[Free]

You're playing at high level competition, so you can trust opps.

The bidding starts (we V vs NV):
pass - 1NT - ...
RHO hesitated a while before bidding 1NT.

You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

You're playing DONT in this seat (this is obligated!). Do you intervene, and with what?

[Miron]

Bid 2♣, 54. I show 9 cards and spades will be better trumps on 4-4 fit. I'm going to ruff red suits, and it's better to ruff from the shorter (or equal) trumps. Also I take some bidding space.

[Walddk]

I used to like DONT, but that has changed. I have had too many problems with the 2-suiters because advancer can't tell which is the longer. I recommend

Woolsey Defence to 1NT Openings
Dbl = 5-card minor and a 4-card major
2♣ = majors; 2♦ asks for preference
2♦ = 1-suited major
2♥ = Hearts and a minor
2♠ = Spades and a minor
2N = Both minors
3X = Natural

Playing Woolsey, I have a perfect double with this hand, but using DONT I don't have a clear bid. If DONT is what I must play, I prefer pass, alternatively double to show a 1-suiter. However, I don't think 2♣ (clubs and another) is horrible.

Roland

[joker_gib]

The reason I don't like DONT has been mentioned by Roland (length of suits).

If I'm forced to bid in DONT I will just show a ♣ one suiter (to much difference in length in the suits) and the call is DBL in DONT isn't it ?

Alain

[Gerben42]

I agree with everything in Roland's post.

[Miron]

Walddk, on Feb 22 2006, 12:41 PM, said:

I used to like DONT, but that has changed. I have had too many problems with the 2-suiters because advancer can't tell which is the longer. I recommend

Woolsey Defence to 1NT Openings
Dbl = 5-card minor and a 4-card major
2♣ = majors; 2♦ asks for preference
2♦ = 1-suited major
2♥ = Hearts and a minor
2♠ = Spades and a minor
2N = Both minors
3X = Natural

Playing Woolsey, I have a perfect double with this hand, but using DONT I don't have a clear bid. If DONT is what I must play, I prefer pass, alternatively double to show a 1-suiter. However, I don't think 2♣ (clubs and another) is horrible.

Roland

The best advantage of DONT is that you are never forced to 3th level. I don't like the Woolsey against strong NT, because after 2♥♠ in misfit, you play 3♣♦ (doubled). And 2NT are even worser.

The Woolsey is very similar to Cappelletti:
2♣ 1-suiter of unknown color
2♦ 4+4+ majors
2♥♠ Major and minor
2NT Minors
(double is sometimes played 5m-4M against strong NT)

[BillFinque]

We play modified DONT over 14-16 NT and stronger

Double ♣ or ♦ or ♥&♠ 5-5
♣ ♣and a higher suit Usually 5-5
♦ ♦ and a higher Usually 5-5
♥ 6+♥
♠ 6+♠


Bill

[mike777]

BillFinque, on Feb 22 2006, 09:39 AM, said:

We play modified DONT over 14-16 NT and stronger

Double  ♣ or ♦ or ♥&♠ 5-5
♣    ♣and a higher suit   Usually 5-5
♦      ♦ and a higher          Usually 5-5
♥      6+♥
♠      6+♠


Bill

The top priority of Dont is to disturb the opponents no trumps, not for us to play the hand.


I also play modified Dont and love it. But for the reasons Roland and many others hate it. Suit length is unspecified very often, in fact one suited hands may be 5 in length and 2 suited may be 4-4. Perhaps I have been playing too much online MP of late.

This hand is very tough but I am going to bid 2Clubs showing clubs and another.
btw as a side note I play this over the opponents drop dead 1nt bids also:
P=1D=P=1NT
P=P=(DONT IS ON NOW) ETC....

[pbleighton]

I would double, playing DONT.

I prefer to play Meckwell, where 2C would show clubs and a major. If I were playing that, I might bid 2C instead. The 2C bid in DONT is far too ambiguous, IMO.

Peter

[joshs]

Miron, on Feb 22 2006, 07:58 AM, said:

Walddk, on Feb 22 2006, 12:41 PM, said:

I used to like DONT, but that has changed. I have had too many problems with the 2-suiters because advancer can't tell which is the longer. I recommend

Woolsey Defence to 1NT Openings
Dbl = 5-card minor and a 4-card major
2♣ = majors; 2♦ asks for preference
2♦ = 1-suited major
2♥ = Hearts and a minor
2♠ = Spades and a minor
2N = Both minors
3X = Natural

Playing Woolsey, I have a perfect double with this hand, but using DONT I don't have a clear bid. If DONT is what I must play, I prefer pass, alternatively double to show a 1-suiter. However, I don't think 2♣ (clubs and another) is horrible.

Roland

The best advantage of DONT is that you are never forced to 3th level. I don't like the Woolsey against strong NT, because after 2♥♠ in misfit, you play 3♣♦ (doubled). And 2NT are even worser.

The Woolsey is very similar to Cappelletti:
2♣ 1-suiter of unknown color
2♦ 4+4+ majors
2♥♠ Major and minor
2NT Minors
(double is sometimes played 5m-4M against strong NT)

Personally, I like woolsey (I want to get to my best fit on most hands, even if, on rare occasion, I end up at the 3 level on a misfit hand) but here is Lynn Dias's compromise scheme:

x: 4 in M and 5+ in m OR 6+ in a red suit or Both Majors, very strong
2C: 4+C, 5+ in a major
2D: 4+D, 5+ in a major
2H: Majors
2S: Spades

Over the x, continuations are like woolsey:
2C: asks for minor (xer might bid hearts instead)
2D asks for major (passes with diamonds, and jumps to 3H with 6H)
2M natural

[luis]

I don't think the idea of this thread is to start a debate about what is the best overcalling method over 1NT, we have had enough of that so whenever something posts a thread saying "you are playing chupa-chups and they open 1NT" let's just try to tell the poster what would we do based on the conditions.
Did free ever asked "what do you think of Dont" or "what do you play over 1NT?" I don't think so.

Ok after the ramblings here is what I think:
I don't think we can have a spade game here, even when pd has good cards on a trump lead we are going to have problems, we might have a partscore in clubs but from the hesitation I might think opener has 5 hearts, so probably a 2♣ bid might help them find a heart fit something like p - p - 2♥ when it could have been 1NT passed out.
Since I don't think it can be our hand and I think that opener has either 5 hearts or 6 diamonds I think I will pass.
Without the hesitation then playing don't I bid 2♣ when pd is NOT a passed hand (we may have a spade game), when pd is a passed hand I prefer to X to show a one suited hand, in this case clubs.

Luis

[cherdano]

I agree with all what Luis said. Except I find it quite tempting to bid 2♣, followed up by 2♠ over the likely competition in a red suit. I would do this when not vulnerable, me thinks.

Arend

[han]

I agree with Luis, it was quite clear that Free was not interested in repeating that old discussion again.

Given that partner is a passed hand I would have bid 3C if I was nonvulnerable. Now I don't dare, so the choice is between pass, double and 2C. Double is my least favorite choice, I simple cannot see what good can come from doubling.

I pick 2C, but maybe pass is better. If LHO bids 2H and this comes back to me then I will compete with 2S.

[SteelWheel]

I would also bid 2♣ and hope to get spades in later on. This hand is too much of a "player" for me to not start getting my suits in there. I do think that this problem highlights one of the flawed concepts in playing DONT, which is that playing DBL=1-suiter gives the opponents too much time to find their fit. A good partnership is actually even assisted since they now have the option of either bidding directly over the double, or passing and then acting later on. Besides, as a general rule, if you have the minor(s), then they have the majors, so they can always win the partscore battle.

Which leads me to my particular pet gadget over the opponents' (strong) NT:

2♣=♣+♥
2♦=♦+♥
2♥=natural
2♠=natural
DBL=♠ and another suit!

To me, this is the most sensible way to go: We put the emphasis on the majors. In DONT, when you bid 2♣/♦ showing the bid minor and another suit, the opponents often can outbid you before you get to reveal your other suit, so when we have a playable spade fit, if often gets buried.

This way, anytime we have a spade fit, advancer can always bid 2 (or more) ♠ immediately, and deny the opponents the entire 2-level. They may yet find the right strain and level, but they will have had the most difficult path to that point.

I've played this for a long time, and I'm convinced that this (or other similar approaches) is by far the best way to go over an opposing strong NT.

Over weak NTs, I prefer to play HELLO, but that's another story.....

[Free]

luis, on Feb 22 2006, 06:11 PM, said:

I don't think the idea of this thread is to start a debate about what is the best overcalling method over 1NT, we have had enough of that so whenever something posts a thread saying "you are playing chupa-chups and they open 1NT" let's just try to tell the poster what would we do based on the conditions.
Did free ever asked "what do you think of Dont" or "what do you play over 1NT?" I don't think so.

You've said it all: this is NOT a discussion about defenses against NT, it's a discussion about preference between showing a singlesuiter by bidding 2 times, showing a 2-suiter with your longest suit known which will probably be followed up by a p/c bid from partner, or keeping your mouth shut and defend for sure.

[mike777]

good grief, calm down!


People discuss all kinds of things on my posts not just what I start.....sometimes the discussions move on ..let us all just calm down....if someone moves the discussion along .

Sorry just came back from main room where I subbed and got such rude treatment oh well.....

[awm]

I'd choose to pass here. Bidding 2♣ is not the best description, since the clubs are so much longer and better than the spades. I'm too likely to end up in the wrong spot.

Double and then pass 2♣ seems better, but it's pretty unlikely I'll get to actually show partner my suit. I expect a transfer to hearts from LHO and I'm not about to bid 3♣ over 2♥ at these colors. The double also doesn't take up any space, bidding might chase them into a better partial.

At unfavorable opposite a passed hand, it seems likely that we don't want to be the declaring side. I'd rather pass and hope the opponents reach the wrong contract than bid and make things easier for them, especially since no single bid really adequately describes my hand to partner (I have to either show a two suiter, which I really don't have, or conceal the identity of my single suit).

At other colors I'd try 3♣, but now isn't the time. Playing Woolsey or Meyerson or Lionel I'd have a bid available to suggest long/good clubs and shorter/weaker spades and could do that.

[Sigi_BC84]

Free, on Feb 22 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

You've said it all: this is NOT a discussion about defenses against NT

Uh, what did you expect -- mention DONT and not have people suggest alternatives? I think you should expect these kinds of responses. Its the same as with those threads that deal with regulations -- they all turn into the same old discussion in no time (I'm not saying that I don't find them interesting over and over again ;-).

I've got another question regarding defense against weak NTs that fits into the context (well, remotely so :-), so I'm taking the opportunity:

Usually you'll play X against weak NT as penalties/card showing, e.g. 14/15+ any against a 12-14 NT. Now what I'm interested in is how your partnership handles making the distinction between defending doubled or bidding into a contract of your own (presumably a game in this case). Do you have forcing passes after such a double and unlimited partner bidding something?

Lately I was in an auction where LHO opened a vulnerable 12-14 NT, p doubled in direct seat and they wound up in 2♣ undoubled, going down once for +100. We had a 3♦ partscore for +110 at least. This being a pairs event we got a zero. Penalizing them in 2♣ would have brought us a top. We had a 3-3 fit in their suit, so they were playing in a 7-card fit with our side having the majority in HCP (I had 8 average points).

What is your general approach in such auctions? Do you double with xxx in their suit, relying on partner to leave it in with 3 good or 4+ trumps? Do you just compete over any 2-level scramble in order to explore for game? I'm assuming that advancer actually has some hopes for game.

--Sigi

[joshs]

Sigi_BC84, on Feb 22 2006, 02:35 PM, said:

Free, on Feb 22 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

You've said it all: this is NOT a discussion about defenses against NT

Uh, what did you expect -- mention DONT and not have people suggest alternatives? I think you should expect these kinds of responses. Its the same as with those threads that deal with regulations -- they all turn into the same old discussion in no time (I'm not saying that I don't find them interesting over and over again ;-).

I've got another question regarding defense against weak NTs that fits into the context (well, remotely so :-), so I'm taking the opportunity:

Usually you'll play X against weak NT as penalties/card showing, e.g. 14/15+ any against a 12-14 NT. Now what I'm interested in is how your partnership handles making the distinction between defending doubled or bidding into a contract of your own (presumably a game in this case). Do you have forcing passes after such a double and unlimited partner bidding something?

Lately I was in an auction where LHO opened a vulnerable 12-14 NT, p doubled in direct seat and they wound up in 2♣ undoubled, going down once for +100. We had a 3♦ partscore for +110 at least. This being a pairs event we got a zero. Penalizing them in 2♣ would have brought us a top. We had a 3-3 fit in their suit, so they were playing in a 7-card fit with our side having the majority in HCP (I had 8 average points).

What is your general approach in such auctions? Do you double with xxx in their suit, relying on partner to leave it in with 3 good or 4+ trumps? Do you just compete over any 2-level scramble in order to explore for game? I'm assuming that advancer actually has some hopes for game.

--Sigi

Well there are lots of possible agreements. I think the most standard is:
A penalty x sets up a forcing pass through 2X if the opps run. Some play X=S some play X=H.

For the opposite approach:
No forcing pass. First x by either player is takeout. A takeout x by responder establishes a forcing pass. Leb or whatever variant of it you play applies. (Treating the x as 15-18ish)

In one partnership I play, forcing pass through 2H but the first x is takeout. I think its wierd...