[kenrexford]

Would you double 1S with 3433 shape? Probably, forcing the two level.

Is a penalty pass likely in that scenario? Hardly.

Does limiting the hand to light have value? Obviously.

Is there a benefit to assuring that doubles are sound? Obviously.

Can strong balanced hands be effectively be bid via a sound double and Herbert negative? You would need experience to know.

Does a light 1NT overcall cost more than gain or create too many swings? Again, experience is key.

[phil_20686]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-10, 12:29, said:

But, describing something as "completly absurd" wthout knowing the full systemic context seems dubious, especially in light of the discussio centeringaround an actual auction where the actual style proposed scores well and solves a real problem.

Your first post appears to suggest a light 1N as a stand alone convention in otherwise standard methods. Now you seem to be saying, essentially, that that would be absurd but it wasn't what you were saying, and that you need a whole structure to get around some of the problems this convention causes, and ameliorate the obvious disadvantages. Well fine, maybe, can't say I would ever be convinced that you could do that in this case, but there you go.

Anyway, someone needs to protect the newbies from your crazy ideas.

Although, to give credit where its due, not all of your ideas are crazy, and I really thought your book on cuebidding was excellent. I use some of that stuff myself.

[kenrexford]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-11, 06:15, said:

Your first post appears to suggest a light 1N as a stand alone convention in otherwise standard methods. Now you seem to be saying, essentially, that that would be absurd but it wasn't what you were saying, and that you need a whole structure to get around some of the problems this convention causes, and ameliorate the obvious disadvantages. Well fine, maybe, can't say I would ever be convinced that you could do that in this case, but there you go.

Anyway, someone needs to protect the newbies from your crazy ideas.

Although, to give credit where its due, not all of your ideas are crazy, and I really thought your book on cuebidding was excellent. I use some of that stuff myself.

My "first post" was as follows:

Good hand for R.U.N.T. After a 1♣ opening, West does not want to double because partner will get too excited too often. But, white-on-red, you want to act aggressively. A 1NT overcall as a light takeout works wonders here, because West can get in without too much risk and without sending the wrong message. East wilol now have no problem competing with his hand.

The "Really Unusual Notrump" is not designed simply to mess with the opponents but rather is a means of protecting yourself when you have cause (and vulnerability protection) to intervene but do not want to overstate values for partner. (Also the "Overcall Structure" uses this call.)

My first post, therefore, was not stated as if the call was in the context of otherwise standard methods. Rather, I proposed the solution as a part of one of two recognized defensive structures, namey "Overcall Structure" and the "Really Unusual Notrump" or "R.U.N.T." structure.

The objection is sort of like objecting to 2♥ as a "Jacoby Transfer" to solve a problem, with the objection being, "But, then how do you show hearts? Stupid convention if you cannot show hearts!"

Additionally, it seems rather odd to suggest that I started with one concept and then backtracked into a different concept, when it seems fairly established that my point was made in a fairly established context already established. See, e.g., http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1554947634

You also make a logically flawed assumption that the "whole structure" is designed to get around a problem, meaning that somehow the involvement of the herbert negative is a problem-solving tool to enable the 1NT light takeout. Rather, the "whole structure" is actually meant to be cohesive and ALL part of a grander, better scheme. A light 1NT takeout takes the burden off of the takeout double, which assures that the takeout double is sound, which is a good end result, because that enables more aggressive game tries, competition, and penalty doubles. The Herbert Negative is more effective opposite a sounder double because (1) the "weak" range can be tighter, (2) the "constructive" range accordingly lighter, and (3) the space consumed by the artificial relay less troubling. Starting with a "sound" double with 15-17 balanced is quite nice because (1) you find some 4-4 major fits more easily (the reason why some advocate avoiding 1NT openings with 4-4 majors), (2) penalty conversions are more lucrative, and (3) the Herbert Negative scheme used to facilitate better takeout sequences actually makes a strong balanced 1NT opening less useful anyway. (Consider, for example, holding 16 HCP and 4-4-2-3 shape after a 1♣ opening. Standard methods have a difficulty in that you either bury strength and double or bury majors and overcall 1NT. My structure has no problem, as Opener just doubles, Advancer expecting extras by that double.)

In other words, the 1NT light takeout is not the goal, with everything else designed to enable that. Rather, the entire structure is designed to facilitate better constructive auctions, with the 1NT overcall in a sense being the solution to the enhanced scheme, with the bottom taken out to maximize the pluses of that solution. Look at it this way -- one could say that the 1NT overcall is the fix to enable the rest of the constructive approach, not the reverse.

Consider that the origins of the structure were from an approach in the early 1990's from parts of Europe where 1NT was the stronger overcall and doubling thus potentially very weak. I restructured that two-way eastern European approach to reverse the meanings, figuring that (1) 1NT was preemptive, which was nicer with weaker hands and (2) a sounder DOUBLE meant that more space was available for the constructive auctions, with Herbert Negatives adding that cherry on top that made the whole thing quite effective.

In that context, critiquing the approach from a standpoiint of being anti-constructive (losing the strong balanced hands) is bizarre to me. The usual objection is that these goals might be nice, and the restructuring effectuve for constructive auctions, but the risks inherent to forcing the two-level in a no-known-fit scenario argues against the light 1NT takeout or argues in favor of a stricter approach (like purity as to 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0). My response is that the ambiguities work against both sides, such that the net results from years of experience is that 1NT as light, and aggressively so, is a heavy net gainer, albeit with an occasional large flop (more than outweighed by the large gainers). Thus, I would agree that purity might make a lot of sense at short-match IMP scoring against an inferior team (to avoid a possible large swing), but effective as free-wheeling at MP, long IMP matches, and against a superior team in short matches.

Glad you enjoyed and employ the ideas in the Cuebidding at Bridge book. Maybe take that leap of faith and read through (and perhaps try) my RUNT structure, and you might find yourself unwittingly sucked in. LOL

[Yu18772]

May be I would double with W hand in BAM on the first round, but really I would deem it as the worst t/o double ever. Other than that - I dont see any blame.
Yu