[kgr]

Inspired by the clear answers on my previous post about the DBL of a 1NT overcall:

1. 1NT-(2X)-DBL
We play strong NT. If opponents overcall natural at the 2 level then we play that DBL is penalty. (We also play a combination of Lebensohl and Rubensol).
Do you think that penalty DBL's are the best here?

2. 1NT-(2X)-P-(P)
DBL
If the DBL in point 1 is penalty what should DBL by 1NT opener be then? Probably always takeout oriented (small doubleton X) because penalty does not make sense having a partner that most likely is rather weak. At the other hand this feels counter-intuitive that one hand plays penalty DBLs and the other one takeout.

3. 1NT-(2X)-DBL-(2Y)
DBL
2nd DBL is always penalty? If 1st one is takeout and also if 1st is penalty?

4. 1NT-(P)-P-(2X)
P-(P)-DBL
DBL is clearly better takeout because you can't be strong here and you are sitting before ovecaller?

Thanks,
Koen

[mikeh]

1. I tend to play negative doubles here: a double suggests takeout, it announces ownership of the hand. It's strength is limited by the failure to use other methods: I use either rubensohl or a slightly more complex transfer lebensohl, altho I use slo-shows lebensohl in less-established partnerships where partner is unfamiliar with these. Double can be converted, so doubler should hold some defensive values.

In a weak field or against known hyper-aggressive overcallers, there is some sense in playing penalty, but I prefer negative

2. If the immediate double is negative, then this reopening double is card-showing. Interestingly, the meaning of this double doesn't change much regardless of what responder's double would have meant. Opener will not usually be protecting against a penalty double with length/strength in the overcalled suit...responder will rarely hold a penalty hand when opener has this, and the lack of a takeout double (which requires enough to claim ownership of the hand) means that opener should be full values...top of range for when responder takes out. This is what he would show if we played penalty doubles as well.

3. On this one, once again the meaning of the double is independent of the meaning of responder's double. If responder was making a takeout (negative) double, then opener needs less length/strength to double 4th seat's bid, because he can count on some help from partner. At the same time, it is far less likely to arise.... why is 4th seat running from a takeout double of partner's suit? While, after a negative double, opener needs less to double, he still needs a reason to do so, since partner may have xxx in the suit and 4th chair is likely to have 6+ and to be finding some working cards in dummy.

4. Whether this should be takeout or penalty is independent of the other sequences discussed. It can be usefully played either way. If it is played as takeout, it should promise ownership of the hand since opener will usually pass with a chunky 4 card holding but we may be scrambling at the 3-level if they bid a major. I would think that penalty would be very useful at mps: where you may need to turn 50 into 100 or 100 into 200/300 in order to get a good board: others will be +90 or +120. At imps, you need a clear reason to penalize 2M: you sure don't do it looking for a 1 trick set. So takeout at imps makes more sense (to me).

This is another example of how your methods can and perhaps should change depending on the scoring method in use.

[awm]

1. Penalty is standard. I have a slight preference for takeout. The fact is, no matter which meaning you choose you will occasionally be fixed when you have the other hand type. This is one of the major reasons I don't like transfer-based methods when overcalling opponents' notrump (you basically give them both the penalty and takeout oriented doubles). My reasoning for preferring takeout has a lot to do with the second sequence mentioned, in that you can hope for partner to balance when you have the penalty-oriented double but play takeout, whereas when you have the takeout-oriented double but play penalty you are well and truly fixed.

2. I don't understand "card-showing" as a meaning for this double. Usually this type of meaning announces ownership of the hand, and it's common over artificial calls or when partner opened a strong club. But what does it mean for 1NT opener to make a "card-showing" double? Hey I have a max? That seems... weird. To my knowledge the normal meaning of this double is takeout. The old-fashioned "standard" approach seems to be "takeout doubles in front of the bidder, penalty behind the bidder" whereas the more modern approach is "all doubles takeout in a non-forcing auction" to keep things symmetric. I prefer takeout for this double.

3. Penalty is standard, and my preference as well. It's standard that if your side has made a penalty double and opponents run, subsequent doubles are also penalty. If the initial double by responder is takeout, it's also standard that if partner makes a takeout double and opponents bid one of the suits for which partner implied support, double is penalty (i.e. 1♣-X-1♠-X penalty).

4. Takeout is the normal interpretation, and I agree with it.

[the hog]

"1. 1NT-(2X)-DBL
We play strong NT. If opponents overcall natural at the 2 level then we play that DBL is penalty. (We also play a combination of Lebensohl and Rubensol).
Do you think that penalty DBL's are the best here?"

Amongst stronger players takeout Xs are becoming standard here. I far prefer a takeout X to the penalty X. A penalty X can usually bepicked up by a re opening X by the NT opener. This covers your 2d eample.
Example 3 is a penalty X by NT opener
Example 4 would be takeout.

[1eyedjack]

X on hand 1 is better as takeout in my view. I don't see that the strength of the 1N opener is relevant to that decision. Having a strong 1N may mean that you will want to penalise more often, but it will also mean that you will want to compete more often. Opponents presumably know the strength of your 1N when they overcall.

1N opener will never have a protective penalty double opposite a responder who might have nothing when he passes. But he can have a relatively safe takeout double in protective seat with doubleton. You want to play the same type of double in both seats, so that argues for a takeout double by responder in direct seat.

Then, playing lebensohl by opener in response to responder's takeout double allows you to make the double on less than game try values and stay out of game even when opener shows maximum, or equally find game when responder has a genuine game try.

There are problem hands: On a misfit hand after responder has doubled, opener may be tempted to convert to a penalty pass. This may be risky at IMP if you have just doubled them into game and both defenders' hands are minimum in context.

Examples 2 and 3 flow from your policy on example 1, and 4 is takeout whatever.

[P_Marlowe]

1) neg. X is probably best from a frequency point of view
2) If you play nex. X in situation 1), you need to play neg. X in
situation 2), more precise a reopening dbl is madatory with
XX in the overcalled suit
If you play penalty dbl in 1), a neg. X is to risky, since partner
is broke and most of the time he is looking at xxx in their suit
or even xxxx, where does he want to hide?
3) yes, after a pos. repsonse, the 2nd dbl from opener is penalty
if the 1st dbl was penalty, ... every dbl afterwarts is penalty
if the 2nd was neg, responder promised some length in the 2nd suit
and values
4) yes, dbl. is neg. X

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

Quote

. 1NT-(2X)-DBL
We play strong NT. If opponents overcall natural at the 2 level then we play that DBL is penalty. (We also play a combination of Lebensohl and Rubensol).
Do you think that penalty DBL's are the best here?

Penalty is standard for historical reasons. In fact both penalty and takeout are good when they come up, but with my junior partner we've been giving this serious thought and came to the conclusion that we want to play:

* PENALTY if we are vuln.
* TAKE OUT if we are not vuln.

Why? Because take out is potentially exposing us to bidding suboptimal contracts where the 100s might add when vuln.

[Free]

I usually play Dbl as takeout, but that's in a weak NT context. There you have to fight the partscore more often than after strong NT I think. But takeout doubles still give you more flexibility so I like it:
1. Takeout, fight the partscore. I expect partner to double with a decent hand and only doubleton X (see point 2) so with a penalty double I either bid game or pass (hoping for a dbl).
2. Takeout, fight the partscore or let partner penalize opponents.
3. Penalty, since we have natural and 2NT bids available to find our best fit.
4. Takeout, perhaps partner has a penalty double.

You forgot one:
1NT - p - p - 2X
Dbl
This is also takeout for me

Playing like this, you will sometimes miss a juicy penalty (only if partner can't dbl), but you'll have a lot more competitive possibilities. Imo the gains are bigger than the losses.

[brianshark]

1. Penalties... I play strong NT... you compete both on points and distribution, but you double on points, so 15-17 means the amount of times you want to penalise rather than compete is proportionally larger than if you played weak NT. (I think.) Also, I don't like risking passing with game on, hoping partner can re-open with a double to collect a penalty... it's a bit of a gamble.

2. Take-out... an obvious usage playing penalties above IMO.

3. Penalties... p has shown a balance of points and can panalise one of opp's suits... he needs to know if I can penalise their retreat suit.

4. Take-out... no point playing penalties here really.

Based on the above 4 cases, the hand after the overcall doubles for penalties, and the hand before the overcall doubles for t/o. I think this makes sense?

[Free]

brianshark, on Oct 24 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

Based on the above 4 cases, the hand after the overcall doubles for penalties, and the hand before the overcall doubles for t/o. I think this makes sense?

Yes and no: basicly, the reasoning is that if you're behind you'll have a useful penalty double more often. However, if you have a takeout double behind, then partner will probably have a penalty double in front of the overcall. So neither will be able to double, and you'll miss a juicy penalty... For a while I also thought this makes sense, but it doesn't. Both players need to use the same kind of double to get maximum results: both penalty, or both takeout.