[Fluffy]

Does it matter the vulnerability or if 1 club was opened in third position?

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-04, 09:02, said:

Does it matter the vulnerability or if 1 club was opened in third position?

You missed (inter alia) XX forces 2C, XX shows any 4333, 2C shows clubs and another suit, 2C shows diamonds. In other words, many just play their normal 1NTX runout method whatever that might be.

[awm]

Yeah I always play this auction exactly the same as if we opened 1NT and they double for penalty.

In most partnerships that XX = "I want to play in two of a minor" and 2♣ is stayman (but possibly weak/crawling stayman).

[Free]

I voted strong in the first poll but that's because I thought the auction was 1♣-1NT-X (no more '-' after that so I stopped reading woops) So move 1 vote from strong to weak.

My runout scheme is pretty simple and effective:
RDbl = SOS bid some suit
Pass = suggestion to play
2X = signoff

That doesn't mean it's standard. Many over here play Pass forces a RDbl (to play or followed by a signoff) and other bids are some 4-4 hands.

[helene_t]

I don't want to play transfers here even if I play them when they double a 1NT opening.

The difference is that this double strongly indicates that the board belongs to them, so emphasis should be on escape.

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on 2010-November-05, 00:54, said:

Yeah I always play this auction exactly the same as if we opened 1NT and they double for penalty.

In most partnerships that XX = "I want to play in two of a minor" and 2♣ is stayman (but possibly weak/crawling stayman).

Agree "same as if 1N was opened" disagree with the rest.

We play something fairly common in the UK:

pass - forcing to XX, either pass this or bid a suit to show that suit and a non touching higher suit
XX - puppet to 2♣, pass or bid your suit, ostensibly single suited hand, but can redouble to show the other 3
suit bid = that suit and suit immediately above

with a 4333 you choose which of these you wish to show.

[dboxley]

I'm not sure there is a 'standard' anymore. A lot of people play systems on (2C would be Stayman) with a XX being a relay to 2C to get out in 2 of a minor.

[peachy]

2C is Stayman, I believe that to be perfectly understood even without agreements, in my neck of the woods anyway. Actually I would call it non-standard to be anything else.

The Rdbl cannot logically be a "strong hand", just adding up the advertised minimum HCP 12+15+9 leaves 0-4HCP, unless one of the following conditions are present:
* Opener psyched
* 1NT overcaller psyched
* 1NT overcall is not 15-17 or thereabout
* The intervening Dbl means "takeout with a weak hand"
* The intervening doubler psyched

The only case worth using Rdbl as Strong hand is when the Dbl by opponents was agreed as takeout. Even then, the description of "strong" is a little misleading, better to say "enough for game".

I did not vote because the options given do not match what I would have voted.

[dake50]

Weary of "what is standard?"

In an advanced blog, shouldn't that question be "what is best?"
At least "what is better?"
Even "what do y'all experts think?"

[mikeh]

I don't think there is any 'standard'. In fact, every time I form a new partnership, even if for only a couple of sessions, and even for a single session club game if there is time, I ask 'what do we do if they double either our 1N opener or our 1N overcall for penalty'.

It's one of the matters I always discuss if we have 15 minutes to go over a card, simply because it seems to me that no-one really 'knows' what a 'default' would be.

I have my views on what works well (and I am comfortable with any of several approaches), but that wasn't the question. And it depends, for the opening 1N, on range.

[mfa1010]

XX = multisuited takeout, any 2x to play.

When we discuss "standard" in here, it is usually understood to be acbl standard, and what that is in this sequence, I really don't care...

Something where pass is not to play is very bad in my opinion.

[OleBerg]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-06, 18:38, said:

Something where pass is not to play is very bad in my opinion.

Can we make

" redouble shows: a strong hand setting up forcing pass"

a close second?

[Bbradley62]

peachy, on 2010-November-05, 09:55, said:

2C is Stayman, I believe that to be perfectly understood even without agreements, in my neck of the woods anyway. Actually I would call it non-standard to be anything else.
<<snip>>
I did not vote because the options given do not match what I would have voted.

It's likely that OP meant "some form of takeout" to include Stayman as the 2♣ description.

[FrancesHinden]

OleBerg, on 2010-November-07, 02:26, said:

Can we make

" redouble shows: a strong hand setting up forcing pass"

a close second?

Really? Why?
I play redouble as strong for two reasons:
(i) It's an important hand type to show, and
(ii) it comes up quite often

For those saying "there aren't enough high cards in the deck for a natural redouble" you must play in a very dull game. I find not only that it comes up occasionally, but that in my other job as reviewer of psyche report forms, not having a natural redouble available here is a prime source of bad results.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-07, 12:15, said:

Really? Why?
I play redouble as strong for two reasons:
(i) It's an important hand type to show, and
(ii) it comes up quite often

For those saying "there aren't enough high cards in the deck for a natural redouble" you must play in a very dull game. I find not only that it comes up occasionally, but that in my other job as reviewer of psyche report forms, not having a natural redouble available here is a prime source of bad results.

Wow, psychic report rewiews. Sounds strange, but I think I would actually enjoy if they were done here too.

Back to the subject at hand:

I would expect my opponents to be in a force. So it should be easy to set up my methods to cater for bluffs, without a strong redouble. If they are not in a force, your abovementioned rewiews makes even more sense. (Read: They are so close to cheating you can smell it.)

[Free]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-07, 12:15, said:

Really? Why?
I play redouble as strong for two reasons:
(i) It's an important hand type to show, and
(ii) it comes up quite often

For those saying "there aren't enough high cards in the deck for a natural redouble" you must play in a very dull game. I find not only that it comes up occasionally, but that in my other job as reviewer of psyche report forms, not having a natural redouble available here is a prime source of bad results.

I don't see the point in playing redoubled 1NT contracts.
- If you expect to make it with an overtrick, then opps will run away.
- If you expect it will be either just made or -1, then it's an easy way to a bottom (-1) while 1NTx= is already a good score. Plus, you put the pressure up if you pass as a suggestion to play (after RDbl both opps can bid something).

I also disagree with your arguments.
(i) what's wrong with playing 1NTx+1, 1NTx= or 1NTx-1? The big plus may be in imps making 1NTxx=, IF you get to play that (see ii). The minus is when you're going down vul (especially when you're several tricks down).
(ii) When is our RHO doubling for penalties when we have this hand? Either opener is light and will run, or partner has psyched, or RHO has made a light Dbl and will run. In all cases you won't get to play a comfortable 1NTxx, and I hope you have good agreements what to do if one of your opps runs away.

[Fluffy]

its a man's question Free, I've seen wild pairs converting momentarilly -800 into -2000 just to get away with -130

[awm]

A few reasons to like the natural redouble:

(1) It actually improves your expected score even on marginal hands. For example if we are NV and opponents play 1NTX at the other table and make the same number of tricks:

1NTXX+1 is 760 vs. 280, winning 10
1NTXX= is 560 vs. 180, winning 9
1NTXX-1 is -200 vs. -100, losing 3
1NTXX-2 is -600 vs. -300, losing 7

Even relatively modest odds like 40% making, 40% off one, 20% off two yields substantially positive IMP expectation. Of course, at MP the considerations are a bit different... but generally 1NTX or 1NTXX making both score well and 1NTX or 1NTXX going down are both bad (with a few oddities like 1NTX-1 exactly sometimes being okay if you are NV, and 1NTX= sometimes losing to people who are getting +200 when the opponents are V).

(2) It helps when RHO bids. For example, suppose you are opener after the auction: 1NT-X(1)-Pass(2)-2♦ where (1) is penalty and (2) could be a wide range of hands. Should you ever act over 2♦? If partner actually has a good hand (i.e. wanted to play 1NTX or 1NTXX) then you probably want to fight for the partial and it would be helpful if you could for example double holding suitable shape. But it's also possible that partner has a lousy hand and your LHO (the penalty doubler) has extras, in which case the opponents have just rescued you from a possible disaster and you should definitely pass now! The upshot is that either you will sometimes throw yourself back into the soup, or that responder will be left with a lot of guesses if/when he has a good hand for this sequence. Note how much easier it is after 1NT-X-Pass(1)-2♦ where (1) is always weak, or after 1NT-X-XX(1)-2♦ where (1) is business.

(3) A forcing pass that includes good hands gives opponents multiple chances to run. For example, 1NT-X-Pass(1)-2♣ where (1)=forcing can show a real club suit by advancer; with a ratty balanced hand he can bid 1NT-X-Pass(1)-Pass; XX(2)-Pass-Pass-2♣(3) where (1)=forcing, (2)=forced, (3)=scramble; with a real club suit would've bid directly. This helps opponents a lot to find their best two-level fit when they are the ones in trouble. ACBL in its infinite wisdom also sees no problem with 1NT-X-Pass(1)-Pass(2); XX(3)-Bid where (1)=forcing, (2)=break in tempo (3)=forced and doubler simply pulls his own penalty double to his best suit at the two-level. This is perhaps a doubtful application of the laws, but I saw this done against me (and ruled okay by top-level directors) on many occasions when I used to play weak notrump and pass forces redouble.

Of course, one might argue that the above points are less obvious in the given auction of a 1NT overcall where it "seems like" there are too many points in the deck. But it seems advantageous to play the same methods after 1NT-X and after Pass-Pass-1m-1NT-X and after 1m-1NT-X. In the first two auctions it is very possible that the opponents have less than half the high card strength, and thus a business redouble is very useful (if only to let partner in on the joke). Agreed, in the last auction usually opponents have their bids, but do we really want to have different methods here depending on whether opener was 1st or 3rd seat?