[jillybean]

---

Without interference, is this hand good enough for a gf forcing 2D stayman?
If the answer is yes - does adding the interference change your answer?

[DavidKok]

In my opinion this hand is not good enough to force to game. Partner will have 10-11 more often than 12-13, and this is a so-so 13-count. The interference doesn't really change that.

For me the double of 2♦ would have been takeout and the double of 2♥ would have been penalties, as we implied some heart length with the first double. On the auction as shown I would sit for the double of 2♥. It looks like the opponents stepped in it - we have a bit over half the points, (probably exactly) six trumps and their side diamond suit seems to break poorly.

[jillybean]

Thanks, this is our first wrinkle to sort out. We have a "rule" that if we compete over interference, we can't give up at the 2 lvl.
Using this theory, Partner meant his double as negative. I will post the hands soon, it's an unusual one.

---

[jillybean]

Making 3

[mikeh]

Test

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-December-26, 22:09, said:

Making 3

It looks like you started off fine but got a bit lost at the end. South should be thinking Christmas came when North makes a takeout double of 2H (declarer would do very well to get out for -800), and North should be raising 2NT to game with their super-max hand.

[DavidKok]

It's good to get practice in against overcalls like this. Over here the accepted wisdom is that if you wish to interfere with a Kamikaze NT (say, 10-13, or 9-12, or the likes) you need to have approximately an opening hand. The point is that game might be on, so partner needs to be able to raise your overcall (unlike over a strong NT, where the odds of us having game are much thinner). If you can gobble up a few +800's or +1100's before the field picks up on this all the better. Personally I've only played these Kamikaze NT ranges when not vulnerable though.

I've seen partnership agreements where a takeout double of their overcall is forcing through 2♠, or sometimes through 2♥. I think forcing through 2NT is worse, and do not recommend it. Also I would make an exception for defending doubled.

[Gilithin]

jillybean, on 2023-December-26, 15:21, said:

Without interference, is this hand good enough for a gf forcing 2D stayman?

The hand is an average 13, not worth an upgrade, so opposite a mini NT that is an invite. Use whichever auction shows a 4♥4♠ invite, most likely 2♣.

After 2♥, I think it is reasonable to use the same methods as one might after 1NT - (P) - 2♣ - (2♥). A popular one is for X to show 4 hearts, 2♠ to show 4 spades and Pass to deny a 4 card major. When 2♥ is passed around to Responder, X is now penalties, 2♠ natural invitational and 3 level suits game forcing. Other structures are possible but this is about as simple as it gets. I concur with the other posters that not playing in 2♥X or 3NT is a serious failure in the auction here.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure where the question about GF Stayman comes from with the DONT interference, but with a pass, I agree with everyone else - it's an invite. Perhaps it's GF if we catch a major fit, not sure.

If you play double of 2♦ as cards, or specifically as takeout, then as discussed you should know how high that forces you (as "cards", I would suggest it's a different place than "takeout", unless you're not going to takeout on "pure shape" to push the preempt).

Once you know that, then you get to decide what the double means. For me, in both cases I would take it as "what about 2♥x, pd?", with if takeout, "my hand's not great, 200 beats partscores" and if cards, "I've got some hearts, if you have some hearts, this might be better than anything else". But I would be almost certain that pass was forcing, so I get to be "pessimistic" (more interested in defending than pass".

But IIRC the XXX philosophy, "first double is cards, second double is takeout, third double is penalty". Equally playable.

And yet again, you want to have an agreement about double after pass:

---

My guess would be, if takeout, "more takeout (say ♥Hxx), but if you have some hearts..."; if cards, "takeout" (but again, passable).

I will admit that I don't care what the double means with the hand you give in the OP. I'm passing. They've pulled from what looked like their fit into a Moysian, we have 24ish points and bad breaks everywhere, I'm not worried about losing to 600 or 620. Yes, I see the hand; I'm - surprised (shouldn't 2♥ be P/C?). Still taking my 500, and feeling a bit unlucky it isn't 8.

The weak NT (any weak NT) is a double-edged sword that requires rethinking from the ACBL norm from both sides. Yes, you get an advantage from the opponents not being used to it and not understanding where their goal lies; but they will do it anyway - and there's no worse feeling as a weak NTer than to let 800 (or 200 into nothing, or 300 into NV game (losing to all the +110s, too!)) get away, especially because you also frequently go down if you end up declaring. And since opponents come in on trash, despite all the lessons, you get more opportunities for it than the "the weak NT goes for numbers" opponents get, at least outside of the full flighted A games.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-27, 02:55, said:

It's good to get practice in against overcalls like this. Over here the accepted wisdom is that if you wish to interfere with a Kamikaze NT (say, 10-13, or 9-12, or the likes) you need to have approximately an opening hand. The point is that game might be on, so partner needs to be able to raise your overcall (unlike over a strong NT, where the odds of us having game are much thinner). If you can gobble up a few +800's or +1100's before the field picks up on this all the better. Personally I've only played these Kamikaze NT ranges when not vulnerable though.

I've seen partnership agreements where a takeout double of their overcall is forcing through 2♠, or sometimes through 2♥. I think forcing through 2NT is worse, and do not recommend it. Also I would make an exception for defending doubled.

I like this, will discuss more with partner.

[jillybean]

Michael, this question about 2D GF came from several different views of the hand, none of those offering an opinion had played the mini nt.
Having seem all 4 hands, it's very difficult for people to give an unbiased opinion, although they think they can.

Obviously, my partner and I need to discuss these sequences and I think revisit our 'don't give up at the 2 lvl' rule.

Interference Don't give up the 2 level.
Doubles are negative (but partner can convert with the right hand - usually, however, O, after opening 1N, cannot possibly have enough to convert and should bid best suit)

Hindsight is wonderful, I would have been a winner passing 2♥x

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-December-27, 20:40, said:

Michael, this question about 2D GF came from several different views of the hand, none of those offering an opinion had played the mini nt.
Having seem all 4 hands, it's very difficult for people to give an unbiased opinion, although they think they can.

Obviously, my partner and I need to discuss these sequences and I think revisit our 'don't give up at the 2 lvl' rule.

Interference Don't give up the 2 level.
Doubles are negative (but partner can convert with the right hand - usually, however, O, after opening 1N, cannot possibly have enough to convert and should bid best suit)

Hindsight is wonderful, I would have been a winner passing 2♥x

One of the greatest perceived risks when playing a mini-NT is the increased risk of being penalised. It's a real risk, although it's significantly less than the average player thinks it is. However, almost every time they actually can penalise you they need to take some risk of their own to do so.

Your side can take advantage of this situation, but only if you systemically start looking for places to punish them instead of just bidding your own hands constructively. One of the first questions you should be asking yourself when partner opens 1NT and the opponents take some action is "are they in trouble?" or "are they likely to get into trouble?". Yes, you should probably ask if you're in trouble already, but that's why you agreed on a good runout structure for when the auction starts 1NT-(X). If they are likely to be in trouble, you then want to be thinking about two things - "are we going to punish them?" and "how do we avoid letting them get out of their predicament?".

All of this leads to a different mindset when you choose a mini-NT. It's much less about the uncontested auction and much more about maximising the contested ones. And it's hardly hindsight to start thinking that way.

Your partnership has already taken the first couple of steps by defining:

• What two-level doubles show (first two are both takeout/negative)
  
• Which two-level auctions are forcing (don't let them play undoubled at the two-level)

Knowing your agreements is crucial to getting and keeping them in trouble, which is why I said you started off well. The first double let your side know that they may be in trouble and the second double gave responder the option of punishing them. With the majority of the points (23+) and the opponents in at most a seven-card fit, defending should be a very easy choice to make. If opener has almost any four hearts, they should just make a forcing pass and hope responder can make another takeout double.

The fact that responder's hand isn't good enough to force to game makes defending even more attractive. Other tables may not bid game, or game may not make, so you don't need to score as much on defence as you would if responder had another king.

[jillybean]

Thanks, this is very useful. This was the first game playing a lot of new systems including 10-13nt and you are right, I had turned off my bridge thinking and was simply
trying to follow our "rules"

I don't imagine many East's would have come into the auction with those cards so perhaps a more realistic auction would be

---

This double is more interesting

[DavidKok]

Again it depends on your partnership agreements. By my agreements North's double would have been takeout, so pass shows 3+ hearts. South can then double for penalties or bid on with 0-2. They might slip the noose when North has 4(-5) and South has 2. I think West is also not worth a 2♥ bid on this auction - NS are marked with approximately 22-26 HCP and jumping in here is very risky.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 08:09, said:

I think West is also not worth a 2♥ bid on this auction - NS are marked with approximately 22-26 HCP and jumping in here is very risky.

The 2♣ enquiry marks S with 12-13 HCP? How does it differ from 2♦ then?

[jillybean]

This is club bridge so we could get any interference in our auctions.
2♣ could be garabge stayman.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2023-December-28, 08:15, said:

The 2♣ enquiry marks S with 12-13 HCP? How does it differ from 2♦ then?

The way I play it, 2♣ is Garbage or invitational Stayman. Disregarding the garbage option for the moment, it shows an invite facing 10-13 NT, so approx 12-13. 2♦ instead shows an artificial game force, in this case approx 14+. Personally I think a more standard NT system, i.e. no two-way stayman, is superior. But this is not a majority opinion.

jillybean, on 2023-December-28, 08:20, said:

This is club bridge so we could get any interference in our auctions.
2♣ could be garabge stayman.

If so that's a lot of hearts in the pack. It's possible but not that likely. Also, RHO having hearts with LHO having a balanced hand does not really argue for playing 2♥ vulnerable, even if you have over half the points - under those assumptions partner has at most a singleton and is a favourite to have a void.

[Cyberyeti]

Something worth thinking about which we used to do when we played an even wider range NT is to play X and 2N as different ranges of lebensohl, so you can X to show this range rather than shape.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 08:25, said:

If so that's a lot of hearts in the pack. It's possible but not that likely. Also, RHO having hearts with LHO having a balanced hand does not really argue for playing 2♥ vulnerable, even if you have over half the points - under those assumptions partner has at most a singleton and is a favourite to have a void.

I don't understand this, partner opened 1nt
I expect he has 2+ hearts

Yes, we play 2C as garbage - invitational stayman. 2D art gf

[Gilithin]

If you play to the system I mentioned earlier, Responder now continues as if Opener had responded 2♦. That means that Double can be penalty. If you play a more nebulous takeout double directly over 2♥ then this double should also be takeout, which is how you get to penalise them when Opener has the heart length. Both methods are just fine - it depends a little on how much complexity you want to include.