[the hog]

"Ok. What about any 14+?
Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx."

No this is not correct; a strong player who understands the nature of the weak NT will not do this. In the original thread I stated why this philosophy is losing tactics. You should have an absolute minimum of 15+ to X a weak NT. See Reese for some thoughts on dealing with WNT openings. (After all he should know).

To reiterate: It seems to me that the mania primarily manifested in US bridge of doubling a weak NT on any 13 count is predicated by the thought that the WNT is somehow robbing them. "How dare the opps open a 12-14 NT when normally it is 15-17?!" This is partly a MP attitude and partly due to misunderstanding th enature of the opening. Would you X a 1m opening on a flat 13 count? Probably not. I believe in penalty Xs over the WNT, but I also believe that bidding should be constructive. It is precisely because of this latter point that many have foregone the X as penalty in methods such as Lionel. This is going a bit far for me, but I love playing those opps who X on 13+, as more often than not they wind up in significant difficulties.

[awm]

Focusing on the 12-14 notrumps, let's compare the following two meanings of double:

(1) 15+ points, any shape.
(2) 11+ points and 4+/4+ in two non-touching suits (♠+♦ or ♣+♥).

For the first type, the frequency for the bid is about 7.8% of hands. Typically we will get a good result (either doubling the opponents or finding game) any time we have 22+ hcp between us. We will often get a bad result if we have 19 or fewer points, since 1NT will often make and because the double is so wide-ranging in terms of shape it can be hard to run out to a good spot at the two-level. We have 22+ points on 53.3% of hands and 19- points on 20.8% of hands. So this bid will get a good result roughly 53.3% and a bad result roughly 20.8%.

For the second type, the frequency for the bid is about 5.9% of hands. Typically we will get a good result whenever we have 22+ hcp between us. We will often get a bad result if we have 19 or fewer points and neither of doubler's suits provides us with an 8+ card fit. We have 22+ points on 38% of hands and 19- points without a fit in either of doubler's suits on 12.8% of hands.

So by this analysis, if we defend weak notrumps on 10,000 boards we would expect:

Using type (1) doubles, 416 really good results and 162 really bad results.

Using type (2) doubles, 224 really good results and 75 really bad results.

The net is better for type (1) doubles. Of course I've made several assumptions here, but I think most of them actually make type (1) doubles more favorable. In particular:

: I've assumed that every time we make a type (1) double and we have less than half the strength, it's bad. Of course this is not always true, since sometimes the opening side will run out anyway, or partner will have a long suit he can reasonably introduce.

: I've assumed that every time we double and our total assets are 22+ points things will go well for us. Of course this ignores the occasional hand where we double a making contract at the two-level with opponents holding most of the strength. It also ignores the fact that sometimes doubler has substantial "extras" and even though we have most of the values it is hard for our partnership to diagnose this. This second problem occurs much more frequently when doubler is 11+ since effectively this gives doubler a wider range.

: I've assumed that if double shows "two non-touching" and we have less than half the points and our eight-card fit is in a suit that doubler does not hold, we are in trouble. This may not be true all the time, but most of the methods I see for advancing this double (including the "multi" style stuff) pretty much assumes we are playing in one of doubler's suits.

: I've pretty much ignored the question of "what happens when we have 20-21 hcp?" With a type (1) double you probably end up defending most of the time, which might work out okay because most of our values are behind most of their values. With a type (2) double you will probably more frequently run out to two of a suit, which will usually be okay but occasionally not so much. I assumed that these results would normally be "neutral".

: I've only analyzed the results we get when we double combined with the double frequency and not considered the results for other bids. Obviously if the other bids are very different it will have a lot of effect. However, playing type (1) doubles has a very positive ripple effect on the rest of the system (all other calls are limited) whereas playing type (2) doubles seems to just let you get in on those particular hands when otherwise you couldn't (not so much positive ripple effect). I could be wrong here, but I'd bet the upshot of "non-double" calls tends to favor type (1).

: I've stuck to 12-14 notrumps throughout. If we reduce the range to 10-12 or 11-13, I'd expect things to be much more in favor of the type (1) double. Increasing the range to 13-15 or higher would have the opposite effect of course, but then this is why people don't play penalty doubles against strong notrumps (admittedly 13-15 is not always considered strong of course).

[MFA]

hrothgar, on Mar 12 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Finally, I ran a couple more sims studying how frequenty you're double in direct seat playing SCUM and Lionel.

Scum = 7.5%
Lionel = 7.6%

Was that:
any 11+ &
any 4-4 with the right suits?

Yum-yum

Of course you could set up liberal criteria that make your double come more frequently than the penalty (strong hand) double.

But the above are just not likely to help you to a good result. The penalty double is, and so is the absence of the penalty double when you bid something else and thus limit your hand better.

[MFA]

The_Hog, on Mar 12 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

"Ok. What about any 14+?
Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx."

No this is not correct; a strong player who understands the nature of the weak NT will not do this. In the original thread I stated why this philosophy is losing tactics. You should have an absolute minimum of 15+ to X a weak NT.

I don't agree. This is too conservative.

Quote

See Reese for some thoughts on dealing with WNT openings.

Hmm, this reference is too old.

Quote

(After all he should know)

I suppose you refer to his being English. Well, I'm from Denmark and roughly 80% of the Danish bridge elite play weak notrump. So we get lots of experience on this subject.

Quote

This is going a bit far for me, but I love playing those opps who X on 13+, as more often than not they wind up in significant difficulties.

Just to make sure: I'm not advocating 13+. Just saying that some 13hcp hands do double. And most 14s and 15s. Note that this actually means I could pass flat 15s!
Sure they might wind up in difficulties. Bidding over your own penalty double takes good agreements and some experience. These troubles have to be dealt with - you cannot just refuse to double in the first place.

Quote

Would you X a 1m opening on a flat 13 count? Probably not.

Well, I might! As you might know the expert style has moved dramatically towards these ugly one-level doubles on balanced and less-than-perfect shape.
I'm not talking Reese, but the last decade or two of Bermuda Bowls etc. People ARE getting robbed, if they don't interfere in these situations.

@ awm
Nice post.

[hrothgar]

Hi Adam:

Thanks for taking the time and effort for that last post. Regretfully, I don't think that I agree with some of your basic assumptions.

If forced to chose, I'd rather play a bidding structure that emphasizes shape than one that emphasizes range. (Ideally, I'd like to be able to describe both, but 1NT is a very preemptive bid). Using double (my cheapest possible bid) to show a rare point range without any qualifying information about shape just doesn't make sense. Moreover, the opponents will inevitable scramble (show me a competant weak NT pair who doesn't have a good run out scheme). As soon as this happens, partner is going to poorly positioned.

[the hog]

MFA, on Mar 13 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 12 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

"Ok. What about any 14+?
Most 14s and 15s would double, and some 13s too. So any 14+ should be a fair approx."

No this is not correct; a strong player who understands the nature of the weak NT will not do this. In the original thread I stated why this philosophy is losing tactics. You should have an absolute minimum of 15+ to X a weak NT.

I don't agree. This is too conservative.

Quote

See Reese for some thoughts on dealing with WNT openings.

Hmm, this reference is too old.

Quote

(After all he should know)

I suppose you refer to his being English. Well, I'm from Denmark and roughly 80% of the Danish bridge elite play weak notrump. So we get lots of experience on this subject.

Quote

This is going a bit far for me, but I love playing those opps who X on 13+, as more often than not they wind up in significant difficulties.

Just to make sure: I'm not advocating 13+. Just saying that some 13hcp hands do double. And most 14s and 15s. Note that this actually means I could pass flat 15s!
Sure they might wind up in difficulties. Bidding over your own penalty double takes good agreements and some experience. These troubles have to be dealt with - you cannot just refuse to double in the first place.

Quote

Would you X a 1m opening on a flat 13 count? Probably not.

Well, I might! As you might know the expert style has moved dramatically towards these ugly one-level doubles on balanced and less-than-perfect shape.
I'm not talking Reese, but the last decade or two of Bermuda Bowls etc. People ARE getting robbed, if they don't interfere in these situations.

@ awm
Nice post.

Needless to say I disagree with this. If you double on this sort of shite, your partner will have no idea what to do when holding a 4-5 count. In our partnerships you are expected to pass holding this sort of hand.

There may be a justification for your argument playing MPs, but at Imps I find it somewhat difficult to explain to partners why the opps made 1NT XX at my table, or why we went for 800 or so in a 2 level X contract.

You only get robbed if you play an inferior method of competing over 1NT such as Cappelletti for example.

[Impact]

I agree with Ron on the importance of double carrying an initial statement that it is probably our hand- save for the last part about Cappelletti which is awful against Strong NT but actually (slightly modified as I played it as effectively reverse gladiator), very effective against Weak NT!!

The other point is playing imps as opposed to matchpoints you should use 2NT overcall as a strong 2-suiter both to take it out of the realm of double (those double game swings are painful) and to ease your own responses (I play pivots and exclusions to ensure that the overcaller gets to show both suits and rebids).

regards

[glen]

Participating in this thread, via today's NABC bulletin Spring 07 NABC bulletin 5 , is Mike Cappelletti:

Cappelletti said:

"You need the penalty double. These fancy systems are giving up too much. If you have a balanced 16 or 17 points and they open 1NT in front of you, double is best in the long run. It's like blackjack: when dealer has 10, but you have 11, you should double down. On a particular hand it might not work, but in the long run it's best. Remember that you're 'over' the 1NT opener and
that you get to make the opening lead."

According to Cappelletti, whatever the range of the opponents' 1NT, double should show a good 14 or more.

On weak notrumps, he said, "If you don't double, but defeat 1NT by one or two tricks (plus 50 or 100), you get an inferior score at matchpoints or IMPs if you could have made 1NT yourself for plus 90 or plus 120.  "Also, it's important to compete against the weak notrump (with appropriate values). If you can show both majors, you're at a terrific advantage since your partner will have a good idea of what to do. I've run many, many computer simulations that show it's right to compete with the majors even if you're only 4-4 with hands as light as 10 or 11 high-card points."

What about the "modified" Cappelletti convention? "I can't stand it. Using 2♣ to show several possible hand types is inferior to just showing your major-minor two-suiters with 2♥ or 2♠. The problem with using 2♣ as first step in modified Cappelletti is that the opponents compete over 2♣, your side could wind up losing the major."

I guess if you play both majors can often be just 4-4, then using 2♣ to show both majors, with a 2♦ ask for better major, may just get you to a 4-2 fit. So maybe it makes sense to play 2♦ for the majors instead of 2♣ in a style where 4-4 is frequent.

Anybody seen these variations:

1) GIT - Get In There

Double: any hand that would double a one level minor suit opening, or would overcall 1NT, or would bid 2♣ over 1♦.

2♣: ♦s or both majors( any hand that would overcall one of a minor with a major and having four or longer in the other major, or any hand that would use Michaels)

2♦: Either ♥s or ♠s

2M: M + minor

2NT: Minors

2) MMW - Modified Meckwell

Double: Majors or ♣s. If advancer bids 2♣, 2♦ shows about equal majors and 2M shows both majors with better M.

2♣: ♣s & major, or ♦s

2♦: ♦s & major

2M: Natural

2NT: Minors