[gwnn]

 aguahombre, on 2013-December-22, 15:44, said:

And their partners need to adjust how or whether they dare advance these doubles. Their expert partners can figure out the strength across the table without this assistance, and the Double merely gives the other side more tools without taking up any room.

Players do well to learn from experts, but I don't believe so in this case. At least the ill-advised weak NT overcall takes up a bit of the opponents' space on occasion.

So you're saying that this double is unnecessary for the experts too? Your second sentence seems to imply this. Maybe you should apply as a bermuda bowl non-playing captain, since you obviously know what expert partners can figure out better than the experts themselves.

If you're not saying that, it seems like your second statement is arguing against your point - if experts don't need the double that much from their partners yet they still make it, it would mean that non-experts need the double even more (because they're not so good in gauging the strength across the table without the X).

Finally, about the figuring out the strength across the table bit, let me say that even expert partners can be at a loss whether their partner has a 6 count or a 13 count when it goes 1m-p-1M-p; 2M-p-p. Opps could have anywhere between 15 and 25 HCP between them. Partner doubling in second seat would have made it much easier for fourth seat.

Yes, I know that if you X and it promises 4441 or close to 4441 and 13+, your partner will do better than mine who will only know that I could have a bunch of possible distributions and only 11+. But equally true is the fact that my partner will do better than yours when I double and you pass. Your partner can be a super genius if you like but she can still not guess whether you have xxx xxx KQxx Kxx or Axx xxx KQxx Axx and many times the opps' bidding will proceed the same way. The way you state this problem is always about me overloading my double but you never seem to admit that you are overloading your pass. You just shrug and explain that people like me just "always must do something" as if we're somehow addicted to these doubles. Maybe you're also a bit addicted to these disparaging remarks?

[aguahombre]

Actually, it wasn't about you at all. You disagree with my contention about takeout doubles with flat, minimum, opening bids. We now have your take on them and my take on them.

In fourth chair it is true Partner --expert or not---does not know 2nd hand's strength at that very moment. But I believe it is more important to know whether she has a takeout double hand at that moment.

[Vampyr]

 Lorne50, on 2013-December-22, 09:19, said:

How many experts do you see playing a weak NT overcall?

I think that this question can prevent wasting time and effort on system design. When an idea is as basic as the one brought up by the OP, someone will have thought of it before. The fact that nobody plays it must mean something.

[gwnn]

 aguahombre, on 2013-December-22, 17:54, said:

Actually, it wasn't about you at all. You disagree with my contention about takeout doubles with flat, minimum, opening bids. We now have your take on them and my take on them.

In fourth chair it is true Partner --expert or not---does not know 2nd hand's strength at that very moment. But I believe it is more important to know whether she has a takeout double hand at that moment.

I just used you vs me as a shortcut for '4441 13+' vs 'can be flat.' I thought it would be obvious to you but I guess not.

It's a bit annoying to talk about this since you readily abandon points you've made and I addressed. I asked for clarification on your point on why experts make these doubles even if they don't need them. All I got was a clarification on whether your original post was about me personally or not even though that should be clear to anyone who can read and your point on experts not needing them but still making them is not clear to anyone in the universe. Is your point that:
-you know better than those experts and they should listen to you?
-those experts are in a state of cognitive dissonance?
-the experts are addicted to these doubles?
-there are no experts who make them?
-do you dispute my point that in many situations even an expert can't judge to a reasonable degree (say, within a 3-point margin) how strong their opps' hands are?
-some combination of the above?
-did you fail to read that part of my post?
-or do you just concede that your point was self-contradictory?

[Zelandakh]

As a junior I experimented some with having a 1NT rebid after a takeout double being 13-15. That was not as bad as you might think it is but overall the losses outweigh the gains.

[allias]

 jillybean, on 2013-December-19, 18:53, said:

I find a frustrating number of balanced hands that I can't bid so I am thinking of playing a weak (12-14) nt overcall in direct seat, not vulnerable.

Your comments, experience and usual unrestrained criticism would be appreciated.

Much of what I've read here seems to be intuitive and incorrect
If my math is correct on average your RHO would have 13.5 points and you would have 12.5 points and the other 2 hands would have 7 points each [I stress on average]
Every time you bid you take the risk that the outcome could be a disaster so what is different here? On the other hand you have the advantage that if you or partner become declarer of knowing where many of the ops points are. I agree with another reply that that you could be well advised to have a comprehensive rescue system in place if say the ops come in with a double.
Perhaps less controversial is to pass and allow partner to protect [after all protection is all about calling on fewer points because you think p may have a reasonable hand that does not conform to direct seat rules] and that the hand belongs to you.
Finally what value has the comments of "what the better players do" have? Players are not neccessarily the best system designers,as a pilot is unlikely to be an expert in aerodynamics

[neilkaz]

 jillybean, on 2013-December-20, 10:42, said:

This was more or less my partners response when I suggested it. Back to the drawing board.

We agree. I'd expect some of your concerns occur after PD's or your decisions to balance or not in PO seat didn't work out. Thus you desire to bid these values instantly and avoid some balancing actions later.

With regards to balancing, allow me to strongly recommend Lawrence's rewrite of his great book about Balancing. If you and PD both read this, you should end up on the same wavelength more often.

.. neilkaz ..

[aguahombre]

The very idea of a weak balanced NT overcall should have died long before this thread began; and the thread is being necro'd from January??

[steve2005]

There is an alternative to a weak NT overcall that I don't believe has been mentioned here.

Overcalling on a 4-card major at the 1-level. This is mentioned in Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls.

If memory serves you need:

a decent 4 card suit

values in opponents suit

and not be suitable for another call especially a takeout double

[ArtK78]

 steve2005, on 2014-June-27, 15:23, said:

There is an alternative to a weak NT overcall that I don't believe has been mentioned here.

Overcalling on a 4-card major at the 1-level. This is mentioned in Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls.

If memory serves you need:

a decent 4 card suit

values in opponents suit

and not be suitable for another call especially a takeout double

Length in the opponent's suit, not values.

[FrancesHinden]

I've played an 8-board Swiss match against a pair playing a 1D overcall of a 1C opening as 0-7 any. It's actually much more effective than you would expect at first sight.
(They were also playing forcing pass with a 1D opening bid as 0-7 any).

[whereagles]

If the statistics above are correct (opener avg 13.5 H, overcaller avg 12.5 H), then the weak NT overcall is marginally unsound in theory. In practice, since it is a very well defined bid, you're probably ok playing it.

I would say find a pard willing to play that way and check it out in practice.