Weak NT openings

[dokoko]

... no stolen bid doubles ...

 

correct me if i'm wrong but stolen bid double seems legal in this case ;) (opp's stole your natural bid and now you dbl for penalties).

[blackshoe]

correct me if i'm wrong but stolen bid double seems legal in this case ;) (opp's stole your natural bid and now you dbl for penalties).

That is not a stolen bid double as I understand the term.

[barmar]

That is not a stolen bid double as I understand the term.

Me, either. The most common example of Stolen Bid Double is when partner opens 1NT, and RHO overcalls in the suit you were going to use as a transfer. E.g. RHO bids 2♥, so you double to show spades. It's definitely not a penalty double -- you might do this with very few points and no hearts.

[helene_t]

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

 

It is probably a regional thing. As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

[barmar]

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

Isn't that (sort of) a negative double?

It is probably a regional thing.

Or they're just confused (I originally wrote "wrong", but decided to make it less judgemental).

As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

Conversation is difficult if you have to expand everything to full explanations instead of using simple, well-known phrases (that's why we name things). Imagine if blackshoe had spelled everything out:

 

"no bidding 2♣ to ask for a 4-card major [stayman], no bidding a suit to show the suit above it [transfers], no bidding 2NT to ask opener to bid 3♣ so you can show a variety of different hand types [Lebensohl], no doubling to show that you would have bid their suit artificially [stolen bid doubles]". It was just a parenthetical comment, and this version is longer than the containing sentence.

 

Clear explanations are appropriate at the table, where it's critical to avoid misinformation, but I think we should be able to get away with names here in the forum.

[helene_t]

Isn't that (sort of) a negative double?

Yes.

Or they're just confused (I originally wrote "wrong", but decided to make it less judgemental).

Maybe. But then someone learns from someone who is confused and then it is called language evolution.

"no bidding 2♣ to ask for a 4-card major [stayman]

This is a bit silly, isn't it? There are a few exceptions such as Stayman, take-out doubles, fourth suit forcing, count signal.

 

But in the EBU you are not supposed ever to use the word "transfer" for the obvious reason that some people have been known to explain a puppet as a "transfer". And how difficult is it to say "five or more hearts" (or just "hearts") instead? Much clearer and just as short.

 

So obviously you shouldn't disclose a call as "stolen bid" either.

[barmar]

So obviously you shouldn't disclose a call as "stolen bid" either.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the language you should use when disclosing at the table. I'm talking about the language we use when discussing things here in the forum.

[kevperk]

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

 

It is probably a regional thing. As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

 

So, the opponents preempted their bid, but did not "steal" it. :)

[Zelandakh]

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

I used to play an "advanced" form of stolen bid on this auction as a junior with X showing hearts and 1NT showing diamonds. I still think this sort of approach is at least as easy for beginners as the natural-ish methods most learn.

[barmar]

I used to play an "advanced" form of stolen bid on this auction as a junior with X showing hearts and 1NT showing diamonds. I still think this sort of approach is at least as easy for beginners as the natural-ish methods most learn.

You can play whatever you like, just don't call it "stolen bid double" if it doesn't mean "double has the meaning that RHO's bid would have had if you had made it yourself".

[Zelandakh]

You can play whatever you like, just don't call it "stolen bid double" if it doesn't mean "double has the meaning that RHO's bid would have had if you had made it yourself".

Such as double for Stayman after a natural 2♣ overcall? That is clearly a crazy idea... :unsure:

[barmar]

Such as double for Stayman after a natural 2♣ overcall? That is clearly a crazy idea... :unsure:

That's a common agreement even for those who don't play stolen bid doubles more generally.

 

But I've also had the agreement with some that it's only Stayman if the 2♣ bid is artificial, because they don't want to give people free license to step into their NT auctions.

[Zelandakh]

But I've also had the agreement with some that it's only Stayman if the 2♣ bid is artificial, because they don't want to give people free license to step into their NT auctions.

Playing X as clubs when they show clubs and Stayman when they show the majors (Landy) might get on the short list for the worst conventions in bridge! ;) B-)

[barmar]

Playing X as clubs when they show clubs and Stayman when they show the majors (Landy) might get on the short list for the worst conventions in bridge! ;) B-)

Good point. But unless you've made an explicit agreement otherwise, default agreements apply. I don't think I've discussed defense to Landy explicitly with anyone. On practically all my CCs, it just says "Systems on over double and 2♣", and the default agreement is that over 2♣ double means Stayman.