trying to penalize after our weak NT

[rbforster]

I suppose this is a question over any NT opening by partner, but it seems to arise most over weak NT's where the opponents sometimes strain to bid constructively... If I've got a maximum pass opposite partner's NT, what's your preferred method for trying to penalize the opps when they step out of line?

 

1N*-(P)-P-(2♠)   *10-12; spades natural

P-(P)-?

 

Say you've got a mostly balanced hand with ~9-11 points yourself (not quite enough to invite). What do you with 4 good spades, or 2 small spades, or something in between? Aside from doubling, is it worth using 2N to show some types of hands here?

 

Will you ever expect partner to have taken action in direct seat? It seems like this is too risky (since you could be broke), which puts you in an unfortunate situation of having to assign only 1 meaning to the double when you'd ideally like both t/o and penalty options.

[fromageGB]

For me, double is penalty, showing values and 4 cards in spades.

 

Fewer spades and I pass, except with spade shortage and a long suit I bid 2NT lebensohl then pass 3♣ or bid 3♦ to play. It seems silly to use Lebensohl having passed, because a 3 level bid cannot be forcing, so logically 2NT should transfer to 3♣ and 3♣ transfer to 3♦, but I don't have that agreement.

 

I would expect partner to have doubled 2♠ for takeout if he has a low doubleton.

[awm]

I prefer takeout. A few reasons for this:

 

(1) There are a number of hands where we actually want to compete, which is difficult to manage correctly when double is penalty. The takeout double lets you compete when it's right while still getting a fair number of penalties (albeit not on exactly the same set of hands where you would make a penalty double).

 

(2) The hands providing the most lucrative penalties will be the ones where opener has the trump strength behind the overcall. So the penalties you get from the takeout double are potentially more valuable than the ones you get from a penalty double.

 

(3) I like to have the same meaning for double regardless of the opponents natural suit. While I agree that it's dangerous for opener to takeout double over a natural 2♠ balance, I would expect opener to double for takeout often over a natural 2♦ balance.

 

I play 2NT as specifically takeout for minors in this auction.

[JLOL]

my dad used to think X should be penalty here, but I much prefer takeout. If you can beat them you just don't double.

[peachy]

I think penalty is the old fashioned way. I am willing to play it any way partner prefers and, hopefully, we have discussed it. Takeout makes a lot of sense at low levels.

[mikeh]

I play this double (1N p p 2♠ p p x) as takeout.

 

Playing it as penalty is high risk... if partner has xx in spades and a minimum, as he is favourite to do on this auction, they may easily scramble 8 tricks.

[peachy]

I play this double (1N p p 2♠ p p x) as takeout.

 

Playing it as penalty is high risk... if partner has xx in spades and a minimum, as he is favourite to do on this auction, they may easily scramble 8 tricks.

This X is under the suit, in the balancing position. I think even those who play penalty would see the Dbl in this auction as takeout. Or else we can never balance after we have opened weak NT?

[MFA]

I prefer takeout.

[Echognome]

I am all for getting opponents who step out of line over our weak (or mini) NT. That's half the fun of playing it. Here I would definitely play a takeout double for much the reasons mentioned above. Sure that means you can't get them when opener has a small doubleton and can't double, but it is probably best just to defend undoubled then anyway.

[Mbodell]

I play X is penalty and 2NT is "takeout/competative" (partner can pass with spades well stopped).

 

This may depend a little on what your NT range is and how good your opps are. I play 10-12 or 12-14 NT and most opponents will volunteer for big numbers against this fairly often.

 

Would the takeout folks still think takeout in the similar auction that went P-1nt-P-P-2♠-P-P-X?

[TimG]

I play X is penalty and 2NT is "takeout/competative" (partner can pass with spades well stopped).

But, isn't it when opener has spade values that the opponents are most likely to be going for a number?

[helene_t]

The main reason I prefer to play double on interference over our 1NT as t/o is that if we agree to play it as penalty, I would be afraid that all kind of analogous situations would be confusing. Play "all" doubles as t/o, including 1NT-(something)-x, and it is clear that this is t/o also.

[Phil]

I like it as cooperative myself.

 

You have 2N available as takeout, and its seems you never get a pure penalty double here.

[rogerclee]

You have 2N available as takeout

In my opinion this is a common fallacy, it's much better to be able to double for takeout than it is to bid NT for takeout.

[fromageGB]

I play this double (1N p p 2♠ p p x) as takeout.

Playing it as penalty is high risk... if partner has xx in spades and a minimum, as he is favourite to do on this auction, they may easily scramble 8 tricks.

Which is why when I double for penalty, partner is guaranteed 3+ spades or a good doubleton. The law says they will not make 2S.

 

OK, opener doubling for takeout has risks, but no more than you doubling for takeout on your preferred style.

[Phil]

You have 2N available as takeout

In my opinion this is a common fallacy, it's much better to be able to double for takeout than it is to bid NT for takeout.

Roger, I don't think its a fallacy unless you expect opener to blindly double 2♠ with 2(443) which is very dubious. You'll gain on some hands and you'll lose on others.

[keylime]

Back in the days of KLP, double here was takeout, and 2NT were both minors.

 

I still like that concept.

[cherdanno]

I will never understand cooperative doubles on an auction like this. They seem to be designed to double them when trumps break 3-3. Takeout doubles are designed to double them when trumps break 4-2, and to let them play undoubled when trumps break 3-3.

[rbforster]

From the discussion, I like the general arguments for takeout doubles. It seems pretty rare that the NT opener would make one, but perhaps that's also a function of your NT range (it's safer to force a weak passed partner to compete if you've got 15-17 than 10-12), and also the level of their interference (safer if partner's likely to find a spot a the 2 level).

 

I will never understand cooperative doubles on an auction like this. They seem to be designed to double them when trumps break 3-3. Takeout doubles are designed to double them when trumps break 4-2, and to let them play undoubled when trumps break 3-3.

Cooperative doubles don't seem so unreasonable. In the simple case, if opener never doubles and you balance with double for takeout, you catch them on one 4=2 split. If you double with 3 'cooperatively', you catch them on the 3=3 split. The latter is more likely. Still, there may be other factors like opener's doubling frequency (which picks up some of the 2=4 splits too), that 4-2 splits tend to make for bigger penalties than 3-3 splits, especially 4-2 splits over declarer, etc.

[rogerclee]

You have 2N available as takeout

In my opinion this is a common fallacy, it's much better to be able to double for takeout than it is to bid NT for takeout.

Roger, I don't think its a fallacy unless you expect opener to blindly double 2♠ with 2(443) which is very dubious. You'll gain on some hands and you'll lose on others.

Sorry I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

 

If your point is that playing a double here as penalty or cooperative can gain, then I agree, and in fact it would not greatly surprise me if this is a better agreement though I don't think it is.

 

My point was that bidding 2N for takeout is much worse than doubling for takeout, it's not an acceptable substitute. If you think that the loss from not being able to make a takeout double is minimized by being able to bid 2N, then that's a reasonable position but I don't agree.