[jmc]

The defense below is roughly based on that suggested in "The Weak NT: How to play it, How to Play Against It" by Andy Stark. My regular partners and I adopted it as below to give some definition to our defense of weak NT's.

Please take a look and tell me what you like and dislike. If you have a more comprehensive system or other suggestions, please post.

jmc

Constructive Defense over Weak NT using Cappelletti

Double of a weak NT opener (in either direct or balancing seat) shows about 1 point better than the top of the opponents’ 1NT range. The double could be one point lighter with a VERY easy lead, say from KQJ10 or AKJ10. If the opponents pass after 1NT - dbl, then partner should pass with some values (5+) and can run using the same system as if partner opened 1NT (4 suit transfers etc.).

Two-level Cappelletti overcalls (see below) show the same point range as the opponents’ 1NT. Partner cannot have a hand that was good enough to double if he overcalls. Advancer will invite game with a good fit and 11-12 hcp and generally force to game with 13+ hcp.

After a weak 1NT by the opponents, our direct and balancing seat jumps to the 3 level are normal 7-card preempts.

After making a penalty dbl of 1NT, we cannot sell out to an undoubled contract by the opponents below 2S. Passes are forcing until this point. That means when the auction goes 1NT – dbl – 2H that our side will either dbl 2H, play 2S or higher, or let the opponents play 2S or higher. Once we have entered this forcing situation, doubles show shortness in the opponents run-out suit, 6+ points, and are for take-out unless partner can pass holding some length (3+cs).

A sample hand follows.

[jmc]

---

Auction is as follows starting with South.

1NT 11-14
DBL 15+
RDBL requests S bid 2C so N can show a 1 suited hand
P awaiting developments, shows values, else runs out with a bid
2C as requested by rdbl
P 3+ c, would dbl with C shortness for t/o depedning on E length in c
2D norths suit
p E has 3 or more diamonds, with less dbl for t/o depedning on W length in D
P
Dbl W has 2 or fewer diamonds and dbls to show length in the other suits
p
P Let’s play here and thank you for the take out dbl partner

[1eyedjack]

If you want to see the full gamut of defenses to 1NT - in overview not in depth, have a look at
http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm

Personally I am not a fan of Capp, mainly because I don't want to leave advancer in the dark about the location of my single suit. It is not so bad if the opponents remain silent, but they have a habit of not being so.

There is a growing trend to use double to show a distributional feature. Not got on well with it myself but a lot of players swear by it and the trend is in that direction so cannot be ignored.

Not sure why you play take-out doubles of 2 minor when they run, given that as you say pass is forcing. I have often wondered what the gain is there, and never seen a really convincing case for it. In your example hand West could double 2C for penalties, ie having a penalty pass in anticipation of partner's protective takeout double. Likewise East could double 2D for penalties, always assuming playing penalty not takeout doubles there.

On the example hand, sitting North I might have passed partner's 2C, especially if I know that neither opponent can make a penalty double. If they do double then I can run to 2D - same end point but given myself extra chances. It is a bit of a risk when vulnerable because you are going in hundreds, but would have been a no brainer non-vul.

Personally I play pass is forcing over 2 minor (and doubles for penalties), but once they reach 2 Major I play pass as non-forcing (and double for take-out). At least at IMPs I do. Perhaps at MP scoring there is more of a case for everything forcing.

Anyway, if you do a search of this board you should find a lot of threads on a similar vein.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Mar 24 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

There is a growing trend to use double to show a distributional feature.

Against a weak NT? Really?

Quote

Not sure why you play take-out doubles of 2 minor when they run, given that as you say pass is forcing.  I have often wondered what the gain is there, and never seen a really convincing case for it.

I think it's nice to play dbl as optional in an forcing-pass situation. Then a pass becomes either penalty or t/o and almost forces partner to double. This is convenient when you have the t/o variant of the pass: since you "know" that partner will double, you know how much bidding space you'll have to describe your hand.

Playing dbl as t/o has the disadvantage that you cannot penalize opps when both partners have 3 trumps. Not sure how important that is in this context.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Mar 24 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Mar 24 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

There is a growing trend to use double to show a distributional feature.

Against a weak NT? Really?

Yes, that was not a misprint. Locally a few of the top players are using it to show a 2-suited hand including Spades. And I recall some discussion in these forums several months back along similar lines.

helene_t, on Mar 24 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote

Not sure why you play take-out doubles of 2 minor when they run, given that as you say pass is forcing.  I have often wondered what the gain is there, and never seen a really convincing case for it.

I think it's nice to play dbl as optional in an forcing-pass situation. Then a pass becomes either penalty or t/o and almost forces partner to double. This is convenient when you have the t/o variant of the pass: since you "know" that partner will double, you know how much bidding space you'll have to describe your hand.

Playing dbl as t/o has the disadvantage that you cannot penalize opps when both partners have 3 trumps. Not sure how important that is in this context.

So it seems that you gain the ability to double when trumps are evenly divided between the defence, but lose the ability when the hand in the passout seat would have converted for penalties a take-out double made by direct seat, as that direct seat has to pass initially and would then presumably remove the double. So far it seems to be swings and roundabouts.

Perhaps the even trump split is more frequent, and when they are 3-3 between the defenders you gain. Also if they are breaking badly but with the trumps stacked under declarer it is not the ideal positioning.

[whereagles]

I read that book and disagree with just about everything he says there that is non-trivial ^^

[Gerben42]

Quote

I read that book and disagree with just about everything he says there that is non-trivial ^^

I agree with this, I also bought and read it, and felt after reading that I wish I hadn't bought it...

[jmc]

Could you provide some examples about what things you found you didn't like?

I thought he made some good thought out points.

jmc

[jikl]

I remember one time really screwing with the opponents at the table, we were not vul, they were vul and I found out at the table that they used only take out doubles after 1NT-X. So I watched them squirm as we played in our 2-1♦ fit, they both knew they had 4-5♦ each but couldn't really do anything

We went 4-5 off, can't remember, they were cold for 3NT.

Sean

[whereagles]

jmc, on Mar 25 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

Could you provide some examples about what things you found you didn't like?

I thought he made some good thought out points.

jmc

For example: the author claims you can still play support dbls with a weak NT, which, in my opinion, is rather ridiculous for technical reasons.

So, why does he say that? Because he wants to keep it as simple as possible, so that people join the weak NT club. The fact the weak NT implies some non-trivial changes is simply swept under the rug and I hate that.

[Vilgan]

Gerben42, on Mar 25 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Quote

I read that book and disagree with just about everything he says there that is non-trivial ^^

I agree with this, I also bought and read it, and felt after reading that I wish I hadn't bought it...

I play the micro NT with my main partner and weak NT with my girlfriend, and so went ahead and read through the Weak NT book.

I did not gain one single bit of useful information from this book. The things it suggests are either so blatantly obvious that a novice should know, or (imo) are frequently flawed.

A few things that I personally disliked about the book:

The suggested runout. While DONT is easy for people to remember... especially since some already play it against NT, its not (imo) an ideal runout.

No mention of dealing with auctions where you have a strong NT but get interference after you open 1 of a minor. When to bid, when not to bid, etc. This is the most complex part of playing weak NT's (imo) and it was COMPLETELY ignored in the book.

Suggesting systems on over 1NT X P is rather poor judgement imo. There are some who do this, but as someone who plays a weak NT a lot, I LOVE it when I see opps who do this. Now they can't escape to a minor short of the 3 level.

Anyways.. obviously a lot of opinion stuff so YMMV, but just thought I'd add my voice to those that thought this book was useless.

Eric

[jmc]

Eric,

I am curious what your prefered run out would be over the weak NT? I found his DONT recomendations fairly interesting. I currently play SWINE and I dislike having to play 1NT-x-P as either weak run out or wanting to play 1NT doubled and redoubled.

I agree that take out dbl after starting with a penalty dbl can be a bit difficult when the opponents psyche a 2 level run out, but at the level I play this is pretty unusual.

I am interested in other strategies against the weak NT but other than the one I proposed I rarely here of other methods that are very detailed. I think part of the problem is that judgment is necesary in these situations and its not easy. Thats why the weak NT can be such a devastating weapon.

jmc

p.s. I'd like to here what methods the better players here use over the weak nt? Are they highly structured, more by feel, etc?

[whereagles]

90% of the problems of overcallers over a weak NT are not judgement issues but rather inadequate or incomplete follow-ups.

[awm]

In terms of what to do when our 1NT gets doubled, there are several decisions you need to make.

(1) Do you want to be able to play 1NTX? I've found that this is actually fairly desirable, as there are often hands when you have "a bit less than half" the values and a very balanced hand opposite, and are willing to risk 1NTX-1 (which could be an ok result anyway) but don't want to mess with 1NTXX-1. On the other hand, if pass is to play it reduces your number of runout sequences available to scramble to the best 2-level partial.

If you want to be able to play 1NTX, then I think DONT-style runouts are actually pretty decent. In principle you might want to reverse it so XX is clubs or two-suited without clubs, 2♣ is clubs and another, and 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ are natural, since there is some chance your side will want to compete further when responder has the one-suiter and not so much when responder has a two-suited hand (which could be 4-4).

(2) If you don't care about playing 1NTX, then do you want a direct "business" redouble? The advantage here is that you can set up a clear forcing pass auction to maximize the chances of hammering opponents. If "pass forces redouble" then if either opponent runs before the redouble is passed by responder, the auction is not clearly forcing. This makes it harder to figure out when to double and when to compete. Personally I've had some frustrating experiences with directors ruling that 1NT-X-Pass(forcing)-Slow Pass-XX(forced)-Pull is okay (slow pass "did not suggest pulling") which leads me to especially like the business redouble.

If you want 1NT-X-XX to be for business, then I like suction runouts. Here XX is business, Pass is a weak hand, either one-suited clubs or any two suiter but majors, and other bids show either the next suit up or the two above that (so 1NT-X-2♣ is either diamonds or both majors). After 1NT-X-Pass-Pass, opener is supposed to bid 2♣ with 3+♣ and otherwise XX. After 2♣ responder can pass with clubs or with clubs and another suit, or otherwise pull to show the suit bid and a higher. After XX, responder bids clubs with clubs only, or otherwise bids any suit he holds other than clubs. This does enable opponents to "show values" on some hands where responder has a one-suited runout, but it has the advantage of "right siding" a number of contracts which can be very beneficial on these auctions.

(3) If you don't care about playing 1NTX, and you don't feel you need a business redouble, then you have a lot of options. One possibility would be to play something like Lionel, where XX is spades and another suit, 2-something is natural, and pass is either to play 1NTXX or a two-suiter without spades.

[jmc]

Adam, I like your suggestions and I know you have offered them in several threads I have read here. At one point I was convinced that being able to play 1NT-X was a great thing. My concern is what responder should do after 1NT-x- when he has the game forcing hand at both red. 1NT x making 3NT is not terrible, maybe its a good gamble.

I am really curious what agreements you have when you play against weak nt's. What system do you use and how do you run, invite, penalize etc.

jmc

[whereagles]

The SWINE structure has some technical flaws, but those flaws can be fixed with some minor tweaks, after which it becomes a pretty good method.

[Echognome]

I personally prefer the very simple XX for business, Pass = weak (rescue yourself if you like), bids are natural, but you may later XX for rescue.

I don't really mind if my pass is near a business XX and partner pulls, as we are probably in the better part-score anyway.

The disadvantage with this method is that you can scramble for fits and sometimes play in a 4-3 with a 4-4 available. You also will have a hard time bidding some hands like a 2=4=3=4 where if you bid clubs and it's doubled you have to stick it out for fear of being doubled in your 4-2 spade fit and having to play at the 3-level.

I'm not averse to other methods, but I've found this one pretty darn effective and 'extremely' easy on the memory.

By the way, the biggest gains I've found are playing the business XX.

[awm]

As a sort of interesting side note, it can be right to aggressively redouble. Suppose you're doubled in 1NT. Your scores NV are:

Making: +180
Down One: -100
Down Two: -300

If you redouble:

Making: +560 (Win 9 to +180)
Down One: -200 (Lose 3 to -100)
Down Two: -600 (Lose 7 to -300)

So if you figure down one and down two are about equally likely, then you only need to be making about 35% of the time to break even by redoubling. If you think down two is unlikely, you only need to be making 25% of the time. Because of the game bonus for making 1NTXX, you really don't need to be "sure of making" for redoubling to be a reasonable action.

Of course there are still hands like 4333 zero-counts where there's no particular reason to think you will get even down two, and you just want to go for a quiet -500 in 1NTX instead of running to a 4-3 fit at the two-level and risking -800 or -1100.

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Mar 28 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

As a sort of interesting side note, it can be right to aggressively redouble. Suppose you're doubled in 1NT. Your scores NV are:

Making: +180
Down One: -100
Down Two: -300

If you redouble:

Making: +560 (Win 9 to +180)
Down One: -200 (Lose 3 to -100)
Down Two: -600 (Lose 7 to -300)

So if you figure down one and down two are about equally likely, then you only need to be making about 35% of the time to break even by redoubling. If you think down two is unlikely, you only need to be making 25% of the time. Because of the game bonus for making 1NTXX, you really don't need to be "sure of making" for redoubling to be a reasonable action.

Of course there are still hands like 4333 zero-counts where there's no particular reason to think you will get even down two, and you just want to go for a quiet -500 in 1NTX instead of running to a 4-3 fit at the two-level and risking -800 or -1100.

I may be mistaken but I think you assume that you are IMPing up against 1N doubled in the other room. Perhaps you should be IMPing against par in the other room?