[pclayton]

microcap, on Jan 3 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Thanks for the input so far---

on hand one, I bid 2♣ as well as most of you. Rex held

Scoring: IMP

---

He passed my 2 ♣, which I got lucky and made. But certainly ♥,♠, and NT are better spots. Comments?

On hand 2 I bid 2 ♠ like most of you. It didn't even occur to me to pass with that garbage.

Regardless of Rex's actual hand, and assuming you play double over 1NT as penalty "oriented", help me out. I tend to assume the double is balanced 15-18, and Rex always has a mostly one suited hand with an entry or 2. It has been my experience that using double for both types is a losing proposition. Comments?

#1 - You're just fixed here, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If somehow 2♣ gets x'd, you might get to run out to a red suit.

#2 - I think its a BIG loser to double 1N with a strong hand and a running suit unless you are playing against total idiots that don't know how to run from 1N x'd. Double should be some kind of balanced hand, but I hope you understand that playing penalty doubles of a strong NT opening is a losing proposition to begin with.

[mikeh]

The question about the penalty double reminds me of a hand from the round-robin in the 2000 BB...one of the few good results for our team, and it wasn't that good:

I held a 16 count with good diamonds, missing the A. RHO opened a weak 1N, I doubled, and it went pass pass redouble all pass.. we were red v red.

They proceeded to make an overtrick, which, if memory serves, resulted in our being -1260.... they should have actually scored another trick, which would have made this a bad result story.

Our teammates played 4 card majors and opened 1♥, with my hand overcalling in LHO's stiff... they bid to the (as the cards lay) cold 6♥... not a pretty slam but one that made when my hand was squeezed mercilessly...

My partner had passed both the double and the redouble out of fear coupled with the hope that I actually held 7 winners.

Bridge is a tough game when you can go +1260 and lose imps

[ArtK78]

It is my style not to double strong NTs for penalties. Generally speaking, it is a losing proposition.

However, if you must double strong NTs for penalties, the doubles should not be based on power, but rather on trick taking ability - long suits and entries, or running suits. In that case, if that is your agreement, then you pass on the example hand.

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2008, 12:04 AM, said:

Double should be some kind of balanced hand, but I hope you understand that playing penalty doubles of a strong NT opening is a losing proposition to begin with.

Tell that to Michael Rosenberg. He is not exactly a loser, and he is a subscriber to penalty doubles of 1NT. Besides, if you can't double a strong NT ever, the player in 3rd seat NV v Vul has a free route. He can open 1NT on anything because you can't penalise him.

On several occasions, Michael, on BBO vugraph, has told the audience that what he and Zia are really interested in when looking at the opponents's convention card is what their defence is to 1NT.

Roland

[awm]

I've actually seen some pretty big IMP swings based on successful penalty doubles of strong notrump. It does happen.

But I think the argument is a frequency one. There are basically three ways you could define a penalty double:

(1) It's based on tricks. But this often means that 1NT is pretty much the only contract you can beat. Good opponents will run to some other partscore. In fact you may be better off passing with the "tricks" hand since opponents are much more likely to play in notrump when you do.

(2) It's based on values. But if your opponents really have their 15-17 hcp (or whatever) then it will be quite infrequent that you hold sufficient values to penalize. Occasionally there will be a big win when you catch opener's partner with the bad hand but almost as often there's a big loss when your partner is the one with nothing. The main benefit of the "values" double is that it lets you catch them when they psych.

(3) It's based on either tricks or values. This maximizes the frequency, but sometimes when you have the "tricks" hand you'll get partner pulling when you had them beat.

The third-seat psych of 1NT is really not without risk. There is potential to win when LHO has a penalty double and gets shut out. But the problem is that partner will often hang you. And LHO who had to pass over 1NT with his balanced 18-count will be happy to double you once partner raises to 3NT...

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Jan 3 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 3 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

It's very common to play redouble runs to play in a minor.

Excuse me, but how do you redouble over your partner's double? (although I agree that you sometimes would like to)

My sincere apologies, I'm sure you can figure out what I thought the auction was

Actually now I pass, and now I would hate playing systems on. Go figure.

[kenrexford]

I think "systems on" is better than suggested. When the auction does go 1NT-X-p-?, it is my experience that you don't seem to want to playin a minor as often as suggested because Responder's pass suggests a lack of major cards and, accordingly, an abundance of minor cards. Responder's major holdings seem to be limited to no 5-card majors, not both 4-card majors, usually not 4-3 in the majors, and often not 3-3 in the majors. Sure, the XX option for Responder, if escape, tends to limit the minors to probably no 5-card minor, but this is less reliable, IMO. Further, there is usually no good "4-4 minors" or "4-3 minors" option.

When 1NT is XX'd, there is no re-redouble, making "systems on" problematic.

[microcap]

I have always been of the view that the double of 1NT is NOT necessarily for penalties, just because it shows a hand similar to the opener. If you catch partner with a decent 8 count and have a bunch of tenaces, your 22-24 count can often make 3NT--- rather than defending 1NT and endplaying yourself from the get-go.

[jdonn]

microcap, on Jan 3 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

I have always been of the view that the double of 1NT is NOT necessarily for penalties, just because it shows a hand similar to the opener. If you catch partner with a decent 8 count and have a bunch of tenaces, your 22-24 count can often make 3NT--- rather than defending 1NT and endplaying yourself from the get-go.

It's a consistent view, but mine is completely different yet also consistent. I would only make a penalty double of 1NT with a hand with which I expect to beat it, not a random balanced 16. And I prefer partner generally not pull, unless he has a good reason of course, and a random weak hand is not a good reason to me.

Pulling has a lot more to recommend it if partner is simply doubling to say "I would have opened 1NT" (or better).

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Jan 4 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

I would only make a penalty double of 1NT with a hand with which I expect to beat it, not a random balanced 16. And I prefer partner generally not pull.

Spot on. Here is an example from last night's Cayne team match:

Scoring: IMP

---

pass pass 1NT double
all pass

A couple of spectators thought that East should have taken the double out, but many more said that West had no penalty double and that East should sit. I agree. This is no double, far from it, and I would also have passed if I had been East.

580 and 10 IMPs away. A good lesson.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jan 3 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

...but I hope you understand that playing penalty doubles of a strong NT opening is a losing proposition to begin with.

Nope. I don't understand that, I play double as penalties. It's vital against a 1st or 3rd seat NV 1NT opening, and I don't find I'm losing out against other openings either.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 2D, I dont like 2C, so 2D it is.
#2 find a way to play 2S
a possible schema is to play 2C as stayman,
and 2D, 2H as transfer

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 4 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

#1 2D, I dont like 2C, so 2D it is.

And what is 2♦ supposed to mean? I believe that most people play that as a sound spade raise; others as a transfer advance (5+ hearts). If 2♦ can be this hand too, it seems like a call that says "I have something, I am not sure what it is."

They exist I guess, but they don't help partner a lot.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Jan 4 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jan 4 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

#1 2D, I dont like 2C, so 2D it is.

And what is 2♦ supposed to mean? I believe that most people play that as a sound spade raise; others as a transfer advance (5+ hearts). If 2♦ can be this hand too, it seems like a call that says "I have something, I am not sure what it is."

They exist I guess, but they don't help partner a lot.

Roland

Hi,

I play 2D as unassuming cue bid, i.e. the
main option is an inv.+ raise. the other
option being a strong hand with game
forcing values, if I bid 2D with the given
hand, I will sell partner my hand as inv.
raise, a lie, but I believe that I have enough
compensation for the missing spade.

2C would show a suit sufficient for a 2C overcall,
so bidding 2C (although nonforcing) would also
be a lie.
The advantage of 2D is, that I may catch a 2H
response from partner.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[miguelm]

Regarding the questions, I would

#1 bid 2C (what else?)

#2 bid 2S

In what the orientation of what a direct Double over a 15-17 1NT should be I have to say I don't like the odds of the Penalty proposition, and for a number of reasons:

- how frequently will I have that hand (the one that really fits the action)? Rarely.
- how frequently partner will sit for it? Rarely.
- 1NT is the most tough contract to defend against IMHO.

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 4 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

The advantage of 2D is, that I may catch a 2H
response from partner.

Indeed, and you would not if you bid 2♣?

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Jan 4 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jan 4 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

The advantage of 2D is, that I may catch a 2H
response from partner.

Indeed, and you would not if you bid 2♣?

Roland

I may get a 2H response even after a 2C bid,
but not necessarilly, espesially if partner is short
in clubs (*), which is not unlikely if he holds 5
spades and 4 hearts.
Partner should pass with club shortness or bid 2S
if he happens to hold a 6 carder, because he should
be wary of a missfit.

(*) But with the given hand I dont really care, if partner
is short in clubs.

With kind regards
Maarlowe

[pclayton]

For the record, we play multi-landy against 3rd seat 1N openings only (I think we got the idea from Fred somewhere.) We don't get a lot of 1st seat psyches against us.

I just looked at the cc's of the Bermuda Bowl teams of USA1, USA2, Norway, Italy, Sweden, Poland and the Netherlands and counted 10 that use penalty doubles and 9 that don't (obviously I'm off by a little, although I couldn't decipher Versace's cc).

Frankly, I was amazed at the number that used penalty x's. I'm pretty sure penalty doubles are trending downward although I don't have reference to the cc's from say, Santiago.

I still don't know why someone would rather double 1N with something like: AQ, KQx, AKJxxx, xx over: AQx KQxx AKJx xx. With the former, the opponents look to be certain to runout, but with the latter, we can double 2 and maybe 3 of their runouts successfully.

[gwnn]

Walddk, on Jan 3 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

1. 2♣ whether it's forcing or not.
2. 2♠. I don't have quite enough to sit for it. Add any queen and I would.

sums up my thoughts...

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2008, 04:56 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 3 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

...but I hope you understand that playing penalty doubles of a strong NT opening is a losing proposition to begin with.

Nope. I don't understand that, I play double as penalties. It's vital against a 1st or 3rd seat NV 1NT opening, and I don't find I'm losing out against other openings either.

I agree with Phil (though I wouldn't state it as fact.) The reason I find it a loser (and that you wouldn't see it) is that the loss is on all the other hands you can no longer show. Whether it's single suited, major and a minor, or whatever, there is simply too much burden on the other bids if you don't have double available to show something, IMO.