[akhare]

What if 1N for takeout is played with the following restrictions:

1) Only when we are NV
2) Only over their 1m opening
3) With a more constructive point range (say (8)9-13)
4) Denies a 5 card major
5) X when NV ostensibly shows a 14-17 balanced NT hand (OR a hand too strong to make an simple overcall)

The goal of using 1N for takeout of course is to deny them space at the 1 level...

[mgoetze]

I like to play
X = Takeout
1NT = 15-18 balanced

I think it is superior because you have more space over the less specific bid...

[awm]

Here are the main reasons I don't like 1NT for takeout:

(1) It wrong-sides all notrump contracts, which are not unlikely after a "takeout" call.

(2) While it often pays to get in aggressively over 1m, forcing yourself to play at the two-level exposes you to a lot more penalty sequences.

(3) It removes the opportunity for partner to convert the takeout to penalty, which is rare at the one-level but a big win when it happens.

While proponents argue that the "power double" creates opportunities to penalize, I've found that penalizing is a lot more effective when the opponents trump suit is breaking 1-5 (with good intermediates in the five hand) than when it's breaking 3-3. So doubling to say "I have a good hand with a few cards in their minor" doesn't really allow you to profitably penalize at the one level, and doesn't compensate you for the penalties you lost on the 1-5 breaks.

[akhare]

awm, on 2011-May-04, 14:55, said:

Here are the main reasons I don't like 1NT for takeout:

(1) It wrong-sides all notrump contracts, which are not unlikely after a "takeout" call.

(2) While it often pays to get in aggressively over 1m, forcing yourself to play at the two-level exposes you to a lot more penalty sequences.

(3) It removes the opportunity for partner to convert the takeout to penalty, which is rare at the one-level but a big win when it happens.

Regarding 1), note that the suggestion is to play it over 1m only, which would preclude wrong siding if they open 1M. Considering that 1m doesn't really promise a suit, is wrong siding such a big concern over 1m openings?

2) is a valid concern, but is that equally true for a more constructive 1N for takeout as well?

3) is still a possibility if they open 1M. Over (1m) - PD, can't pard pass more aggressively with say four good trumps and the balance of power ?

[akhare]

<Duplicate -- deleted>

[awm]

Yes, wrong-siding is a concern. There is no reason a 1m opening can't have a suit, and the fact that one opponent has shortage in the suit opened makes 1m more likely to be a suit.

Basically you are trading one-level penalty opportunities when their suit breaks really badly and our points are evenly distributed (i.e. 1-6 break with 11 opposite 10) for opportunities where their suit breaks relatively evenly and our points are skewed (i.e. 3-4 break with 16 opposite 5). I suspect that the former situation is a lot more lucrative (we have transportation instead of our strong hand being endplayed all the time starting from trick one; they can't pull trumps ever because of the break; we almost surely have ruffs coming somewhere in the long hand rather than both being balanced, etc).

The other points made seem to be about how this is "better" than playing 1NT for takeout on a wider range or over 1M openings. That is not important to me, since it seems like you are taking a terrible method and comparing to a merely bad method... which does not make me prefer it to better and more standard methods.

[straube]

I think 1N as takeout has several downsides...

1) to be "safe", it needs to promise 3+ in each of three takeout suits...and shortness in RHO's suit. I'd like to be able to double 1D as takeout with...4342, 4432, 3442, 4441, 4333, 3433 with hands of approximately 11-14 points. These may not be standard takeout double shapes, but I think expert practice is to double with at least most of them. Those add up to a lot of hands that we'd have to pass. I also think I want to use it for the 4S/5H intermediate sorts of hands.

2) 1N takeout is more descriptive than a takeout double, but it also leaves much less room to sort things out. When weak, responder has to guess immediately which major to bid. Contrast that to takeout doubles when responder has 4/4 in the majors. He gets to respond 1S and then rebid 2H if the auction allows. Seems like advancer's typical invite is to cue bid (like Stayman) and then raise a fitting major...which usually takes us to the 3-level.

3) as awm pointed out, it wrongsides NT contracts and NT ought frequently to be right.

4) I don't think it's safe at all. It's really arguable whether 1m dbl rdbl ought even to set up a force (as opposed to showing a suit) because it's hard to catch folks at the 1-level, but 1m 1N dbl would obviously set us up for penalties.

5) The power double is too wide in shape. It apparently has to handle both takeout and balanced shapes starting at 15 hcps (or 14 with your tweak) and of course, strong 1-suited hands. I would be a little reluctant to make a power double with a strong 1-suited hand because advancer would be tempted to leave the double in while hoping that I have the balanced type. I also feel that having the dbl be (usually) balanced or takeout double is a little bit cross-purposed. If it's the takeout sort of hand, then opener is very interested in which 4-cd major partner has. If it's the balanced sort, opener will more frequently want to know whether responder is bidding a 4 or 5-cd major. 1D dbl P 1H as 0-4 doesn't seem like best use of this bid. I'd rather use that sequence for fit-finding.

[Quantumcat]

akhare, on 2011-May-04, 14:36, said:

What if 1N for takeout is played with the following restrictions:

1) Only when we are NV
2) Only over their 1m opening
3) With a more constructive point range (say (8)9-13)
4) Denies a 5 card major
5) X when NV ostensibly shows a 14-17 balanced NT hand (OR a hand too strong to make an simple overcall)

The goal of using 1N for takeout of course is to deny them space at the 1 level...

This is what I play:

(1♣) 1NT = takeout of clubs
(1♣) X = takeout of diamonds (can be passed when responder has clubs)
(1♣) 2♣ = natural
(1♣) 1♦ = strong (any shape)
(1♣) 2♦ = constructive
(1♦) 2♦ = natural
(1♦/1♥/1♠) 1NT = takeout
(1♦/1♥/1♠) X = strong (any shape)


(1 Something) 1NT (X) XX = 4 cards in the highest suit (usually spades, but hearts if the "something" was 1♠)
(1 Something) 1NT (X) Pass = no five card suit, not 4 cards in highest suit
(1 Something) 1NT (X) Pass (Pass) XX = start bidding 4-card suits up the line
(1 Something) 1NT (X) Pass (Pass) 2 Something Else = 5 card suit

"Strong" means 16+ HCP any shape, but with a takeout shape prefer to make a takeout.
We play rubensohl after a double is interfered with.

If the strong double or 1♦ does not get interfered with, 2♣ is artificial gameforce, about 8+ HCP, 1NT = 5-7 with stopper, jump in diamonds, hearts or spades = 5-7, 2NT = 5-7 with clubs, non-jump suit 0-7 might only have 3 cards.

[PrecisionL]

We play the Overcall System with the 1NT for takeout (a) 6-15 nV, (b) 9-15 V along [with] the Power Double (a good 15+ hcp) with Herbert Responses. NT for takeout always guarantees 3 cards in the other suits (usually Qxx or better) and could contain a weak 5-cd suit. We are pleased with the results without any tweaks for the past 3 years.

[Free]

akhare, on 2011-May-04, 14:36, said:

The goal of using 1N for takeout of course is to deny them space at the 1 level...

Do opps really need that much space at 1-level when we have a takeout Dbl? Can't we use extra space at 1-level when partner is weak?

[Zelandakh]

If I were going to use X this way I think I would be inclined to invert 1NT and the next step, so over 1C, 1D = limited takeout and 1NT = diamonds. The reason is that I am more interested in preempting them when I have a suit than when I have the other 3 suits. In the latter case they are either bidding where I have length or raising, and 1NT is not preempting their raises anyway. I toyed with ideas along both lines somewhat when I was younger but came to the conclusion that both standard and Raptor are better methods and have not really looked into it since.

[Phil]

I have played overcall structure for many years of which 1NTO is part of. Here is my opinion:

Roman Jumps are great and can get an awkward hand into the auction easily. They do not have to be played with the other aspects.

Power doubles are nice, and you will get some good results after occasionally nailing the opponents, but more from right siding 3N. They are not worth having to play 1NTO which is terrible. Here's why:

- You automatically give up one level safety. This business about taking away the opponents 1 level is hogwash. I'm looking at a marginal hand with both majors. Guess what! When I have this - I want to defend - not take away their space.

If you still want to play this, tighten up the reuirements so its like a normal takeout double.

By the way, I've been playing around with a method where the cheapest one level overcall is a light takeout like the 1NTO is. I doubt its worh the loss of a simple overcall, but it would be interesting to try.

[akhare]

Phil, on 2011-May-05, 13:33, said:

By the way, I've been playing around with a method where the cheapest one level overcall is a light takeout like the 1NTO is. I doubt its worh the loss of a simple overcall, but it would be interesting to try.

Would this pass GCC muster? It probably would, as long as it shows 4+ in the overcalled suit?

[rbforster]

While I agree with the factors Adam mentions, I think there's an issue of frequency here. Sure when partner can pass your takeout X at the one level, it's often a very nice result... however, when was the last time you remember this happening? Partner needs a nice trump stack ahead of the opener and, with doubler being distributional, you have an increased chance that their side will bid to a fit elsewhere.

On the other hand, the big wins I think for NTO come from preempting on weak, distributional hands (that would otherwise be silent) and jamming up your opponents' constructive auction. Standard methods can't handle letting you make a takeout X on a 4441 7-8 count, while with these hands NTO gets your shape and likely weakness across immediately with a preemptive bid that makes it hard for opponents to find their 4-4 vs 5-3 major fits with less than GF values. Better yet, advancer is in a very good position to jump to the 3 level with a 5-6 card suit and extend the NTO preempt.

In short, when they open, it's much more likely to be their hand than ours, and especially when we have a distributional hand with less than opening values, it's likely to be a situation where both sides have a fit. Finding yours quickly can cause lots of trouble for the opposing side. I've played NTO for a long time and penalties are pretty rare. I would feel very comfortable if I was only doing this at NV as OP proposed. At Vul or intermediate vulnerabilities, I prefer to tighten up the values required for the NTO bid to be more in line with a standard takeout double.

[Quantumcat]

Phil, on 2011-May-05, 13:33, said:

You automatically give up one level safety. This business about taking away the opponents 1 level is hogwash.

If you are afraid of playing at the 2-level when partner has a five-card suit you shouldn't be making a takeout double anyway.

Since you shouldn't make a takeout double when afraid of playing at the 2-level when your partner has a five card suit (and is likely to reply at the 2-level), there is no harm in making the takeout have to be responded to at the 2-level.

As long as you have a good runout structure when they double the 1NT bid (see my earlier post), and don't make any stupidly bad takeouts, you will be fine (see the last paragraph of the post above me).

Having a system that protects against very bad but unlikely disasters, but gives up loads of different benefits is silly and superstitious. It's like playing strong twos instead of weak twos because you are afraid of the suit splitting 7-0-0 and getting doubled and going for 1700. If you are sensible and don't open a weak two when an average distribution of the cards will lead you to five off, just like you shouldn't make a takeout double if you can't stand to be at the 2-level when pard has a five-card suit, nothing bad can happen except unlikely horrible splits of cards and the opponents guessing to do the right thing.

[kenrexford]

A couple of thoughts, as a person who has used a 1NT overcall as a light takeout since about 1992 (off and on). Some are responding to others.

1. Penalty doubles are rarely costly, especially at IMPs. Sure, it happens. Often, though, the opponents have a really hard time converting to doubling posture, and at IMPs you often end up OK anyway.

2. The "convert to penalty" might be nice, but no one is doubling with a sub-takeout hand. Instead, we end up in 1NT on those hands for a really good result a lot.

3. The "which major" problem is illusory. Cuebid? 1minor-1NT-P-2minor? Seems easy.

4. Redoubling as an escape to the better low suit is a good idea. Redoubler can "ask again."

5. Don't get addicted to it if red. If white, 4333 with four in Opener's suit is plausible, but be realistic red on white.

6. The benefit from a double being "real" is important.

7. Overcalling 1♠ with 1NT for takeout does not deprive the partnership of the two-level. That was already done by the opponents.

8. This comes up a LOT. It is well worth discussion and understandings. One could easily overcall 1NT for takeout 10 times in a session without being shocked. Not always, but it does recur more than about any other call.

9. Partner NOT overcalling 1NT gives a thinking player/defender some interesting table feel insights. This cannot be understated.

[rbforster]

Just a few additional comments/advice from my long history playing NTO,

- I don't do this with "off-shape" hands like some people do with double. You must have 3+ in each of the unbid suits and 2- in the suit opened. 4333 is not an NTO for me, regardless of where the 4 is.
- 5332 isn't really a good shape for an NTO. With 5M, I would overcall at the one level if possible. With 5m, NTO is ok but more risky than with other shapes since partner may guess wrong where to play
- I don't do it with 'crazy' shapes like the original guys. 6331 is not an NTO for me!

And regarding the power double that replaces the regular strong NT overcall,

- you don't get doubled off for penalty very easily like you can when you overcall a strong NT and they've got power and balanced hands too
- you have most of the 1 level to scramble to a fit and opponents' methods will have a much harder time penalizing (they may bid over the X, they may lack confidence in penalizing 1 of suit in a 4-3, etc)
- it's a lot more likely you can sit for a penalty double of 1m opposite a strong NT hand as advancer than if partner is expected to be both weaker and short in their suit. Esp true when they are Vul and you didn't want to play your own game
- I like Herbert negatives (cheapest bid is 0-4) in response to the double, especially over their 1m opener.

Hope this helps.

[gwnn]

straube, on 2011-May-04, 16:09, said:

4441

That's bad I think. I stopped doing it and I'm happier now. I agree with the rest of the shapes, provided it's not like 11 with QJ9x in diamonds.

[Phil]

Quantumcat, on 2011-May-08, 18:11, said:

If you are afraid of playing at the 2-level when partner has a five-card suit you shouldn't be making a takeout double anyway.

Since you shouldn't make a takeout double when afraid of playing at the 2-level when your partner has a five card suit (and is likely to reply at the 2-level), there is no harm in making the takeout have to be responded to at the 2-level.

As long as you have a good runout structure when they double the 1NT bid (see my earlier post), and don't make any stupidly bad takeouts, you will be fine (see the last paragraph of the post above me).

Having a system that protects against very bad but unlikely disasters, but gives up loads of different benefits is silly and superstitious. It's like playing strong twos instead of weak twos because you are afraid of the suit splitting 7-0-0 and getting doubled and going for 1700. If you are sensible and don't open a weak two when an average distribution of the cards will lead you to five off, just like you shouldn't make a takeout double if you can't stand to be at the 2-level when pard has a five-card suit, nothing bad can happen except unlikely horrible splits of cards and the opponents guessing to do the right thing.

I'm sorry, but you seem to fail to grasp the nature of my previous post.

When did I discuss unlikely disasters or the relevance of partner having a five card suit?

[Quantumcat]

Phil, on 2011-May-09, 11:42, said:

I'm sorry, but you seem to fail to grasp the nature of my previous post.

When did I discuss unlikely disasters or the relevance of partner having a five card suit?

Here:

Phil, on 2011-May-05, 13:33, said:

You automatically give up one level safety.

If you need 1-level safety, you must be scared of partner bidding at the two-level, which he is going to do 90% of the time after a normal takeout double.

If partner is going to respond at the two-level most of the time, you may as well prevent the opponents having a constructive auction. Especially cause the double gives them extra definition - e.g. they may play negative freebids, and a redouble is usually defined as something specific, usually 9+ HCP with shortness in opener's suit. Whereas after the 1NT overcall they really need to double with any "strong" hand, they don't get the specificness of shape like a redouble gives.