After interference with 1NT

[awm]

Suppose your partner opens 1NT (showing some balanced range) and the opponents make an overcall which is either natural, or shows the bid suit plus another suit. I'm particularly interested in how people use double in this situation. For the most part I see three different treatments:

 

(1) Double is always penalty when the opponents bid 2♦ or above. This works well when you have rather frisky opponents. You can still look for a major suit fit by cuebidding (or various other methods playing a transfer-based rubensohl system). The main losses seem to be when the opponents bid at the three level (removing the 3-level cuebid from our arsenal) and when we have a strictly "competitive" sort of takeout double (probably not the values for game, but don't really want to sell to the opponents overcall).

 

(2) Double is always takeout when the opponents bid 2♦ or above. This works well when you have those annoying competitive hands that want to compete but not force to game. You can still occasionally get opponents for penalties when partner converts a takeout double, or by passing and hoping partner doubles. The big loss is when you really want to penalize; you have to either forgo the penalty and bid on, or pass and take a possible fix if partner fails to balance. Since opponents are pretty frisky these days the penalty double is not so rare as you might think.

 

(3) Double is takeout at the three-level, penalty at the two-level. This solves one of the big problems with the first style by giving you back a way to look for a major suit fit after a 3-level overcall and still get to 3NT. Of course, it also makes opponents frisky 3-level bidding much harder to penalize, especially since partner is not really all that likely to balance with a double if you pass (or is she?).

 

Anyways, I've been wondering if there's a better approach to this. My suggestion is to basically reverse strategy (3). It would look something like the following:

 

If opponents bid 2♦ or 2♥, then double is takeout. Partner will usually balance over these bids with appropriate shape, because it's often right to compete over 2-red-suit (this is especially true if we play fairly strong notrumps). This means we're not all that likely to miss a penalty, and it's very important to be able to get to 2♠ in these auctions when it's right (making the takeout double really useful).

 

If opponents bid 2♠ or 3♣, then double is penalty. In part this is because partner won't consistently balance over those bids (too risky to reach the 3-level all the time). We miss out on the "strictly competitive takeout double" style of hands, but since you're guaranteed to reach the three-level on those hands the takeout double will be less frequently right. With a good hand you can look for a major fit by bidding lebensohl-type methods over 2♠, or using 3♦ over 3♣. Honestly I would rather have a penalty double after 1NT-(3♣) than a natural diamond bid. It may also be possible to incorporate stopper asks into this structure somehow.

 

I'm curious as to what people think about these things, and whether anyone's tried a hybrid method like the one I'm interested in.

[Guest Jlall]

I always play X= takeout at all levels and either leb or (preferably) transfer leb. I do admit I sometimes miss the penalty X, especially against idiots. It's easy to say "you just bid 3N with a penalty X..." but when you have 5 trumps and you know you have them slaughtered it does suck lol.

 

The one thing I don't like about your method is giving up a natural 3D over 3C. This seems like too much of a loss. It could be useful though, especially in junior bridge :)

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I have been playing negative doubles 'from both sides' of the table for a long while.

 

It seems to get me more rather than less penalty doubles. It also prevents me

 

from defending a two level contract when they hold 8-9 trumps.

 

The crazy bidders do escape once in a while, however, they also furnish a steady

 

stream of 'numbers' so I hope that their numbers continue to thrive and multiply.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Gerben42]

1. Agree with double for take out on the 3-level. It sucks when you have those trumps stacked but this is very rare, more likely you have a take-out oriented hand. And opener is just supposed to pass and take them in 50s / 100s.

 

2. On the 2-level, I used to play that double is for take out if WE are NV, and for penalty if WE are V. Why we and not them? Well, if you play a TO double on a 2-level bid, this means opener is supposed to balance with shortness. This can be dangerous if vulnerable.

 

I see where 2♠ might be a trouble spot if opener is supposed to balance, but I have the feeling TO is better if you can afford it, i.e. not vulnerable.

[Bon_An]

I'll play a type of negative dbl,for a higher suit and some HCPs.

[mikeh]

I play takeout doubles at 2 and 3 levels: at the 2-level, the values shown are merely (at least) competitive, whereas at the 3-level they announce ownership of the hand: a slight difference.

 

I play this even over our (nv) 10-12 or 11-13 1N openings (different ranges in different partnerships). There are, admittdly, times when it is scary having to reopen after openng an 11 count :unsure:

 

We miss some penalty doubles in weak fields, but the better the field, the fewer we miss: probably because only bad players make really silly overcalls of our weak notrump openings :)

 

And, at imps, I don't worry about allowing a weak team off the hook on a board, since we rate to clobber them anyway: it is not as though we lose imps on those boards: just that we sometimes fail to win imps.

 

At mps, in a weak field (a stratified open for example), I sometimes change to penalty doubles at the 2-level over our weak ntorump. It depends on how hungry I feel :D

[gghon]

I like negative doubles starting with 2S, and stolen bids over 2D/H that include the bid suit and stolen bids regardless over 2C. If bid specifies 2 suits, then un vs un.

[civill]

I like negative doubles starting with 2S, and stolen bids over 2D/H that include the bid suit and stolen bids regardless over 2C. If bid specifies 2 suits, then un vs un.

A good design!

[Chamaco]

I play takeout doubles at 2 and 3 levels: at the 2-level, the values shown are merely (at least) competitive, whereas at the 3-level they announce ownership of the hand: a slight difference.

 

Hi Mike, a question here on neg Xs in such sequences:

 

what are opener's obligations in responding to pard's competitive t/o X at the 2 level, if holding:

 

a ) 4333 shape + maximum hcp content + HHx in opps suit and the 4 bagger is a minor.

Go for blood (penalty pass) or run to the minor?

 

b ) a minimum hand in hcp + 4333 shape + 4 small in opps suit.

Penalty pass despite xxxx in opp suit or run to a 3 card suit ?

[paulg]

We play double as stayman over natural 2♣/♦ and takeout in all other situations.

 

Over 2♥/♠ we guarantee at least 2 cards in their suit in our takeout double.

 

p

[42]

How do you define the DBL when opps intervention shows a 2-suiter like "2♦ = both majors" or "2♠ = ♠ + minor"?

[Gerben42]

2♦ both majors: Dbl = it's our hand

 

2♠ that suit and a minor: treat as natural