[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-08, 07:32, said:

Terminology: Doubles of a weak NT which show a strong NT shouldn't really be called penalty, but they are quite workable. West's Double isn't one, no matter what they call it, but East apparently takes the word "penalty" seriously.

Even though I am not fond of West's double here, If they had a "systems on" agreement as in response to a strong NT the comfortable Diamond partial would be reached. And even without systems on, if East believes double shows a strong NT, he should simply remove to 2D.

We would be playing in an ugly 2S, which might push with 3D.

Terminology: Doubles of a weak NT which may include (some) strong NT's shouldn't be equated to "showing a strong NT."

[ahydra]

Thanks for all the useful replies - a wide variety of opinions here, from blaming West to East to North (!) to the system.

I was East. Our agreements are that X of weak 1NT shows at least "a good 15". I pointed out to partner that a 6322, broken suit with lots of side Jacks doesn't look like a good 15, but he said it was just unlucky that dummy hit with four spades, if some of those spades were in my hand then it would go down. The point some people have made about the CQ is a good one - partner should have known not to cover to resolve the guess, especially given that he often uses the J-to-K trick himself to induce a cover - but to be honest declarer would likely have run the J if partner had ducked.

The question of whether I should pull to 2D is an interesting one. If anything that would show nowhere near what I have (normally running from 1NTX implies you can't stand it at all) and so I should bid 3D; but if partner had, say, a 17 balanced then we would likely get a nice penalty. Of course, the fact that the first trick is likely to be a cheap spade trick for declarer probably indicates I should have pulled it.

As for changing the system - I doubt we will. We've got a number of good penalties out of 1NTX and 2somethingX in the past and my partner is particularly fond of the ability to do this; additionally, our system is already fairly complex so changing it would just add memory strain.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

We haven't found it to be a strain on the memory to show a NT hand, and then have a NT sequence with all its toys. The penalties still come when Partner of the doubler is balanced.

[gwnn]

And how did you find it when you had an 18-count with 6 spades and you had to decide between showing 11+ with (5)6+ spades or 15-17 balanced? Didn't that feel like straining something?

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2013-September-09, 14:07, said:

And how did you find it when you had an 18-count with 6 spades and you had to decide between showing 11+ with (5)6+ spades or 15-17 balanced? Didn't that feel like straining something?

If I had that, the double would not produce a strain. OP didn't have that.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-09, 14:24, said:

If I had that, the double would not produce a strain. OP didn't have that.

so your double does not show a strong NT, does it? I don't get it.

[gwnn]

awm wrote a very eloquent post a while back on why playing "systems on" here is pretty terrible:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__350922

Of course learning 1 system rather than 2 sounds nice (I even had partners who insisted on playing stayman and transfers over 1H/1S!) but I think there's a limit to everything.

[rmnka447]

If the penalty double is based on the agreement of upper end equal values or better (pretty common these days), then East definitely has to pull it. If doubler is at or near the bottom of the agreed penalty range, then the opponents will have about half the points. In that case, defeating 1 NT may be a problem. Dummy will have some values (~6-8 points), so Declarer is a bit less likely to be stuck playing out of his own hand.

Additionally, Strong NT pairs are going to open the hand in 1 of a suit. Against them, East can see West with a flat hand will double if short in the suit or presumably pass/bid 1 NT with values in the suit. Under these circumstances, most Easts are going to end up bidding ♦s anyway.

Finally, East's hand isn't really conducive to defending 1 NT. It'll likely only contribute many tricks if partner can find an inspired and readable ♦ lead AND ♦s can be set up before the ♣ entry is forced out.

So I'll give East 60% of the blame.

West gets 40% of the blame for doubling with that hand. I think the choice is between passing and bidding ♠s. I'd probably bid the ♠s.

[VM1973]

West 100% as he led the 3♠ despite not having it.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2013-September-09, 14:46, said:

so your double does not show a strong NT, does it? I don't get it.

Partner assumes a strong NT. On occasion the doubler has a whopper. You could probably come up with a few instances where this would be a problem --like we probably can't break a transfer with a mere 18 and a questionable 6-card suit. The overcall of a weak NT is not a piece of cheese, however; so, a scattered 18 with a questionable suit might choose the simple 2-bid as the overcall.

[kenberg]

If I double, it shows good values. In borderline cases, I like to think that I have an opening lead that probably won't blow a trick, since sometimes declarer will have 6 or 7 tricks depending a little on luck.

Once, against a strong NT, I douled holding six spades to the AKQJ, and an outside Ace. After I took my seven tricks declaerer announced he would call teh director because my X showed 15 points and I didn't have them. His partner managed to talk him out of this.

My thinking for overcalling 2♠ rather than doubling is that at tables where 1m is the opening bid, I will overcall 1♠ and more often than not I will be getting to at least 2♠. Not so probably on the actual layout, but still it's often the case that we can plat 2♠.

Of course DONT would work well here, X showing a single suit, 2♦ by partner saying he doesn't want to hear my suit because he has a good idea of what it will be and he doesn't like it. But I don't think even LC particularly recommends DONT against weak NTs. So I just bid 2♠.

I don't run across the weak NT nearly as often as the strong NT, so I am interested in hearing from those with broader experience whether they think my reasoning on 2♠ is sound or nuts.

[the hog]

Ken, I think your reasoning is sound. I really would not double on this hand. I would bid a systemic way to get to S.
Of course if you are playing SOAP you might play in 2D.
(1NT) 2D - all pass. Where 2D is a transfer to S
However this is too esoteric.
I remember reading a book by Reese, where he discussed action over a wnt. His comments were that to double on an average flat 15 count is losing strategy. I also remember a discussion with Bill Jacobs, the author of the book on Fantunes. Bill's comment was that he plays wnt because it is a huge winner. It deals with the 12-14 hands very well, but there is also the side benefit that some players get overly aggressive against it. He said that in his experience Nth American players in particular tended to x or bid over 1NT with most any 12 count or so. The wnt makes huge gains in this area where players overcall or x on unsuitable hands. We even see come comments in this post along similar lines. "You must x or you will get killed" or similar. This is simply incorrect, based on the analysis of many hands made by Bill.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-09, 18:08, said:

Partner assumes a strong NT. On occasion the doubler has a whopper. You could probably come up with a few instances where this would be a problem --like we probably can't break a transfer with a mere 18 and a questionable 6-card suit. The overcall of a weak NT is not a piece of cheese, however; so, a scattered 18 with a questionable suit might choose the simple 2-bid as the overcall.

Any thoughts on awm's post? Other than "oh well it has always worked great for us."

[rmnka447]

Thanks Ken and Hog for your comments. They are most apropro.

My own experience playing weak NTs with my favorite partners for over 30 years pretty much reflect your comments. The most effective opponents have been the folks making solid calls against us.

If you want to venture in the auction with flimsy values and/or flimsy suits over a weak NT, be prepared for getting your head handed to you fairly frequently. Everyone seems to forget that the NT bidder's partner can have fairly substantial values even with a passing hand. There have been literally hundreds of hands over the years where the opponent's intervened and responder held 9-10 and a stack so laid a double card on the table for penalties and we collected at least a +300 or better result.

Huge penalty sets of 1 NTx against weak NTs are more myth than reality. Over the years, I can recall only about a half dozen times that a penalty double of a weak NT led to a number. Part of that is that we weak NTers are pretty adroit at running out of 1 NTx to a suit contract. Frequently, this is much more difficult for the opponents to double or sit for. So they'll often find their suit and we're off the hook. When we do sit for 1 NTx, we're pretty close to making and usually not off more than down 1. The really bad results are about equally distributed between 1 NTx and 2 of a suit doubled.

The major problem with the weak NT is playing 1 NT when there's a 4-4 major fit that strong NT pairs will find because they are opening the hand in 1 of a minor.

In the hands in this thread, I said I'd bid ♠s with the hand that doubled. I'd do it, but would be a bit nervous about it. I would really like to have a better ♠ suit holding. I wouldn't be surprised to see a -300 or worse if responder held a stack and values.

[JLOGIC]

East has a clear 2D bid, yes you will have a high card edge but your partner is almost definitely going to lead a spade, it's pretty much a crap shoot to pass which I would expect to be -EV. On a good day he'll have a really good sequence that he's leading from, but generally I'd expect it to be bad even though we have 21 or 22 points (expecting to have more than that is quite optimistic when RHO passes, ya ya he could psyche the pass I guess but in general that won't work out well for him lol). This is especially/mainly true because we have quite a decent chance at +110 by bidding 2D so even beating them 1 is often not enough.

Save shooting it out for when you have no good suit so that 1) partner's lead does not rate to be a complete disaster and it's actually an advantage to be on lead, and 2) you have no sure fit/partscore you're gonna make anyways (and you might not get to the right one even if you do). Those things are less important than having SIX HIGH CARDS vs FOUR HIGH CARDS. I mean obv don't pass it out with a balanced 0 count but when you're in the 4-6 range you should basically always be bidding with 6-4 and passing with a balanced hand, with a 5332 I would look at my suit, obviously bid KQJxx and out but pass with 3 queens or something.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2013-September-10, 03:37, said:

East has a clear 2D bid, yes you will have a high card edge but your partner is almost definitely going to lead a spade, it's pretty much a crap shoot to pass which I would expect to be -EV. On a good day he'll have a really good sequence that he's leading from, but generally I'd expect it to be bad even though we have 21 or 22 points (expecting to have more than that is quite optimistic when RHO passes, ya ya he could psyche the pass I guess but in general that won't work out well for him lol). This is especially/mainly true because we have quite a decent chance at +110 by bidding 2D so even beating them 1 is often not enough.

Save shooting it out for when you have no good suit so that 1) partner's lead does not rate to be a complete disaster and it's actually an advantage to be on lead, and 2) you have no sure fit/partscore you're gonna make anyways (and you might not get to the right one even if you do). Those things are less important than having SIX HIGH CARDS vs FOUR HIGH CARDS. I mean obv don't pass it out with a balanced 0 count but when you're in the 4-6 range you should basically always be bidding with 6-4 and passing with a balanced hand, with a 5332 I would look at my suit, obviously bid KQJxx and out but pass with 3 queens or something.

I agree.
When doubling or passing a DBL of 1NT "show values", close decisions should be resolved on lead considerations, in particular if alternative bids are available.
Points do not necessarily take tricks. Good opening leads do.
This strategy will not always lead to the best result, but it will be right far more often than basing your decision simply on counting HCP.
Under this strategy neither West should double nor East leave it in. Both had minimum values and a clear alternative to their penalty action and could not expect a safe lead for their side.
The gamble could have paid of, but in my experience it was a bad one.

Rainer Herrmann