[bobjan]

After my RHO opened 1NT, I doubled with 16 HCP and 4432 distrib. LHO passed and my partner bid 2Clubs. Though not familiar with the partner, I switched to 2H (four cards) and it was final contract, easily made, we gained IMPs.
My partner said 2C was Stayman !? Was it ? What is your opinion of this?

[the hog]

No its not Stayman UNLESS you specifically have that agreement with pd. It is a weak hand with Cs.

[helene_t]

Ron is right. It follows from plain logic: Stayman is usually used with invitational or stronger hands that don't have a long suit. Such a hand would obviously pass the double, happy to playing 1N down.

Here's a rule that helps you decide whether a convention applies in a specific situation: conventions apply only in the very specific situations that have been agreed. They never extrapolate to other situations. Agree with p to play stayman in the specific sequences
1N-(p)-2♣
=====
2N-(p)-3♣
=====
2♣-(p)-2♦-(p)
2N-(p)-3♣

If you have the generic agreement that you ignore all enemy doubles unless agreed otherwise, Stayman then also applies in
1N-(x)-2♣
However, Stayman does not apply in response to p's overcall. As it happens, in SAYC,
(1♠)-1N-(p)-2♣
actually is stayman, but that's an explicit agreement that has been made in SAYC and which you should not assume if you haven't discussed it with p (or if you have the agreement to play SAYC or some other standard that happens to define that bid as stayman).

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

I don't know if others have this specific agreement but I think so, because I don't think my partner and I just made it up originally:

Playing against weak NT (we play DONT against strong NT), double by partner is for penalty and shows a good hand that was willing to open 1NT itself. So double is treated like a "stolen bid" .. "Hey I was going to open 1NT" --

Then advancer bids in all cases just as if partner had opened 1NT. All systems are on including Stayman, transfers, Lebensohl etc. Advancer can also of course just pass for penalty but sometimes this doesn't pay so well when we are red and they are white.

However without advance agreement, 2♣ is not Stayman but an escape from 1NTx.

Your partner was out to lunch on this one because if 2♣ WAS Stayman, then he obviously can't pass your 2♥ bid unless he was playing "Garbage" Stayman which seems pretty unlikely in the scenario you pose.

[jdonn]

It is a very poor system to play notrump systems on opposite a double of a weak notrump. On the other hand, a pair that agrees such a thing at least has agreements about the auction, which puts them ahead of the vast majority of pairs, and since it's very easy to play I can understand wanting to do it. But it really doesn't work well since the doubler might not be balanced, and might be stronger than a strong notrump.

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

But it really doesn't work well since the doubler might not be balanced, and might be stronger than a strong notrump.

If the doubler isn't balanced (or rather has a wildly unbalanced hand ... you might double with a singleton in some cases), he has other Capp bids besides double. We reserve double for stolen bid pretty much. Life is more difficult when they open a weak 1NT so you just have to adjust.... you have to loosen up on what you consider a "strong NT, 1NT opening hand"

Being greater than the 15-18 range of balanced/semi-balanced hands that would double may happen to some, but it's rare. I can't recall ever having this (wonderful) problem... I don't know the harm in playing double as stolen bid anyhow, as we're not going to bid a slam and doubler will accept all invitations from advancer to bid a game.

We usually have good results playing this way so maybe we just play the dummy better than most ... .

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

It is a very poor system to play notrump systems on opposite a double of a weak notrump. On the other hand, a pair that agrees such a thing at least has agreements about the auction, which puts them ahead of the vast majority of pairs, and since it's very easy to play I can understand wanting to do it. But it really doesn't work well since the doubler might not be balanced, and might be stronger than a strong notrump.

Although I agree with this entirely when third seat (responder) passes, my regular partners and I play as if my partner opened a strong NT when third seat makes a natural bid. That is to say if it goes (1NT)* - Dbl** - (2♥) - ? where 1NT is weak and Dbl is penalty, then we play a Lebensohl-like sequence. That is to say we play the same methods as if it had gone 1NT - (2♥) - ?.

I have no idea what is standard in this sequence or if you can suggest a better method. For us, we felt it was the easiest way to make sure we had agreements. (Which is a point you did mention.)

[skjaeran]

Echognome, on Jul 19 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

It is a very poor system to play notrump systems on opposite a double of a weak notrump. On the other hand, a pair that agrees such a thing at least has agreements about the auction, which puts them ahead of the vast majority of pairs, and since it's very easy to play I can understand wanting to do it. But it really doesn't work well since the doubler might not be balanced, and might be stronger than a strong notrump.

Although I agree with this entirely when third seat (responder) passes, my regular partners and I play as if my partner opened a strong NT when third seat makes a natural bid. That is to say if it goes (1NT)* - Dbl** - (2♥) - ? where 1NT is weak and Dbl is penalty, then we play a Lebensohl-like sequence. That is to say we play the same methods as if it had gone 1NT - (2♥) - ?.

I have no idea what is standard in this sequence or if you can suggest a better method. For us, we felt it was the easiest way to make sure we had agreements. (Which is a point you did mention.)

How do you play doubles in such a sequence, penalty or t/o?
(1NT) x (2♥) x=?
(1NT) x (2♥) p (p) x=?

I guess I'd prefer double to be t/o for both hands. But I'm not sure, since I haven't played this method.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Jul 19 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

How do you play doubles in such a sequence, penalty or t/o?
(1NT) x (2♥) x=?
(1NT) x (2♥) p (p) x=?

I guess I'd prefer double to be t/o for both hands. But I'm not sure, since I haven't played this method.

I specifically avoided that as it depended on the partnership. But it was consistent with how we played 1NT - (2♥) - X (with obvious ramifications for the 2nd sequence).

So if you haven't played this method, what method did you play?

[foo]

bobjan, on Jul 16 2007, 04:58 AM, said:

After my RHO opened 1NT,  I doubled with 16 HCP and 4432 distrib. LHO passed and my partner bid 2Clubs. Though not familiar with the partner, I switched to  2H (four cards) and it was final contract, easily made,  we gained IMPs.
My partner said 2C was Stayman !? Was it ? What is your opinion of this?

It is not an unsual agreement to play that the auction following a penalty X of 1N is continued as if We had =opened= 1N.

It's playable; and at least a pair doing this has a sane set of agreements for this situation.

From a Theory POV, one wishes the 1N opener on lead as much as possible. That argues against this agreement.

OTOH, having a different system for this situation vs Us opening 1N means more memory overhead and a larger chance of a mistake happening, and the odds of Us have game or slam are considerably lower in this situation.

[skjaeran]

Echognome, on Jul 19 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 19 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

How do you play doubles in such a sequence, penalty or t/o?
(1NT) x (2♥) x=?
(1NT) x (2♥) p (p) x=?

I guess I'd prefer double to be t/o for both hands. But I'm not sure, since I haven't played this method.

I specifically avoided that as it depended on the partnership. But it was consistent with how we played 1NT - (2♥) - X (with obvious ramifications for the 2nd sequence).

So if you haven't played this method, what method did you play?

In fact we haven't got an absoulte agreement here, as far as I can rememer, at least not in our notes.

A double of 2♥'s would thus be penalty.

Since we have 2NT=lebensohl as more or less default (except where it just HAS to be natural), I'm pretty sure we'd both bid as this being a lebensohl position. So I was wrong in my previous post. But we need to get it formally into our agreements, especially wether double is penalty or t/o, the rest should follow from our meta agreements.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Jul 20 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jul 19 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 19 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

How do you play doubles in such a sequence, penalty or t/o?
(1NT) x (2♥) x=?
(1NT) x (2♥) p (p) x=?

I guess I'd prefer double to be t/o for both hands. But I'm not sure, since I haven't played this method.

I specifically avoided that as it depended on the partnership. But it was consistent with how we played 1NT - (2♥) - X (with obvious ramifications for the 2nd sequence).

So if you haven't played this method, what method did you play?

In fact we haven't got an absoulte agreement here, as far as I can rememer, at least not in our notes.

A double of 2♥'s would thus be penalty.

Since we have 2NT=lebensohl as more or less default (except where it just HAS to be natural), I'm pretty sure we'd both bid as this being a lebensohl position. So I was wrong in my previous post. But we need to get it formally into our agreements, especially wether double is penalty or t/o, the rest should follow from our meta agreements.

Nice. Yeah I was talking to another poster and they hadn't thought about it either. I think it's a common enough sequence opposite a weak NT pair that it's probably good to have agreements. I think most would understand Lebensohl here and that 2♠ was non-forcing.

The questions I had were:
(1) should double be t/o or penalty?
(2) if you play some form of transfer lebensohl, should that still apply?

Question (2) is more general for me than this particular sequence. But I'll open up a new thread for that.

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Jul 19 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

It is a very poor system to play notrump systems on opposite a double of a weak notrump. [....]

Although I agree with this entirely when third seat (responder) passes, my regular partners and I play as if my partner opened a strong NT when third seat makes a natural bid. That is to say if it goes (1NT)* - Dbl** - (2♥) - ? where 1NT is weak and Dbl is penalty, then we play a Lebensohl-like sequence. That is to say we play the same methods as if it had gone 1NT - (2♥) - ?.

I have no idea what is standard in this sequence or if you can suggest a better method. For us, we felt it was the easiest way to make sure we had agreements. (Which is a point you did mention.)

Basically agree, but the requirement for various bids (including double, whatever that means) may be different because you have to catter for an unbalanced doubler. This is a judgement issue, though. The two situations are similar enough to play the same system, I think.

[Echognome]

helene_t, on Jul 20 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

Basically agree, but the requirement for various bids (including double, whatever that means) may be different because you have to catter for an unbalanced doubler. This is a judgement issue, though. The two situations are similar enough to play the same system, I think.

Not disagreeing, but it's even more than that. Not only can the doubler be unbalanced, but he is also unlimited. A 1NT opening not only defines the hand in terms of shape, but also in strength. However, after a weak 2, this is the case as well. It is interesting how we should view breaks from the lebensohl sequence in both cases, but I imagine both will simply show the GF variety of the double.

On the other hand, most lebensohl sequences surround responder (or in this case advancer) describing his hand, so it may warrant the similarity on those grounds.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Jul 20 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

It is not an unsual agreement to play that the auction following a pebalty X of 1N is continued as if We had =opened= 1N.

It's playable; and at least a pair doing this has a sane set of agreements for this situation.

From a Theory POV, one wishes the 1N opener on lead as much as possible. That argues against this agreement.

It's virtually unknown in this country (UK) to play the same system after a double as after an opening 1NT.

Quote

OTOH, having a different system for this situation vs Us opening 1N means more memory overhead and a larger chance of a mistake happening, and the odds of Us have game or slam are considerably lower in this situation.

But they are totally different auctions. That's like saying "we should play the same system after a 1S overcall as after a 1S opening"

After 1NT-x
i) You are now in a competitive auction, not an uncontested auction, so why play the same system as you do in the latter? and
ii) The double doesn't show the same hand as a 1NT opening (to put it mildly)

[FrancesHinden]

Echognome, on Jul 20 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

The questions I had were:
(1) should double be t/o or penalty?

Take-out. Definitely.

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 21 2007, 04:36 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 20 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

a= having a different system for this situation vs Us opening 1N means more memory overhead and a larger chance of a mistake happening,

b= the odds of Us have game or slam are considerably lower in this situation.

But they are totally different auctions. That's like saying "we should play the same system after a 1S overcall as after a 1S opening"

After 1NT-x
i) You are now in a competitive auction, not an uncontested auction, so why play the same system as you do in the latter? and
ii) The double doesn't show the same hand as a 1N opening (to put it mildly)

I agree with you that it is !not! optimal to play "Systems On" after either a 1N overcall or a penalty X of Their 1N. Plenty of people seem to do it for simplicity's sake regardless.

As I said, it is desirable to put opener on lead as much as possible. Playing "Systems On" does not facilitate that.

As for what hands (1N)-X shows, one thing I don't like is when pd does this with powerful shapely hands. Powerful shapely hands often mean We have a Game, or even a slam. Particularly over Weak or Mini AKA Kamikaze NTs.
Such hands should usually bid, not penalty X.

The implication is that penalty X's are made with more or less flat hands of the appropriate strength for the auction.
How strong is that? Well the lower bound is a ~ a strong NT...

[Fluffy]

stayman is a convention that hapens when our side opens 1NT, the opponent PASSES and the respodner bids 2 clubs.

transfer is a convention that hapens when our side opens 1NT, the opponent PASSES and the respodner bids 2 diamonds/hearts/spades


4th suit forcing s a convention that hapens when opener bids a suit, respodner bids another, opener bids a 3rd one, and RESPONDER bids the 4th.

Anything else is not part of the convention, you can have any agreements you want, but don't claim them to be standard because they are not.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Jul 21 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

As for what hands (1N)-X shows, one thing I don't like is when pd does this with powerful shapely hands. Powerful shapely hands often mean We have a Game, or even a slam. Particularly over Weak or Mini AKA Kamikaze NTs.
Such hands should usually bid, not penalty X.

The implication is that penalty X's are made with more or less flat hands of the appropriate strength for the auction.
How strong is that? Well the lower bound is a ~ a strong NT...

But suppose you have

AKx
AKQxxx
x
KQx

or

Axx
KJ109xx
x
xxx

Surely you can't overcall 2H over a 1NT opening on both of them?

(and if one of them is a 3H bid, what do you do with

x
KQJ109xx
xxxx
x

or

AKx
AKQxxxx
x
Ax

?)

It's just I've never actually heard of the idea before that double is restricted to (semi-) balanced hands and all shapely hands bid.