[eagles123]

Qxx
AJxxx
AKx
xx

game all MP

1N ? 12-14 NT

weak field

you play multi-landy

cheers

Eagles

[mgoetze]

If opps' 1NT was 12-14 or weaker, I double. I hope partner can do something (I play that he bids as if I had opened 1NT) but if not I will lead a low heart.

If opps' 1NT was 14-16 or stronger, I pass.

If opps' 1NT was 13-15, let me know and I'll think harder about it.

[eagles123]

so sorry forgot to put 1n is 12-14

[gszes]

At IMPS the risk/reward is clearly in favor of pass. This is MP however so any unmitigated disaster is merely 1 board. The question becomes just where does one draw the line on doubling the opps 15-17 1N (I assumed this info please correct if wrong) in the direct seat? The theoretical argument is that if rho has 16 and (in this case) we have 14 there are ten left and assuming they are evenly divided the opps have 21 to our 19 but we have the opening lead and if the x is correct we stand to gain a lot of MP while not losing quite as many if it is wrong. The question becomes one of partnership harmony. How many disasters can we stomach while trying to pull off razor thin doubles? IMHO this one falls a bit short mainly because we lack one critical ingredient to make these roughly 5050 doubles work (a decent suit to lead) -- our hearts are modest at best. We have nothing close to resembling a safe place to hide if the opps xx (back to heart suit quality again). Ax Kxx QJTxxx Ax is a 14 you can be proud to x with. It will not work all of the time but enough to make it worth while and you have a decent "home" if the opps xx.

Deciding to x with your current collection is the main reason anti acid companies stay in business but if you find a partner that likes the roller coaster ride go for it and enjoy.

[nige1]

eagles123, on 2015-February-27, 16:49, said:

game all MP ♠ Q x x ♥ A J x x x ♦ A K x ♣ x x
(1N) ??
12-14 NT weak field you play multi-landy

IMO Double = 10. 2♦ = 9. Pass = 8. 2♥ = 7. Nowadays, some expert partnerships agree to double a weak notrump with 14+ HCP.

[Jinksy]

Double. If partner passes and they don't XX, we're probably setting it. At a very low level, I find it often spooks them into playing the hand worse, too.

[PhantomSac]

It is definitely borderline, I think at this vul it's right to pass.

[akwoo]

I think any serious partnership playing in an area where 12-14 (or weaker) 1N openings is reasonably common should have an agreement on this. What you agree on has an effect on how aggressive partner is in balancing seat (if you pass) as well as how much partner will look for game (if you double).

This is a pretty normal balanced 14 count. I would follow whatever my agreement is.

[ggwhiz]

akwoo, on 2015-February-27, 23:31, said:

I think any serious partnership playing in an area where 12-14 (or weaker) 1N openings is reasonably common should have an agreement on this. What you agree on has an effect on how aggressive partner is in balancing seat (if you pass) as well as how much partner will look for game (if you double).

This is a pretty normal balanced 14 count. I would follow whatever my agreement is.

Exactly. After 1nt passed to partner what would their bids mean?

With us bids are transfers and double only promises a hand that would balance with 1nt if they had opened a suit. With so many ways for partner to come in there is no need to risk the direct double but I don't mind it at mp's if you feel like it and we play continuations the same way you do.

[eagles123]

well I bid 2h teacher thought it was insane to bid (this was in a post mortem pairs session with an old partner) I thought it was at least close

end result = 2h+2 vs 1n making their way lol

cheers

Eagles

[wank]

there's a reason this shape isn't covered by multi landy.

if you want to act, double, which would be aggressive but sensible. pass is middle-of-the-road.

[mgoetze]

I do think 2♥ is better than 2♦ FWIW.

[Jinksy]

PhantomSac, on 2015-February-27, 20:14, said:

It is definitely borderline, I think at this vul it's right to pass.

Is that an MP decision, or would you pass at IMPs too?

[Jinksy]

eagles123, on 2015-February-28, 10:03, said:

well I bid 2h teacher thought it was insane to bid (this was in a post mortem pairs session with an old partner) I thought it was at least close

end result = 2h+2 vs 1n making their way lol

cheers

Eagles

Do have know the other hands? There might have been more action after a double.

[P_Marlowe]

If you play multi landy, you should have agreed on a min. strength
for the penalty double, the number I had was 15, hence I pass.

In general I would pass with the hand, if you cant stand it, lower
the req. for the penalty double upfront.
This is not an area that is suitable for a huge degree of judgement,
partner needs a certain certainty to what you hold to make a sensible
call facing a penalty double, it will also make the defence a lot harder.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

PhantomSac, on 2015-February-27, 20:14, said:

It is definitely borderline, I think at this vul it's right to pass.

Why does the vulnerability make it less attractive to double? I would think that the opps being vulnerable makes it more attractive to double at MP. Suppose it is 1NT-1 against our +110. Of course it could also be 1NT-2 but with such a marginal hand that seems less likely.

[wank]

helene_t, on 2015-March-01, 06:22, said:

Why does the vulnerability make it less attractive to double? I would think that the opps being vulnerable makes it more attractive to double at MP. Suppose it is 1NT-1 against our +110. Of course it could also be 1NT-2 but with such a marginal hand that seems less likely.

that part appeals, but when partner runs you're in trouble at amber.

[rmnka447]

If you bid anything, I think double would be better than bidding ♥s.

eagles123, on 2015-February-28, 10:03, said:

well I bid 2h teacher thought it was insane to bid (this was in a post mortem pairs session with an old partner) I thought it was at least close

end result = 2h+2 vs 1n making their way lol

cheers

Eagles

It happened to work this time, BUT BEWARE ...

having played weak (12-14) NTs over 40+ years, they've been many, many, many times after a 2nd seat overcall of 1 NT that as responder I've held something like Q10xx in the trump suit with 9 or 10 total HCP and lowered the boom with a penalty double. They've resulted in lots of juicy 500 or 800 sets and plenty of decent 200 sets with only the very rare doubled contract making.

This may seem counterintuitive, but you need to have better holdings to compete against a weak NT than against a strong NT. The difference is that when the opponents have the balance of the points, they will be distributed more evenly between the two hands than with a strong NT. This usually leads to a better, less strained defense. It also means that there's less likelihood that any cards you need favorably placed in opener's hand will be there than with strong NT hands where opener has the preponderance of the opponent's points.

[Tramticket]

Playing against a weak NT you need to have a proper penalty double available. I expect you to double with 16+ HCP, or if fewer points you must have a very good lead (Double in the protective seat guarantees 16+ HCP).

This hand is a long way short - it's a balanced weak NT. Pass. Simple.

[PhantomSac]

helene_t, on 2015-March-01, 06:22, said:

Why does the vulnerability make it less attractive to double? I would think that the opps being vulnerable makes it more attractive to double at MP. Suppose it is 1NT-1 against our +110. Of course it could also be 1NT-2 but with such a marginal hand that seems less likely.

Well, let's go individually.

When we are vul, doubling is less attractive at MP because if it is not our hand we might go for 200 (and no generally I'm not concerned about getting doubled, but going down 2 at the 2 level or partner overcompeting is a real possibility. And against good opps they are more likely to double us when we are vul on a partscore hand since the upside is so high.) I think it's pretty obv that doubling or competing vul at MP when it's dangerous in general is more appealing when we are white, going for 50 or 100 is not as scary. Also there is the slight chance that we go for 100 on their 90 hand, not that likely but it is another downside of competing in general vul when they don't (yet) have a major suit fit and we are vul.

So I think us being vul is obviously bad.

What about them being vul? Well, if we manage to double them for down 1 on our partscore that is pretty elite (+200 instead of +100). But what are we going to be able to double them in? Clubs or 1N, everything else is 3-3 so undoublable most likely. If they stay in 1N X I would guess they are 50-50 to make so I'm not thrilled about it anyways. On the other hand if 1N is down 2, they have an easy out to run (esp to 2m which they wouldn't have otherwise). Doubling hurts us. Yeah we wanna double if it's our hand in general, but we need to be beating them exactly 1. If we are beating them 2 I am ok with passing. Down 2 is not that unlikely if partner has the HK where they do better in a minor or we compete to 2x making 110 or 140.

Ofc we might have a game and pass out 1N which is a good time for doubling, but that's true whether they are vul or not. I think I'd rather double/compete when they are white than when they are red, though I guess that's more debatable.

So overall I think us being red is worse for competing (undebatable), and I think them being red is us worse for competing (debatable but maybe you'll think like I do after this post!). That makes this the worst vul to compete. Given what I think is a borderline hand (double and pass both certainly reasonable), I would go with the vul and form of scoring as my deciding factor.