From: boyiny@noether.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Defending against no-trumps, especially weak ones.
Summary: Double and defend with your life.
Keywords: weak no-trumps, double, run-outs
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:49:17 GMT
Old_subject: Re: QUESTION: Are 7-11 pt NTs legal?

In article <1993Jan24.171234.11536@hounix.org> bmedley@hounix.org (Bert Medley) writes:
>I recently heard that someone played very weak no trumps (7-11 HCP) at
>a club in Galveston, TX.  Are these things legal?  What is the best defence
>if they ARE legal?

Defending against a 7-11 no-trump really is not much different from
defending against a 10-12 no-trump or even a 12-14 no-trump....

The theory is that Double should be a good hand that does not have extreme
shape (so that the result of 1Nx would not be too annoying) and I define
"good" as about a strong 14, perhaps even 13 with controls and a 5-bagger.

Otherwise, you need:

(a)	Suit-showing overcalls in the majors.  This is important!
(b)	A conventional bid to show strong but very shapely hands (usu. 2N).

I habitually use something from the Astro family.  A good alternative is
Meckwell (2C= Spades and a round suit, 2D= Diamonds plus a major).  Under
_NO_CIRCUMSTANCES_ play Cappelletti/Hamilton or any defence with no direct
overcall available in a major.  I think that Meckwell is _very_very_
slightly better than Asptro for 10-12 no-trumps, and the situation is
reversed with 13-15 Precision no-trumps, and for 12-14 no-trumps it is
about even.  [Note, in the U.S. the mini has just about overran the 13-15
in popularity, which probably explains Meckwell's choice, as they used to
play Astro themselves.]  This is the result of going over hands generated
by BOREL and people are welcome to provide different opinions if they had
done similar studies.

Being the nice flexible guy that I am :-) I should add that I consider
Cappelletti and similar defences that include a gladiator overcall of 2C to
be so intellectually challenged that they reflect badly on the user(s).

I suggest that the defense for no-trumps up to 15-17, which for many people
really is 14(with any excuse)-17 nowadays, be the same.  With a no-trump
that goes up to 18 (the REAL no-trump!!), or when overcalling with a passed
hand, I suggest something like Meckwell (X= majors or a minor, 2m=m+unknown M).

Of course, I love to double for penalties, but agreements needed after the
double should include the following:

[a]	What to do over run-outs, in particular which bids are forcing? 
	I suggest whatever you do over intervention of your NT is a good idea.
	You may need to play with it a bit to account for the greate
	variance in hand types, of course, but partner will assume 14-16 BAL.

[b]	Which passes are forcing and which passes are not, and what're X's?
	I suggest optional doubles for most situations after a run-out
	(for me, it shows two to four bad trumps with defence) except
	when you have a forcing pass set up, then double in DIRECT seat
	only should be for penalties.  I also suggest no forcing passes
	unless you use an agreement that 1N-X-P (forces a redouble)-P
	sets up a forcing pass.

[c]	What is a premature takeout?
	I play that (1N)-X-any bid be as if partner showed a balanced
	hand opposite a weak hand, for you that'll be P-1N-any bid.


One also need agreements over the following:

(1N)-(2C*)-	Double IMNSHO should be general values, about 14 hcp.
(1N)-(2M)-	Double should STILL be general values, although this
		is much more controversial.