Doubling 1NT opener
#1
Posted 2017-November-03, 21:24
RHO opens 1NT and I have a 1NT hand. Playing Cappelletti I
double for penalty. Does anyone have any statistics on what
percentage of the time I can set the opener?
jerryd
#2
Posted 2017-November-03, 21:59
- RHO opens 1NT with any balanced 15-17 HCP (ie they don't upgrade 5 card suits)
- partner never runs with a weak hand
I get the following:
If you have a balanced 15 points, 50.2%
If you have a balanced 16 points, 53.0%
If you have a balanced 17 points, 60.4%.
Someone else can check my numbers but that sounds about right.
#3
Posted 2017-November-04, 01:29
As for doubling a weak 12-14 or mini 10-12 NT that's a necessity I feel, as this level of NT is used primarily as a pre-emptive bid. Only my opinion, others will probably state differently.
#4
Posted 2017-November-04, 05:13
That said, I don't think doubling for penalty at matchpoints is a good idea at any strength. The hand type to make that double is so rare that the call is far better utilised as part of your descriptive bidding structure whether you make it with intent to disrupt or construct. My preference is to double with both majors, but each to his own.
At IMPs the missed opportunity for a possible big score brings the use of the penalty double back in contention.
#5
Posted 2017-November-04, 05:55
smerriman, on 2017-November-03, 21:59, said:
- RHO opens 1NT with any balanced 15-17 HCP (ie they don't upgrade 5 card suits)
- partner never runs with a weak hand
I get the following:
If you have a balanced 15 points, 50.2%
If you have a balanced 16 points, 53.0%
If you have a balanced 17 points, 60.4%.
Someone else can check my numbers but that sounds about right.
Is that based on double-dummy play, or how did you compute the percentages?
#6
Posted 2017-November-04, 06:09
The_Badger, on 2017-November-04, 01:29, said:
I used to play DONT and liked it, since Doubling for penalties too seldom seems profitable to me.
But from another discussion-thread, became convinced there is a better method.
Main downside of DONT is the single-suited hands are more frequent than two-suiters.
Too common, playing DONT, you double 1NT with a single-suiter, LHO bids something sys-on.
Pd, not knowing which suit I have, can often not act even holding support.
End result, we leave them bidding to their contract just like without the double.
We therefore "swapped" the bids like this:
2D/2H/2S = Natural single-suiter.
2C = Two-suiter with clubs+higher.
X = A) Clubs single-suiter, or B) Two-suiter without clubs. Ie. diams+major or both majors.
Also, over 2C and X, if LHO bids something (whatever it means), pard's X is not for penalties, but means: "go ahead, show your suit(s)". Overcaller will convert to penalties only if holding the suit.
This is clearly a better model.
#7
Posted 2017-November-04, 06:18
jerdonald, on 2017-November-03, 21:24, said:
Also, a crucial word here is "can".
Does it mean double-dummy play?
If it means in real-play,
the answer is most certainly considerably skewed by your partnership (and declarer's) playing-strength.
And ability to find the best lead after a "blind" auction.
#8
Posted 2017-November-04, 07:24
My favorite story on this: I held six spades to the AKQJ and the heart A. Rho opened 1NT and I doubled, all pass. I took my seven tricks, after which rho threatened to call the director because I only had 14 highs and, he said, a double of an opening strong NT shows 15. His partner talked him out of the director call.
#9
Posted 2017-November-04, 07:56
If partner has unbalanced hand they probably cant sit for double and certainly no double if opener's side runs.
But now advancer knows they can compete
#10
Posted 2017-November-04, 10:59
Stefan_O, on 2017-November-04, 06:09, said:
2D/2H/2S = Natural single-suiter.
2C = Two-suiter with clubs+higher.
X = A) Clubs single-suiter, or B) Two-suiter without clubs. Ie. diams+major or both majors.
Also, over 2C and X, if LHO bids something (whatever it means), pard's X is not for penalties, but means: "go ahead, show your suit(s)". Overcaller will convert to penalties only if holding the suit.
This is clearly a better model.
I like this too
#11
Posted 2017-November-04, 11:00
kenberg, on 2017-November-04, 07:24, said:
That's an 11 out of 10 on the LOL Index, Ken Thanks for sharing.
#12
Posted 2017-November-04, 13:16
#13
Posted 2017-November-04, 21:32
Stefan_O, on 2017-November-04, 06:09, said:
One thing in your favour doubling when the 1N opener is in trouble they often don't have tools to deal with it unlike a weak 1N opener will.
So unless they have a suit to transfer to you may be able to collect a bigger penalty than someone with an escape system.
#14
Posted 2017-November-04, 21:40
Stefan_O, on 2017-November-04, 06:09, said:
2D/2H/2S = Natural single-suiter.
2C = Two-suiter with clubs+higher.
X = A) Clubs single-suiter, or B) Two-suiter without clubs. Ie. diams+major or both majors.
This is clearly a better model.
Before Bergen used DONT he used this which is more flexible than Stefan's choice. I don't know name pun intended
2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ are all 1-suited hands
2NT shows 2-suiter with ♣ & ♥
double shows all other 2-suiters. responder bids up the line 2N bid helps responder decide which suit to bid knowing ♣ & ♥ isn't possible
#15
Posted 2017-November-06, 11:59
steve2005, on 2017-November-04, 21:40, said:
2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ are all 1-suited hands
2NT shows 2-suiter with ♣ & ♥
double shows all other 2-suiters. responder bids up the line 2N bid helps responder decide which suit to bid knowing ♣ & ♥ isn't possible
Even more flexible is French:-
X = ♣+♦+♥ or ♦+♥ or ♥
2♣ = ♦+♥+♠ or ♥+♠ or ♠ (strong)
2♦ = ♥+♠+♣ or ♠+♣ or ♣
2♥ = ♠+♣+♦ or ♣+♦ or ♦
2♠ = ♠ (weak)
2NT = ♣ or ♦ (weak); or ♣+♥ (strong); or ♦+♠ (strong)
3♣ = ♣+♥
3♦ = ♦+♠
3M = nat, strong
--
Another unusual method that I am fond of against a Strong NT is:-
X = ♥+♠+♣ or ♥+♠ (longer/better ♠) or ♥+longer minor (NB: always ♥)
2♣ = ♦+♥+♠ or ♥+♠ (longer/better ♥) or ♠+longer minor (NB: always ♠)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2M = 5M and 4+ minor
2NT = ♣+♦
--
The big advantage here is being able to differentiate between suit lengths, such as 5M4m versus 4M5m hands. Most of the supposedly flexible schemes sacrifice this and I feel that this is quite a big deal. Since there is not enough bidding space to get everything, you have to make priorities. To me being able to show a club one-suiter at the 2 level is the wrong choice as you have to sacrifice a great deal elsewhere to achieve it.