KingCovert, on 2019-September-18, 10:17, said:
I personally play a 10-12 NT, and if there is one auction I'm never worried about it's 1NT-X where X is for penalty. Good pairs have effective run-out systems and I feel that more often than not double just serves as a mechanism to improve the contract.
I think the reason that a penalty double hasn't shown itself to be effective against our 10-12 NT is because people are downgrading the quality of the hand necessary to penalize at the one level. It's not really penalty, it's general takeout and optional penalty. But, when you play a pair that has a run-out system, they will never play 1NTx if they don't want to, and in fact, in our system we can't play 1NTx, only 1NTxx.
So, I have two comments on how to combat it, that I won't claim are necessarily best.... I never play against it sadly. But, it's okay to play the same systems you already do - not necessarily ideal but, okay. I wouldn't downgrade my criteria for a penalty double, that bid needs to have integrity, when opponents run you can't find yourself disliking your hand, and partner needs to be able to penalize. Although, I don't play penalty doubles, they're not frequent enough to justify in my mind. What I would personally do is overcall with both less points or distribution. There's no particular reason to be scared to compete over a completely average hand without shape. 4-4 shape is completely fine.
You'll take some losses playing this way, but on average, you'll get a much better result. At least I hope so.
I disagree with almost everything in this post.
I do agree that many pairs do not take the penalties that are available. Against almost any but expert pairs, my experience (having played a lot of 10-12 at all levels up to and including the BB), is that more times than not the opps came to our rescue after 1N (x).
But that is far less true against good players than average or worse. In one team trials event we went for 1100 at the 2-level, with -800 attainable only double-dummy, while our teammates were +110, could have been 130.
The reality is that if one picks up a 4333 2 count and partner bids 1N and RHO doubles, you are losing imps unless the opps screw up. Which, admittedly, they often do unless they are good.
As for overcalling light or showing 2-suiters with 4-4, one of the reasons we kept playing 10-12 was that most opponents seem to think that it is safer to overcall light or flat against a weak 1N than against a strong. Imo, this is simply untrue.
In both cases the danger is that responder knows opener's hand within fairly narrow constraints, and can judge accurately what to do. Yes, responder needs a better hand to double (or to pass a reopening double if a direct double is negative, as I always play), but he is likely to have that better hand, since there are fewer hcp in opener's. Advancer finds himself in a box when he can't trust overcaller to have strength or shape: if he passes, then some of the time overcaller has a real hand, but if he bids, he may find overcaller had garbage, and remember that good opps can sometimes pull the trigger.
Even more importantly: after a strong 1N one's competitive bidding should be aimed at either or both disrupting their auction or fighting for a partscore. It is rare to be able to bid game after a strong 1N, so while one has to allow for it, it is not a focus of the system design.
By contrast, a 10-12 1N leaves ample room for game, and so one's bidding should be constructive to a degree that simply makes no sense over a strong 1N.
Advocating a wider range for action over weak compared to strong makes little sense, to me anyway.
Also, playing the same methods, when the goals are so different, makes little sense as well. Again, over strong notrump one is not aiming at maximizing our game bidding, nor is one, usually, trying for penalties (although historically double was for penalty and some good players still use it that way). When the opps open 10-12, otoh, and overcaller holds 15, overcaller should be trying for blood on a hand on which he should pass a strong 1N in tempo.
I think the problem that leads to advocating these sorts of methods/approaches (including the notion of using (1N) p (2D) x as generally strong, arises from a reluctance to accept that sometimes you are going to get a bad result by taking a normal action.
Weak 1N bidders, especially 10-12, know that they are going to get hammered every now and then. They accept that risk because the upsides are so good. The main upside is that too many opponents get goaded into unwise action. me? I'm quite content to let the occasional steal happen, and quite content to hammer them when that opportunity arises.
Btw, I stopped 10-12 for three reasons. One is that it disrupted the notrump rebid scheme, and I disliked using 1C and 1D to differentiate between balanced 13-15 and 15-17 hands. The second is that we found too many auctions that started 1m (P) 1red (1S) (or 1C (P) 1D (1M), when at the other table it went 1N 3N, and LHO had a blind lead. Thirdly, we found that our opening pass, in a 10-12 1N seat, made it easier for opposing declarers to place cards, since unless we showed shortness, we were maxed out at 9 hcp.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
+++++++++++++++++++++
Immediately over a weak 1N, John Matheson recommends doubling with 14+ HCP.
In 4th seat, you might double 2♦ -- conventionally suggesting a ♦ lead -- but perhaps the best fudge on the given hand.
England have dropped to 5th in the Bermuda Bowl RR