Defense to 1NT

[awm]

I was wondering if anyone has tried something like the following. When opponents open 1NT, double shows either: (1) Penalty (2) 5+♣ with an okay hand. Responder will often reveal which is the case by choosing to run or not. Assuming it goes (1NT)-X-(Pass) with pass being non-committal the idea would be that advancer passes with 4+♣ (figuring doubler probably doesn't have clubs) or with a good hand of his own (enough to defend opposite clubs and some 10-11 count). With fewer than three clubs he runs by bidding 2♣ or a long suit of his own. The main problem cases:

 

1. Doubler has clubs, but advancer has 4+♣ also and leaves it in. This is possible but not that likely. Even if it happens, they might go down when we run a bunch of club tricks off the top, or they might miss game in a major, etc.

2. Doubler has a penalty double, but advancer has 3-♣ and removes it. Possible, but it seems like responder is somewhat under the gun here, as he cannot know whether the double will be left in and with a really terrible hand may not want to pass.

 

Advantages include being able to defend with hands like 11 opposite 12 (the 11 having clubs) and having a way to bid clubs (compared against a straight penalty double, where you probably need 2♣ as something artificial).

[nullve]

Reminds me of this recent thread.

[steve2005]

One idea I saw double was penalty or a source of tricks in a minor usually 6+ card good suit, which expects to defeat 1N if partner has something.

You respond to double as you would to a strong NT with the exception that doubler can refuse a transfer and bid their minor instead.

[straube]

deleted

[newroad]

Hi AWM et al,

 

Check out the November 2015 Bridge World and the "DONK" defence, of which I play a slightly "switched" version (Direct 2♠ shows spades, DBL then 2♣ then 2♠ shows diamonds).

 

In short, DBL shows either

 

1. Penalty, or
   
2. Single-suited not spades (in my current version, at least)
   

otherwise, it's mostly like DONT with respect to the 2-suiters.

 

Advancer normally passes the DBL if they can stand the lead of a non-spade (no requirement that the balance of power is needed), bids something Lebensohlish style above 2♣ with shape, else 2♣ POC with nothing better to do (i.e. very weak and/or fears a lead of one of ♣/♦/♥)

 

In the event the auction proceeds (1NT) DBL (P) 2♣ (P) ?, then 2♦ shows a non-directional penalty DBL of 1NT (F1), 2♠ shows a diamond overcall as mentioned above, and everything else is also Lebensohlish - which gives three strength range ways to show each suit. Lebensohlish continuations also occur after the (1NT) DBL (P) 2♣ (P) 2♦ (P) ? auction.

 

Once in a while you pass 1NTX and they make it. Relatively more often, you pass and they don't make 1NTX. So, in that sense, it has a slightly randomising effect which anecdotally seems to be weighted to the upside.

 

Even more often than that, they don't Pass. As to the reason for this, you'd have to poll the opposition - sometimes they systemically can't, others, they choose not to. There is a suggestion in the thread that nullve linked to that this type of thing might somehow be borderline unethical, as the opponents may not expect it. However, NT defences are displayed fairly prominently on most systems cards (making an enquiry easy, and agreement as to what to do, in my view, simple) and my experience is that people who play SWINE and analogous forced redouble competitive devices usually disclose far less on a system card (if anything at all, or occasionally, just an acronym).

 

For what it's worth, I think the prevalence of such competitive devices makes this sort of defence additionally attractive (I say additionally, as I judge that it stands up satisfactorily against organised defence from good players) - as it either leaves them uncertain as to application, if "lazy", or takes away a device the opposition are comfortable with.

 

Regards, Newroad

[nullve]

I was wondering if anyone has tried something like the following. When opponents open 1NT, double shows either: (1) Penalty (2) 5+♣ with an okay hand.

How would you define 'penalty' here?

[Jinksy]

I haven't, but it sounds interesting enough that I might give it a go and/or try bidding it with myself with some BBO-dealt hands. If I do the latter I'll give some kind of report here.