1NT OB

[shannon001]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I dbl 1NT this is for penalty and P does not have to bid.

Assuming 15-17 OB. However, responder may do a wriggle. Comments please.

[ArtK78]

Double of 1NT for penalties is the traditional meaning of the bid.

 

There are so many conventional methods for bidding over 1NT that it is rare that a player plays a double of a strong 1NT opening for penalties anymore.

 

There is also a school of thought that it makes little sense to double a strong 1NT opening for penalties with the traditional equivalent hand. This school of thought wants to have tricks for its double of 1NT for penalties.

[Zelandakh]

As Art writes, the traditional meaning for double of an opening 1NT bid is penalties but there are many other options around.

 

The same is also true of the second part of the OP. The traditional meaning of a new suit is natural, with XX being for blood and pass non-forcing but there are many other possibilities and many play all three of these things differently.

 

As an example, my defence to a strong NT is:

 

X = ♥+♦+♣; or ♥+longer minor; or ♥+longer/better ♠

2♣ = ♠+♥+♦; or ♠+longer minor; or ♠+longer/better ♥

2♦ = ♥ or ♠

2♥ = 5♥s and 4+ minor

2♠ = 5♠s and 4+ minor

2NT = ♣+♦

 

and my runouts after 1NT is doubled are:

 

P forces XX; then

... P = to play 1NTXX

... 2♣ = ♣+a red suit

... 2♦ = ♦+♥

... 2♥ = ♥+♠ with better ♥

... others = GF freaks (2-suited)

XX forces 2♣; then

... P = to play 2♣

... 2♦♥ = to play

... 2♠ = to play but weaker suit than direct 2♠

... others = GF freaks (1-suited)

2♣ = ♣+♠

2♦ = ♦+♠

2♥ = ♥+♠ with equal or better ♠

2♠ = to play with a suit that can stand a raise

2NT = ♣+♦

 

So you can see that agreements can vary a great deal here.

[shannon001]

Thank you for comments. I try and keep it simple:-)

[ggwhiz]

One school of thought that keeps it simple is that double shows a 1-suited hand that wants to play for penalty, ie. a KQJTxxx suit and a side Ace and if partner can't stand it they bid 2♣ and I pass or correct to my suit.

 

It's not as ambiguous as "I have equal values", but where are they?

[fromageGB]

Another "keep it very simple" option I would prefer to penalty over a strong NT is double for takeout. If you care to reduce the simplicity a tad, then make it takeout for the majors. Still simple, and much more useful.

[fromageGB]

deleted - repeated

[1eyedjack]

Another "keep it very simple" option I would prefer to penalty over a strong NT is double for takeout.

 

Sorry but this does not make any sense to me. Not the first time that I have encountered it, although I doubt that I have ever received complete disclosure at the table.

 

Against a suit contract, a penalty X shows length in the opponent's suit, while a takeout double shows shortage in the opponent's suit and length in the other 3.

 

A 1N opener shows, in principle, at least potential length in all 4 suits. If a "takeout" double of 1N is to have any measure of safety it should be able to handle any suit that partner bids, and so be very balanced, having length in all 4 suits - in other words length in the same suits as suggested by opener. That has the hallmarks of a penalty double.

 

If you are confident that whatever suit partner chooses you will do better to contract for 8 tricks (possibly doubled) when the alternative is to try for 7 v 1N (with the advantage of attacking your favoured suit at trick 1), what sort of hand would you have?

 

As I see it, the reality is this: Penalty doubles can be removed. Takeout doubles can be converted to penalty by passing. When deciding whether to remove a penalty double, or convert a takeout double, a player will have in mind an expectation of partner's hand for the double. Those who advocate a "generic takeout" double of 1N are doing nothing more than lowering the minimum values for the double and thereby increasing the minimum values required to convert it to penalties. No doubt the doubler would still double with full values for a traditional "penalty" double, and when partner removes it for fear that doubler is weaker they will have missed out on a lucrative penalty. Presumably the advocates of the method argue that the frequency of finding a fit that justifies declaring compensates. I am unconvinced.

[fromageGB]

Sorry but this does not make any sense to me...

I have never played a simple takeout double of 1NT (playing it as a takeout for the majors is much more useful, as I said), but never having played penalty double either, I would prefer to play takeout. The reasoning is that a balanced penalty requires a hand of say 16+, while a takeout would be agreed as say 12+. You are right in that they would be similar, and either allows advancer to pass for penalty or to bid something, but it is a question of frequency. If you double with 12, then you will be doubling more often. Partner can still pass with a fair hand, or bid a suit without.

 

Admittedly there is more risk with a weaker double, but I imagine also more frequent successful intervention. Not my preferred method, of course, but if I had to go ultrasimple, it would be this way.

[helene_t]

One school of thought that keeps it simple is that double shows a 1-suited hand that wants to play for penalty, ie. a KQJTxxx suit and a side Ace and if partner can't stand it they bid 2♣ and I pass or correct to my suit.

 

It's not as ambiguous as "I have equal values", but where are they?

This is indeed sensible in direct seat. The complication is that it doesn't work in balancing seat because partner wouldn't know which suit to lead.

[ArtK78]

I have never played a simple takeout double of 1NT (playing it as a takeout for the majors is much more useful, as I said), but never having played penalty double either, I would prefer to play takeout. The reasoning is that a balanced penalty requires a hand of say 16+, while a takeout would be agreed as say 12+. You are right in that they would be similar, and either allows advancer to pass for penalty or to bid something, but it is a question of frequency. If you double with 12, then you will be doubling more often. Partner can still pass with a fair hand, or bid a suit without.

 

Admittedly there is more risk with a weaker double, but I imagine also more frequent successful intervention. Not my preferred method, of course, but if I had to go ultrasimple, it would be this way.

Takeout of what?

[aguahombre]

Takeout of what?

More than once I have heard beginners describe their Double of 1NT as "takeout". They have about 16 points and support for any of the four suits to which partner might take it out. :rolleyes:

[helene_t]

If you have a very weak hand with no five-card suit but support for at least two non-club suits, and partner doubles 1NT and you are not vulnerable, you can bid 2♣. This shows ostensibly 0-4 pts (or such) and 5+ clubs and partner will almost certainly pass. As long as 2♣ isn't doubled it may be less of a disaster than defending 1NT doubled. If they double you can either redouble or bid 2♦, and partner will get the message.

 

Do people here think this is a good idea? Obviously it will backfire when partner has enough to crunch 1NT on his own. And it will backfire when you have a club fit but can't compete over opps 2♦/♥/♠ because partner can't know that you have real clubs this time.

[WGF_Flame]

if partner double 1NT and its penalty in your system, and you got a very weak hand, than if you have a suit to bid like a 5 card suit you should probebly bid it.

if your hand has not 5+ card suit, you can pass and hope partner got some extra or you can bid your lowerst suit and hope to servive.

there is no garenty in either option, but i would try to pass most of the time with balance no 5 card suit hand and hope for the best.

[aguahombre]

Pard and I have pretty much come to agreement over the years on the meanings of Doubles in every context there is -- and, when asked, can explain to the opponents the agreed nature of a particular Double. The meanings for us are not always what the majority of players use.

 

What you will never hear in the explanation are the words "penalty", "takeout", or any other coined name.