Another defense over weak NT: please comment

[hotShot]

Defending against weak NT's there are a few things to consider.

 

1) Weak NT's are preempts

If there is no better fit, and the points are distributed equally to each side, usually the side that is allowed to play 1NT, scores well. If you bid 1NT at once there is a good chance that opps will find some loosing lead due to the lack of information.

 

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT

weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

 

3) Don't fear that you miss game with balanced hands

If is highly unlikely that you have game with balanced hands, if one of your opps has 12-14 HCP with a balanced hand too. So it is the unbalanced hands that might miss game. Balanced hands will bring you a partscore only.

 

4) Take the pressure of the 4th seat

If opener can hold 12-14, your partners bid is pass with 0-14 hcp (if balanced) and 3rd seat will pass with 0-10 hcp, the 4th seat has a big problem. Opps can hold 12-24 HCP, partner 0-14.

With these wide ranges partner can make more wrong decisions than right ones. So you should narrow them down by bidding in the second seat or live with the fact that a reopening in the 4th seat will have to be extra solid.

 

5) There is much to gain if you can play fit's at the 2 level. Even if it is a 8 or 7 card fit only.

This is why "DONT" and "Lionel" allow you to play on the 2 level.

But THERE IS ALSO MUCH TO LOOSE there.

 

If your defence system takes all of this into account, it is well defined.

[Chamaco]

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT

weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

 

Agree.

My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.

Partner can decide.

Sometimes you drive them in a better contract, sometimes they nail us, sometimes we nail them soetimes we find game.

 

There are risks associated in sticking the head vs weak NT but same vs a weak 2 or a preempt. So goes life.

 

 

3) Don't fear that you miss game with balanced hands

If is highly unlikely that you have game with balanced hands, if one of your opps has 12-14 HCP with a balanced hand too. So it is the unbalanced hands that might miss game. Balanced hands will bring you a partscore only.

Moreover, in this scenario, the likelihood is that one pard doubles and the other leaves it in.

 

 

I disagree with this statement.

When both of us hold a combined holding of 24 (even 23 if one of us has 5332), MANY times 3NT is cold.

This is because:

- you can play doubledummy, knowing which finesse is on

- lots of endplays vs the weaknotrumper: many times the weak notrumper is endplayed since the opening lead

- frequent squeeze possibilities (aall high cards in one hand)

 

I can (and probably will, but not today) run a simulation on this and post the hands.

 

 

4) Take the pressure of the 4th seat

If opener can hold 12-14, your partners bid is pass with 0-14 hcp (if balanced) and 3rd seat will pass with 0-10 hcp, the 4th seat has a big problem. Opps can hold 12-24 HCP, partner 0-14.

With these wide ranges partner can make more wrong decisions than right ones. So you should narrow them down by bidding in the second seat or live with the fact that a reopening in the 4th seat will have to be extra solid.

 

This is a good point and I appreciate it.

I will probably lower the range to 14-17 in direct seat for the double.

This will allow tu use a (12+)13-16 in the balancing seat, which sounds more prudent.

 

5) There is much to gain if you can play fit's at the 2 level. Even if it is a 8 or 7 card fit only.

This is why "DONT" and "Lionel" allow you to play on the 2 level.

 

I have not enough experience about Lionel, but DONT is discarded by most expert pairs vs weak NT.

This is because of the lack of definition of strength/shape.

 

It is imperative to know if pard has a REAL 2suiter or simply a balanced hand with 4432 both in constructive bidding (bidding close games) and when deciding to penalize (when they are nonvuln, penalizing when we have fit for pard's 55 VERY often results in a worse score than buying the contract).

 

So my choice is to have specific bids for real 2suiters, and scramble via a pseudostayman with balanced hands.

 

awg's suggestion of using 2D/H/S as "to play" and 2C as "pseudoBaron" (asks 4 bagger up the line) has merit.

[inquiry]

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT

weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

 

Agree.

My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.

Partner can decide.

I have to disagree. If you defense scheme it based upon the theory that it is not worth considering doubling 1NT for penalty when they open weak, you give your opponents liscences to steal. The one great fear to a weak or mini-NT is the opponents will double you. That is one of the two huge disadvantages to these 1NT opening bids (there are a lot of advantages to them). If you take away this threat, well, heck everyone would play them

 

Ben

[Chamaco]

2) Don't hope to penalty dbl 1NT

weak NT players have escape sequences to run, if they don't belief in making the contract. So if you can beat them big in NT, they won't play NT, they'll play something less expensive.

 

Agree.

My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing.

Partner can decide.

I have to disagree. If you defense scheme it based upon the theory that it is not worth considering doubling 1NT for penalty when they open weak, you give your opponents liscences to steal. The one great fear to a weak or mini-NT is the opponents will double you. That is one of the two huge disadvantages to these 1NT opening bids (there are a lot of advantages to them). If you take away this threat, well, heck everyone would play them

 

Ben

Ben, the meaning of my sentence is the following.

 

There are people who double meaning "I set 1NT on my own".

Others that double to show "I have more than xxx hcp", but not necessarily set them alone.

 

Doubling as cardshowing loses the option of one-sided penalty (e.g. the times where one player would set the contract on his own and his pard has a yarborough), but gains the times where the cardshowing double is left in by his pard (because the other doublers-who required to "see" 6-7 tricks in hand- would not double with such hand).

 

I am in the second category (cardshowing).

I:

- double with a balanced hand or with unbalanced battleship

- bid my shape with 1/2 suiters and minimum opener

- bid 3 of a suit with single suiter reverse

[whereagles]

Hum.. yeah, Ben is right. You have to be able to double a weak NT for penalties. Otherwise you're starting your auction at the 2-level, whereas the field is starting it at the 1-level. To compensate for this disadvantage, you have to capitalize on the occasions the weak NT is caught speeding :)

[Chamaco]

Hum.. yeah, Ben is right. You have to be able to double a weak NT for penalties. Otherwise you're starting your auction at the 2-level, whereas the field is starting it at the 1-level. To compensate for this disadvantage, you have to capitalize on the occasions the weak NT is caught speeding :)

 

Sure, you can capitalize also using cardshowing double (say a 15+ balanced) ;)

What is more frequent ?

A "pure" penalty hand (sets the contract alone) or a hand with "cards" (that would allow pard to leave the double in?

I think it is a matter of frequency of hand types and magnitude of losses/gains.

Of course in the frequency-magnitude analysis one should also include the hands where advancer is broke, so he'll pull the cardshowing dbl, and WE are going for a telephone number instead than opps.

 

The construuctive auction starts at the 2 level only for unbalanced hands, which are usually better suited for playing than penalizing.

[whereagles]

I would say after a weak NT on your right, a balanced 13-14 comes up fairly frequently, so it's probably better to double on this type of hand. Of course you'd prefer 16 or more for a balanced double, but that just doesn't happen so often. Another advantage of doubling on a balanced hand is pard will have an easy escape if he has a 5-carder. Sure, you can get into big trouble if you double on 13 and pard has a 5-count. But hey, it's a two-edged sword, like the 1NT itself.

 

Vs strong NT it's another story. You don't need a penalty double of a strong NT, so you might as well use that bid for something else.

[Chamaco]

Vs strong NT it's another story. You don't need a penalty double of a strong NT, so you might as well use that bid for something else.

Sure, all this thread does not deal at all vs strong NT

[Free]

I'm used to play 10-12 in 1st & 2nd seat (all vulnerabilities) and 12-14 in 3rd seat. I have to admit, the only fear we have is to get doubled for a number. We have a good escape sequence, but we can still get hit by a bus, especially when opps are NV. Being able to dbl for penalty is imo an obligation in your defense vs mini and weak NT.

[the hog]

Quote from Flytoox:

 

"Junyi's suggestion is certainly not bad as you suggest. Playing against weak NT, it is certainly ok to dbl with good 14. "

 

Please keep doing this while you are playing me, Fly, especially if we play for money!!

 

I have played and played against weak nt for more than 20 years. In my experience doubles with equal points are a huge losing proposition. However I have no doubt you have much more experience than I have in this area.

[Fluffy]

My experince against weak NT is nearly 0 sadly, not popular around here, but the common consense around, probably adopted from frenchs is that you should promise at least 1 more HCP than the opener.

[luke warm]

while i don't have ron's years of experience playing a weak nt, i do have a little... frankly, i've never worried too much about being doubled (maybe my matchpoint mentality)... sure i've gone for a zip code or two, but it's only one board... far more often it's the opps seem to end up badly (in my experience)... imo the weak nt is a big winner, for the preempt effect if nothing else (and there is a lot "else")

 

if you make a habit of doubling 12-14/15 nt with 14 hcp, i believe you'll pay the long run price... besides, the run out schemes are so good that if i ever find myself playing 1nt x'd (or xx'd), i honestly have no fears

[flytoox]

Quote from Flytoox:

 

"Junyi's suggestion is certainly not bad as you suggest. Playing against weak NT, it is certainly ok to dbl with good 14. "

 

Please keep doing this while you are playing me, Fly, especially if we play for money!!

 

I have played and played against weak nt for more than 20 years. In my experience doubles with equal points are a huge losing proposition. However I have no doubt you have much more experience than I have in this area.

I certainly do not have as much experience as you do. But frankly, I donot think either your or mine personnal experience proves much.

 

While you quote your criteria from Reese, I quote my criteria from Lawrence. Both are established bridge writers and I leave it to all to judge who is more influential in bidding theory.

 

When you score a lot from playing wk NT, it could be due to many factors. The simple factor that there are many world class players playing strong NT and many playing weak NT shows that weak NT, even if (this is a big IF by the way)it has any advantage over strong NT, can only be slightly superior to strong NT.

[Chamaco]

While you quote your criteria from Reese, I quote my criteria from Lawrence. Both are established bridge writers and I leave it to all to judge who is more influential in bidding theory.

Perhaps one point in favour of Reese is that he comes from a country where weak NT is routine, more than Lawrence.

 

I have the book of Lawrence "Doubles", but his section on defending vs weak NT does not look so confident and convincing as other sections where the reader "feels" the author is at ease: he does not deals with "nuances" such as the effects of methods in direct seat to balancer's obligations, and more stuff.

 

Instead, when dealing with other auction types, he is often very focus and povides usefu examples of bad and good things that can happen.

 

Just a feeling of mine, though, and I am certainly no expert.

[Guest Jlall]

i would tend to have 15+, but I agree that a good 14 could be acceptable (as long as its really good). just as you sometimes open 1N on 14. basically what youre saying about a good 14 is its worth 15, and theres nothing wrong with that.

[the hog]

Quote Flytoox:

 

"When you score a lot from playing wk NT, it could be due to many factors. The simple factor that there are many world class players playing strong NT and many playing weak NT shows that weak NT, even if (this is a big IF by the way)it has any advantage over strong NT, can only be slightly superior to strong NT. "

 

Very curious. I do not think Mauro meant this thread to be a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the Weak vs Strong NT, so I do not see the relevancy of this comment to the discussion at all.

[awm]

In answer to some questions:

 

After 1NT-X-Pass, advancer's first priority is to pass with 6+ points. If doubler has a balanced hand, then oftentimes defending 1NT will be right. Typically the opening side will not sit for 1NTX holding less than half the points, and most often the pass will be forcing and the start of some kind of runout. Even if doubler has some shapely hand, usually he will get another chance to bid. With 0-5 points, advancer bids a 5+ card suit if any. This will normally be left in by partner, unless the doubler holds a distributional hand (will introduce a natural suit of his own, which is NF if not a jump) or substantial extras (will raise or bid 2NT). With 0-5 points and no 5-card suit, advancer can pass if opponents' pass was forcing. Sometimes opponents run from 1NTX anyway (especially if doubler has more than 15 hcp). If not we can run after the forced redouble. If opponents pass was to play and advancer holds 0-5 with no 5-card suit, then 2♣ starts a scramble. We have no particularly specific agreements about these auctions beyond that; frequently watching the opponents tempo is extremely helpful here. My general tendency as doubler is to bid a five card suit (if any) and otherwise pass the two club call, planning to redouble for rescue later if not holding a club suit.

 

After 1NT-X-some bid, if the bid is totally artificial (i.e. a transfer) then double simply shows cards (6+ points). This lets partner know it's our hand. If the bid is a suit (either single suited, or that suit plus another) then double is takeout. This helps us reach our own 4-4 fits, and still keeps open the option to defend doubled when it's right. Passing normally shows either a weak hand (0-5 points) or desire to defend the opponents contract doubled when partner balances. If the suit bid is passed back to doubler, his double is also takeout. Note that this is not necessarily a forcing auction. A new suit bid by advancer in this auction tends to deny interest in defending the opponents contract doubled, and should show five or more cards in the suit bid and at least moderate values. I normally play these bids as forcing one round (but not to game) and about 6+ points.

 

As regards two-suited hands, I have found that finding major suit fits is very important. Thus I like being able to bid 2♣ stayman with a major two suiter, or major plus longer minor. On the other hand, minor suit fits tend to be less important. Five of a minor is a less frequent game to make. In particular I find that holding a five-card major, it is not particularly important to be able to show a side four card (or often even five card) minor suit.

 

On the other hand, I have found that actually showing the single suit directly is very valuable. Sometimes the auction goes something like: 1NT-2♦ (any one suit)-3♦ (to play). We need to compete to the three level with about half the deck and a good major fit. But advancer doesn't know whether we have a good major fit -- overcaller could have either major, or even have clubs. A natural suit bid could simply be raised. On the other hand, consider: 1NT-2♣ (unknown TWO-suiter) - 3♦ (to play). If advancer has a fit for two of the three unbids, a takeout double is quite safe. This is quite different from the situation after the 2♦ bid when advancer needs a fit for all THREE unbids. Also, there is substantial merit to playing doubles as penalty after partner shows a known single suited hand. But with a two-suiter, we can often rely on partner to balance with a takeout double anyway, at least when holding maximum values and shortage in the enemy suit.

[Chamaco]

On the other hand, I have found that actually showing the single suit directly is very valuable. Sometimes the auction goes something like: 1NT-2♦ (any one suit)-3♦ (to play). We need to compete to the three level with about half the deck and a good major fit. But advancer doesn't know whether we have a good major fit -- overcaller could have either major, or even have clubs. A natural suit bid could simply be raised.

 

......

I agree on this point.

Actually, an approach quite popular vs *strong* NT at the local club is the following:

 

X = minor 1suiter

2C = Landy (54 or better in majors)

2D/2H = transfer overcall, may be a 2suiter

2S = Raptor hand with 4 spades, NF

2NT = minorsv 2suiter

3m = Raptor with 4H and minor suit bid

 

Despite the fact that people employ this vs strong NT, I had thought of employing a variant of it, vs mini/weak NT, using X as "penalty".

 

I like how it deals with major-based as well as Raptor hands.

 

However, it does discriminate less the balanced hands AND the minor 1suiter: 15-17, 18-20 and 21+ balanced, as well as long minor hands are all lumped into dbl.

 

Comments ?

(Keep in mind that I do not like to be forced to double only with hands "with a good lead", especially minor 1 suiter: I'd like a defense that allow me to bid also with a minor single suiter and a better than minimum opener- even without a good lead -, without being hung by pard that penalty passes with a few hcp: so basically I want to be able t resolve between various balanced hand ranges AS WELL AS minor one suiter)

 

One approach could be to use:

2D and 2H as "multi-bid", e.g.

 

2D = EITHER xfer to H OR 18-20 bal

2H = EITHER xfer to S OR 21+ bal

 

This would leave double as EITHER 15-17 OR minor single suiter.

Alternatively, double could be further "cleaned" into ONLY (14)15-17 balanced, and 2C would also become multi, e.g.: EITHER single suiter in a minor OR 54+ or better in both majors.

[awm]

I'm not sure how important it is to be able to show these huge balanced hands over the 1nt opening. First, they almost never come up. Second, when they do come up the right action could easily be to penalize the opponents in 1NT or wherever they run. Third, what is the meaning of doubling the 1nt and then rebidding 2nt after partner (or opponents) run from 1NTX? Seems like it should show a balanced hand which is substantially stronger than 15-17, so at least one range can be captured by that sequence.

 

Astro, while old-fashioned, is actually a fairly effective defense and not too disimilar to what you describe. If I recall, it's something like:

 

2♣ = 4+ hearts and another suit; partner bids 2♦ to relay unless holding a weak hand with a heart fit or holding a suit of his own; then 2♥ by overcaller shows 5+ hearts and a (usually shorter) second suit, other bids natural and show the canape hand (4 hearts, longer other suit).

 

2♦ = same idea with spades

 

2♥/2♠ = natural one-suited

 

X = penalty, either 15+ (any) or lighter with a natural lead in a minor suit

[Chamaco]

I'm not sure how important it is to be able to show these huge balanced hands over the 1nt opening. First, they almost never come up.

 

The idea is that when yo have a HUGE hand, you won't be able to penalize because pard will pull way too often.

 

Of course, if depends which school of double you are:

 

1- if your doubles mean "I set them alone", then doubling with balanced nìbattleship will fare well (hopefully) because pard will lave it in even holding close to nothing;

but on the other hand the frequency of you doubles, and of your overall action, will be much lower, and put much pressure onn balancer (or lose many penalties or game opportunities where hcp are split and neither you nor pard has a battleship);

 

2- if your doubles show only "cards" (14+ or 15+ or 16+, according to style), but do not guarantee to set the contract, a broke responder will often pull. So in this case (doubler has, say, 18-20 balanced), the doubler will have a hard time bidding on if pard pulls, either missing games, or overbidding (the usual problem being "pard is weak, but by how much? Can we have game on anyways ? ").

Even when doubler rebids, there is a need to discriminate 18-20 vs 21+ balanced hands. The schemes I mentioned are geared towards that.

 

Also, both Mike Lawrence and other authors (incluing Rosenkranz) suggest using direct 2NT overcall over a weakNT to show the 20+ balanced hand: this is because they know from experience that when you have too strong a hand, you won't be able to penalize (pard will pull too often), so after all better show the strength right away giving up penalty hopes but easing constructive bidding.

 

 

Basically, the schemes I mentioned:

- give up hopes of penalty with very strong (18-20) and huge hands (21+),

- give up hopes of penalty with a (semisolid) suit to run (but usually in that case opps have also a long suit and they'll play a partscore there;

- give up hopes of penalty when we are unbalanced (but here too, responder will often be unbalanced as well and have a decent place to run)

- maintains the possibility of cooperative penalties with pard when one hand ahs a 14-17 and the other has, say (7+)8-9+ hcp.

 

The latter option, not only is more frequent, but is usually also more effective than having a single strong balanced hand doubling unilaterally for penalty: defense plays better when hcp are well split between us and pard, rather than when one defender holds all the strength.

Of course, it also includes additional risks when the doubler hits a broke pard and opps double.

 

 

Third, what is the meaning of doubling the 1nt and then rebidding 2nt after partner (or opponents) run from 1NTX?

Seems like it should show a balanced hand which is substantially stronger than 15-17, so at least one range can be captured by that sequence.

 

That makes sense, and actually was implemented in the first defense I posted.

 

Astro, while old-fashioned, is actually a fairly effective defense and not too disimilar to what you describe. If I recall, it's something like:

......

 

Yes but in constructive bidding I want a defense that guarantees whether the major is 4 or 5+ in length.

I can live with 2-suiters that guarantees 54+ *if holding both majors*, but when it is *major-minor* I want to be sure if the major has 4 cards OR if it has 5+.

 

I like 2-suited overcalls that only promise 4 cards as preemptive bids, e.g. vs strong NT (at the right vuln). It does hinder opps bidding machinery and the relaxed criteria guarante a higher frequency of use and damage.

 

BUT, when opps open a mini/weak NT, when bidding starts one level higher, I want my 2-suiter to be more accurate, to be able to bid close games with subminimum values IF FIT is there (e.g. if my pard REALLY has a 5 c major , and not just a 4 card with longer minor).

This is very important to me.

[whereagles]

I can live with pard pulling out a 18-20 double. At least we'll have a play for our 2-level contract :)

[the hog]

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

[Chamaco]

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Ron,

in your agreements, what are the obligations of balancer when bidding goes:

1NT-p-p-?

 

What is the minimum HCP strength required for doubling in the balancing seat with a balanced hand (remember, using double to show a balanced hand only and not including a long suit with a good lead) ?

[whereagles]

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Well, what happens is I waive the penalty when points split 18-5 or 19-4, but I get more penalties when points split 14-9 or 15-8. I think the later two are more likely, so I'd say you get more penalties when you double light.

 

Still, you can use statistics here. Say you want to double opps when points split 22-18 or more. Let's assume a 12-14 NT. That's 12-13 on average (the low end is more likely than high end). Let's say average is 12,5. If you double on 14, there will be 13,5 between pard and LHO. That should split 6,75 for each, so in average your side has 20,75. Say 21. Thus 14 is not enough, unless you want to trap opps also on 21-19 splits.

 

So yeah, basically you should double on 15-16+ if you want safety, or on 14+ if you want to risk a bit. An easy corollary is the lower end of the double goes slightly down as the NT also goes down.

[flytoox]

Ok Whereagles, and this is the whole problem with partners pulling doubles, isn't it. THey open 1N (X) P you hold a 5 count; do you pull? The proponents of the 14+ double would, I guess, and this is SO wrong!!!!

Whether to pull or not doesnt depend on your point, but depend on your shape. No matter how much hcp pd's dbl shows, you should not pull unless you have shape AND a weak hand. A weak hand doesnot justify a pull.