[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

For whatevever reason, my partner wants to try out a weak NT
(12-14), dont ask me why.

A main question is, how to play X by responder, in case they
make a overcall.

I am convinced, that in a strong NT context playing the X as
T/O is best, but I am not so sure in a weak NT context, what
is your opinion.

I could have made this a poll, but I would like to hear reasons.

Marlowe

[the hog]

Also takeout and for the same reasons as over a strong NT, Uwe.
This also means that ntrumper should reopen with a x, just as a strong ntrumper would.
eg
axxx xx KJxx axx
1NT (2H) P P
X

By the way Uwe, I like the wnt.

[gnasher]

Takeout, for the same reasons as after a strong notrump:
- You're more likely to be dealt a takeout double than a penalty double.
- Without takeout doubles you would have no safe way to compete on medium 4432 shapes.
- Playing takeout doubles from both sides gets you more penalties than playing penalty doubles from one side.

It's true that after
  1NT (2x) pass pass
  dbl pass
you're more likely to be in trouble after a weak notrump than after a strong notrump. However, on many hands where you would have been in trouble advancer would already have made a game try - against a 12-14 notrump, if advancer has a good hand he can't just assume that it's a partscore deal.

[Mbodell]

I think it depends a lot on your strength of opposition. I find we extract a lot of good boards from a penalty double over NT and only occasionally miss the negative x. Depends a bit on how often people like to bid over weak nt, but around us the tendency is way too often.

[1eyedjack]

Mbodell, on Jun 12 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

I think it depends a lot on your strength of opposition. I find we extract a lot of good boards from a penalty double over NT and only occasionally miss the negative x. Depends a bit on how often people like to bid over weak nt, but around us the tendency is way too often.

I don't think that you miss out on a lot of penalty doubles by playing doubles for takeout. Some, certainly, but it is overstated.

[helene_t]

Playing Lebensohl you don't have to play t/o since at least the GF hands, and the ones that would make a negative double of 2♠ to sign off in 3♥, don't need the t/o double.

I think the case for penalty doubles is slightly stronger playing weak NT since opps are under pressure to bid when they have constructive values and will therefore sometimes have to overcall on mediocre suits. Also it is less attractive for opener to reopen with a double when playing weak NT. OTOH a higher percentage of the hands that would make a penalty double opposite a weak NT are also weak enough to afford to pass, hoping for opener to reopen.

Maybe penalty doublers are more useful at IMPs.

You can also play optional doubles, i.e. you can double en route to 3NT to give opener a choice.

That all said, I still prefer t/o doubles. Not so much for technical reasons (which I don't have strong opinions about) but because I would be afraid of misunderstandings related to other doubles that may or may not become penalty by analogy. For starters, you must play t/o doubles at the 3-level.

[gwnn]

Helene, you are vastly oversimplifying matters if you assert that there is no need for a t/o x if you have Lebensohl. With leb you can find out if you have a 4-4 fit in the other major and about stops. But you can't find a good partscore if you have a 4441 7 count and (in some structures) you can have invitational sequences. Also, as has been noted above, opener can pass the t/ox and playing penalty doubles you'll have to play 3NT, or settle for the undoubled penalty.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jun 12 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

Helene, you are vastly oversimplifying matters if you assert that there is no need for a t/o x if you have Lebensohl.

Maybe I didn't express myself so well. I didn't intend to say that t/o doubles are useless: as I said, I prefer them.

My point is that penalty doubles are playable if you play lebensohl. I don't think they are playable if you don't play lebensohl (or some other sohl).

[OleBerg]

Hi Marlowe,

for your question; I also prefer t/o-doubles, but have no strong feelings about them.

Another thing; In Scandinavia, where the weak NT is thick on the ground, a lot of escape systems (after opp. double of 1NT) has been constructed.

One is "Nilsland": http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...DefenseNTX.html
which can be refashioned in a multitude of ways.

Another is "Sundelin" which is often used NV:

1NT - (X) - ???

Pass = To play (Subsequent doubles are takeout.)
RD = To win (Subsequent doubles are penalty until a certain level. Pass is forcing to the same level.)
2♣ = Runout in clubs or diamond/major or one-suited major.
2♦ = Runout in diamonds or both majors.
2♥/2♠ = Constructive run-out, partner may compete with a suitable hand.

In my opinion, the need for these conventions is slightly overstated, though they come in handy from time to time.

A simple agreement I wouldn't play the weak NT without:

If the opponents double 1NT and responder runs to a suit and then redouble, it is SOS.

[Gerben42]

As someone who "always" plays weak NT in tournaments, I think Dbl as T/O is still the best choice.

1. Since overcalls of the weak NT almost always show opening strength, the penalty Dbl is rare. Also with Multi Landy as the most common scheme, you can have the best of both worlds if they bid 2♦ (1-suiter), and they often have a place to run with the "natural" 2-suiters.

2. Invitational hands with relative shortness in overcaller's suit are not rare, in fact they are so common that you would want to have a bid for them.

3. Opener is expected to make a balancing Dbl with a MAXIMUM and shortness in the overcaller's suit.

Important other sequence:

1NT (Dbl) Rdbl* (2♥**)
Dbl

* To make 1NTxx
** Hmm, better play 2♥ instead then

This is also not a forcing situation, maybe we just have 21 HCP. Dbl should be T/O here also.

[P_Marlowe]

OleBerg, on Jun 12 2009, 05:54 AM, said:

Hi Marlowe,

for your question; I also prefer t/o-doubles, but have no strong feelings about them.

Another thing; In Scandinavia, where the weak NT is thick on the ground, a lot of escape systems (after opp. double of 1NT) has been constructed.

One is "Nilsland": http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...DefenseNTX.html
which can be refashioned in a multitude of ways.

<snip>

In my opinion, the need for these conventions is slightly overstated, though they come in handy from time to time.

A simple agreement I wouldn't play the weak NT without:

If the opponents double 1NT and responder runs to a suit and then redouble, it is SOS.

Hi,

my partner suggested "Nilsland", ... at least the structure,
but it is good to see, that the structure was played before.

I also believe, that you dont need a runout seq., but ...
The time I played the weak NT regular was 7-8 years ago,
and at this time the level of opponents I encopuntered was
not very high, so I cant judge from my own experience.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

I think the OP was asking about:

1NT - 2something - X

In this situation you are usually fighting a partscore battle. They were not impressed by your preemptive 1NT opening and your task now it to make the best possible use of the remaining bidding space.
This situation will come up a lot and usually both sides will hold about the same strength and it's not clear that they have a fit.

A t/o dbl seems more effective than penalty, but you need additional agreements. You need to find a way to penalty dbl them, if they don't have a fit. So the t/o dbl should carry information about responders length in their suit, so that opener has a chance to penalty pass your dbl.

[Ant590]

I play t/o in some partnerships, but more regularly penalty.

Whilst certain partners strongly prefer penalty doubles, I think this is because the good results from these infrequent doubles are more memorable. In other words, getting +500 on a partscore board one time in 100 openings sticks in the mind better than winning a partscore battle ten times in 100, but the IMPs say otherwise.

All statistics suitably made up, but I would be interested in someone collating auctions that have begun weak NT, overcall, double, p, p, p and some other combination more likely to be takeout.

[NickRW]

No strong opinions on this one.

Unlike Gerben I find quite a percentage of overcalls over a weak NT are rather less than an opening (in a MP setting anyhow). So X=penalty (at the 2 level anyway) + Lebensohl is a possibility.

But t/o is playable too.

The theoretical optimum probably depends on vulnerability, precise meaning of whatever the overcall is and so on - but you could end up writing a book on all the nuances and then, at the table, forget most of the detail of the system you'd created yourself!

Nick

[peachy]

I like penalty double. Alternatively a "cards" double (enough balanced values that it is our hand and about 2-3-cards in their suit). This takes away pressure from opener to reopen; afterall, if responder passes he could be broke instead of sitting on penalty Dbl. Also, lots of people are more frisky against weak NT than they would be against strong NT.

[jdonn]

There is more reason to play penalty doubles than over a strong notrump imo. But not enough more reason, also imo.

[dake50]

I play penalty, BUT my 1NT is more restricted by 1M openings on 4cM. That means little need to explore M-fit/ both M-fits/ other M-fit as the 4-4M would have opened 1M and I can bid 2M with 5+M.

Perhaps it's just my attitude to punish foolish bids. I rely strongly on opponents being sane to judge my call/play -- hate when idiotic call/play wins.

[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP

1NT (2♠) p p
dble p ?

---

With my strong no trump partners, I do play take-out doubles, but have doubts that this is a good idea over a weak no trump. Where I am in England, 80% play 12-14 no trump and I have not encountered double for take out of 12-14 no trump at club level or in tournaments. I believe you are skating on very thin ice if you play exclusively take-out doubles after a natural overcall of a 12-14 no trump. Take the above unremarkable 20/20 deal:

So with your max 14 count and your doubleton, you double 2♠ for take-out. Now instead of a likely -110, you are looking -670 if partner passes or -800 if partner bids. Even after this auction when (on a different deal) you are lucky enough to find an 8 card fit and total tricks =16. Then if opps can make 9 tricks you will be 2 tricks short in your 3 level contract. Not very comfortable, especially when you are vulnerable.

Strong no trumpers are normally fortunate in that most overcalls are conventional, and a double after the overcall has a different meaning. I assume this is because to safely overcall a strong no trump you need a more distributional hand than over a weak no trump. Thus with 2 suiters or long suits 8 card or better fits become more likely, thus tipping the balance in favour of a take out double.

Overcalls over a weak no trump are more likely to be natural. Over a natural 2♣ or 2♦ overcall, the take-out double is very much less risky since even without an 8 card fit you should be able to scramble to a respectable 2M contract with 7 cards. After a natural 2♥ overcall a take-out double should at the very least guarantee a 4 card spade suit. However, I remain sceptical and will not try to persuade my weak no trump partners to deviate from leb plus penalty doubles.

[1eyedjack]

In a different situation, there was an occasion a year or so back when I was playing against a pair who played penalty doubles of weak jump overcalls. Now I happened to think that this was an inferior strategy, but I could have been wrong. Nevertheless, consistent with that evaluation it occurred to me that I should increase the frequency of my weak jump overcalls, as it could only be to my benefit if I maximise the frequency of opponents being called upon to use what I perceived as inferior methods. So I ended up doing it on a ratty 5 card suit. Maybe we needed swings as well, that I can't remember, but I know that I had not discussed it with partner. Anyway, oppo (and partner) duly scoffed at my overcall when they saw what it comprised, which was slightly odd behaviour by the oppo since we gained on the hand when they (as I predicted) lacked a hand suitable for a penalty double and would have found a superior spot had they had a takeout double available.

The reason that I mention it is that I am not sure that a tendency toward injudicious overcalls over a weak NT necessary has a dramatic impact on the relative benefits of a penalty double.

[the hog]

Wackojack, on Jun 14 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1NT (2♠) p  p
dble  p    ? 

---

With my strong no trump partners, I do play take-out doubles, but have doubts that this is a good idea over a weak no trump.  Where I am in England, 80% play 12-14 no trump and I have not encountered double for take out of 12-14 no trump at club level or in tournaments.  I believe you are skating on very thin ice if you play exclusively take-out doubles after a natural overcall of a 12-14 no trump.  Take the above unremarkable 20/20 deal: 

So with your max 14 count and your doubleton, you double 2♠ for take-out.  Now instead of a likely -110, you are looking -670 if partner passes or -800 if partner bids.  Even after this auction when (on a different deal) you are lucky enough to find an 8 card fit and total tricks =16.  Then if opps can make 9 tricks you will be 2 tricks short in your 3 level contract.  Not very comfortable, especially when you are vulnerable. 

Strong no trumpers are normally fortunate in that most overcalls are conventional, and a double after the overcall has a different meaning.  I assume this is because to safely overcall a strong no trump you need a more distributional hand than over a weak no trump.  Thus with 2 suiters or long suits 8 card or better fits become more likely, thus tipping the balance in favour of a take out double.

Overcalls over a weak no trump are more likely to be natural.  Over a natural 2♣ or 2♦ overcall, the take-out double is very much less risky since even without an 8 card fit you should be able to scramble to a respectable 2M contract with 7 cards.  After a natural 2♥ overcall a take-out double should at the very least guarantee a 4 card spade suit.  However, I remain sceptical and will not try to persuade my weak no trump partners to deviate from leb plus penalty doubles.

Wackjack. I would like to defend this hand in 2SX. Especially if partner or I had the 9 of hearts.
By the way, add a random J to the NT opener and you are back to a stong NT with the same problem.
I think you would be hard pressed to find many serious wnt players using penalty xs of overcalls these days. The situation is certainly different for club players.