trouble. C'est la guerre.

 

In any case, the ♠ AKQJ are good leads versus NT and can provide a resting place and tricks if you get into trouble.

[Zelandakh]

I am another with Mike and Art but my dividing lines are 16 for a strong NT and 15+ with a good lead or any 16+ for a double. As a frequent player of a weak NT I see the opponents getting into trouble after a double on a nondescript 15 count time and time again and am fairly certain it is a long term loser, at least for intermediate pairs.

 

I suspect that it is actually better to look at the lower end of the range for deciding if a NT is strong or not, so a lower end of 13 or less = weak and 14+ = strong. That sort of coincides with Arend's observation of 13+-16 often being treated as weak too. But that requires slightly better agreements due to the generally more nebulous lower end of NT ranges than the top end.

[whereagles]

That may be the first time I have seen anyone suggest to treat 13-15 as a strong NT.

 

I played a 13-15 NT in a european championship some years ago and one of my opponents decided to treat it as strong. That was in 1996 I think.

[gwnn]

I don't like the idea of having the maximum of a range as a factor to distinguish a weak NT from a strong one. In particular, 12-15 is semi popular, and there is a pair in my club who even play 10-15 when NV. Should we really treat their NT as strong? I know that MikeH could beat them with his hands tied behind his back, but there are annoying systems like that at all but the highest levels and we shouldn't fall in their traps.