# BBO Discussion Forums: How do you play your doubles after partner opens 1NT and RHO inteferes at the 2-level? - BBO Discussion Forums

Page 1 of 1

## How do you play your doubles after partner opens 1NT and RHO inteferes at the 2-level?

### #1rustysnow

• Group: Members
• Posts: 11
• Joined: 2019-June-21
• Gender:Male

Posted 2020-March-26, 10:50

Greetings all. Hope everyone is taking good care of yourselves in the midst of these unfortunate circumstances. Was playing with one of my peers today. Partner opened 1NT (15-17), RHO Robot bid 2H Cappelletti showing Hearts and a Minor, and I doubled the 2H bid to ask Partner to Jacoby Transfer to 2S. Our partnership was not really that close without all our bids outlined and all, we were just casual partners who play together once in a while due to our academic workload. Anyways, my Partner misread my double as a Takeout Double and bidded 3 Diamonds. Outcome didn't matter as we played in 3NT just like the others. Just curious, what is the more optimum treatment of the usage of doubles over here? Double showing your intention to make the bid that RHO has bidded, or Takeout? Or maybe a mix of both eg only double over 2C for Stayman, treat others as takeout doubles?

Interested to hear your thoughts and would be much appreciative! Take care of yourselves and have a wonderful day.

Regards,
Russell
0

### #2Tramticket

• Posts: 1,828
• Joined: 2009-May-03
• Gender:Male
• Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2020-March-26, 11:05

First, you should be playing Lebensohl or similar (e.g. Rubinsohl). If not, then I would address this first. Your choice may affect the use of a double.

We play Lebensohl and we play that (1) If the opponent's bid is natural (shows that suit and may show a second suit as well), we double for take-out. (2) If the opponent's suit is artificial we play that a double shows a balanced hand with invitational values.
0

### #3mikeh

• Posts: 10,929
• Joined: 2005-June-15
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2020-March-26, 12:25

All experts I know play negative doubles of an overcall (at the 2 or 3 level) that shows either the suit bid or that suit and another. A negative double can be left in by opener if he has no major suit fit with responder and a good trump holding (which is assessed in the context of knowing that overcaller may hold a good suit. Thus the doubler will not be void in the suit and, ideally, holds a doubleton. In all cases she should hold enough hcp that she can expect that her side 'owns the hand'.

As tramticket suggests, most experienced pairs play some form of Rubensohl or transfer lebensohl, while many others play a traditional lebensohl. Transfer methods, starting the transfers at 2N, are more flexible and thus more powerful than old fashioned lebensohl but do require more discussion and impose more memory load.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

### #4nullve

• Posts: 1,316
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2020-March-26, 14:30

I don't think there's a good alternative to

1N-(2x*)-X = takeout

and

1N-(2x*)-P
X = takeout,

where, as usual, 'takeout' is a misnomer, since partner may pass based on a total trick estimate.

mikeh, on 2020-March-26, 12:25, said:

All experts I know play negative doubles of an overcall (at the 2 or 3 level) that shows either the suit bid or that suit and another. A negative double can be left in by opener if he has no major suit fit with responder and a good trump holding (which is assessed in the context of knowing that overcaller may hold a good suit. Thus the doubler will not be void in the suit and, ideally, holds a doubleton. In all cases she should hold enough hcp that she can expect that her side 'owns the hand'.

What would you do in the following cases,

1N-(2*)-?:

a) Axxx xxx xx Qxxx
b) Axx xx xxx Qxxxx
c) Axxx x xxxx Qxxx
d) Axxx void xxxx Qxxxx
e) Axx x xxxx Qxxxx
f) Axxx x xxxx xxxx
g) Axxx void xxxx xxxxx

at matchpoints? (Me: a) P; b)-g): X.)

* promising the suit bid
0

### #5mikeh

• Posts: 10,929
• Joined: 2005-June-15
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2020-March-26, 15:46

nullve, on 2020-March-26, 14:30, said:

I don't think there's a good alternative to

1N-(2x*)-X = takeout

and

1N-(2x*)-P
X = takeout,

where, as usual, 'takeout' is a misnomer, since partner may pass based on a total trick estimate.

What would you do in the following cases,

1N-(2*)-?:

a) Axxx xxx xx Qxxx
b) Axx xx xxx Qxxxx
c) Axxx x xxxx Qxxx
d) Axxx void xxxx Qxxxx
e) Axx x xxxx Qxxxx
f) Axxx x xxxx xxxx
g) Axxx void xxxx xxxxx

at matchpoints? (Me: a) P; b)-g): X.)

* promising the suit bid

“Takeout” is not a misnomer, tho I don’t call our doubles “takeout”. A takeout double is a descriptive term, disclosing doubler’s intent. Partner can always convert a takeout double. Whether and when they do will be context-driven

As for your examples, I might be tempted to double on some 4144 6 counts but I’d know partner will play me for slightly more. I note you stipulated mps and in my serious partnerships we play almost exclusively imps, and this is an area where tactics may be significantly different

Btw, raising low frequency hand types that are problematic for someone’s style is a valid exercise but one should not read too much into it. I infer that you’d be doubling with all or most of your examples. In real life, doubl8ng will work some of the time and fail others, but the more difficult cost/benefit occurs on hands where we would both double. Your partner)s choices, whether advancer passes or bids, will be less clear than mine, because your hand could be much weaker at the low end

Anyway, valid questions but I’ve never been afraid to accept the occasional bad score as part of the cost of my preferred style. My biased view is that overall my results justify this approach. Your experience may differ, which is why it is very difficult to prove that such subtle issues can be definitively analyzed.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

### #6helene_t

• The Abbess
• Posts: 16,020
• Joined: 2004-April-22
• Gender:Female
• Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2020-March-26, 16:03

If you play strong NT, it is best to play negative doubles, especially at matchpoints. Opener is allowed to pass with a 4-card suit in opps' suit and might also gamble a pass with a 4333 shape and only three cards in opps' suit, but will otherwise take it out.

If opener responds 2NT to your double, it shows two 4card suits below opps' suit and you bid up the line.

A consequence of the negative double is that if you do something else (say bid opps' suit, or transfer to opps' suit if you play transfer Lebensohl or Rubensohl), there's a negative inference that you have shortness in opps suit, i.e. you have a hand that could not tolerate opener passing a double with four enemy trymps.

Double of 2 showing 5+ spades has a somewhat undeserved bad reputation. It is not a terrible agreement since right-siding the contract is much more important when opps overcall than when they don't, but since a lot a bad players play it, it will stigmatize you if you play it.

Other possible agreements are penalty doubles (mostly if you play weak NT and/or IMPs), optional doubles, or negative doubles promising an invitational or stronger hand.
... I took up duplicate bridge 1 year ago so that I could meet beautiful women and handsome men that were well dressed and chatted calmly about philosophy and religion. I have to say its really been working out for me --- Pilowsky
0

### #7msjennifer

• Posts: 1,281
• Joined: 2013-August-03
• Gender:Female
• Location:Variable private
• Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.

Posted 2020-March-27, 02:26

Sir,
play either Lebensohl or Rubensohl as per your liking.Both are good enough except for the experts who usually devise their own methods.
0