TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE....

[jdonn]

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 :lol:

 

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]

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]

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:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj109hkj7d109854c53&w=sa63hq1054dkqca1098&e=sq42h9862dj7cj642&s=sk875ha3da632ckq7]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

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

[Finch]

...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]

#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]

#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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

[Walddk]

...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.

I don't find it a loser at all. You can bid 2♣ for the majors, 2♦ for one major and 2M for the major and a minor. The only thing you lose is a 4c major with a longer minor (Woolsey).

 

Right, I also lose both minors (in case you play dont), but that does not bother me one bit.

 

Roland

[pclayton]

...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.

I don't find it a loser at all. You can bid 2♣ for the majors, 2♦ for one major and 2M for the major and a minor. The only thing you lose is a 4c major with a longer minor (Woolsey).

 

Right, I also lose both minors (in case you play dont), but that does not bother me one bit.

 

Roland

Roland, in the JEC vugraph the other night, when asked which NT defense you you prefer, you replied:

 

"Woolsey, by far"

 

Do you remember that?

[Walddk]

Roland, in the JEC vugraph the other night, when asked which NT defense you you prefer, you replied:

 

"Woolsey, by far"

 

Do you remember that?

I do (remember) and I do (prefer Woolsey). All I am saying is that it is not losing to play double as penalties. Since I was young I have always been flexible regarding systems and conventions, so if a partner I care for prefers to let double be for penalties I will comply, happily even, because I think that this could work very well.

 

As most of you know there are conventions I do not play, but they have to be really awful before I say "thanks but no thanks." With a regular partner it's all about compromises, and if you can't get the one you love, you've got to love the one you get.

 

Roland