[jdonn]

About once every 6 months, someone who was previously harmless on the forums discovers sarcasm as a form of discussion and then forgets to make any actual points from then on. It's always sad.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Sep 9 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

Aww come on Andy, I want to see you say it too!

My example was 1♦ (1♥) dbl

[aguahombre]

hanp, on Sep 9 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

It's perfectly fine if you have grown up in the age of penalty doubles and are unwilling to change to the agreements that most people use these days. It is indeed possible that you will pick up a ♣AQJx and are able to get a juicy number, while we have to pass in the hope that partner can double for takeout. But please don't fill these threads with non-sensical arguments that lack any form of logic, just because you can't deal with the way the game of bridge has evolved.

Everything above that quote is a comprehensive answer to questions I had about the method for this particular auction:

1S (P) 1NT (2C)
?

Advocating a different, and maybe very old method -- then asking questions about how the new way gains certainly doesn't connote sarcasm to me, Jdonn.

Also, I fail to see how an informative double on the second round --by opener, with say, AKXXX AX XX AJTX (not everyone would open 1NT with 5-2-2-4) or similar hands with extra strength and clubs would be equated to first round negative doubles. I think they are entirely different, and any sarcasm would have occurred during that comparison.

While being an advocate of "informative" doubles by opener on his second round, I have at least read and appreciated the other viewpoints. I don't claim the methods of others in this situation are bad, wrong, or whatever. And I certainly don't consider methods which are not mine non-sensical or illogical.

Maybe others could have the same tolerance for different perspectives; they might even gain knowlege in order to deal at the table with the styles of people who have not evolved as much as they have.

[MickyB]

Does opener's double below two of his opened suit show extras?

[awm]

It seems like the important issues here are the frequencies of the hand types, and what's likely to happen when the hand type for the "wrong" kind of double is held.

In negative double auctions that people are somehow comparing, like 1♣-1♦-X and 1♦-1♥-X, penalizing usually requires a good five-card holding in the opponent suit (at the one-level). This is relatively infrequent. If we do have this hand, opener will usually have singleton or doubleton and balance with a double, especially since selling out at the one-level is often a poor result. It's true that the negative double hand can often make another call (like one of a major) but it's not hard to construct examples where having the double available helps clarify the nature of responder's hand.

Comparing this to the auction from this thread (1A-P-1N-(bid)-X) doesn't seem that accurate. To give some reasons why penalty double might be better here: we only need a good four-card holding to penalize at the two-level (a level higher) which will be somewhat more frequent. The 1NT bidder is often fairly balanced and will often be reluctant to "save us" by balancing with a double (especially if minimum, or if that would force the three-level, or if he has three cards in their suit also, or if holding a singleton in our first-bid suit). On the other hand, when we have the "takeout double" hand type if we are playing penalty doubles, there are a number of other calls we can make (for example bidding a four-card suit to show nine of our cards, or bidding 2NT as some sort of takeout bid, or even passing with the "expected" 5332 hands and letting partner balance on his five-card suit). Obviously adding takeout double to our arsenal will help somewhat, but the exclusion of certain unbid suits as a possible fit (for example after 1♦-P-1N-2♠ we are unlikely to want to play in hearts) can make a big difference. Note that after 1♦-1♥ overcall, we could easily want to play in any strain (except hearts I suppose, although we might want to defend 1♥X).

[gwnn]

awm nobody was comparing them.

Hanoi5 said that he prefers
1♠-p-1NT-(anything)
x

as penalty if 1NT was standard, non-forcing.

then I told him it shouldn't be penalty because the 1NT is not necessarily "fairly balanced", in fact it shows 6-9 hcp any shape except 3 spades.

then aguahombre said that he prefers that in this case, if the overcall was just 2♣, we should play "system on", so x=penalty and 2red=natural, etc.

No one said that playing these doubles as penalty is as absurd as playing 1♦-(1♥)-x as penalty. Hanp and gnasher were saying that aguahombre's principle would require us to play these 1-level doubles also as penalty.

[hanp]

aguahombre, on Sep 9 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

Maybe others could have the same tolerance for different perspectives.

You can play the best methods in the world, but if you post nonsense to advocate the methods then I'm still calling the nonsense nonsense. That doesn't mean that I'm intolerant to the methods, by no means. I certainly believe that good players can do well playing penalty doubles, even if they call them informative.

If you can't handle people calling your nonsense nonsense, my advice is to post less nonsense.

[awm]

Let's look for a moment at the auction 1♣-P-1N-2♠.

Arguably the 1NT call is "almost" like a club raise -- partner usually has either four card clubs or 3343 (maybe 5♦-(332) is possible too). This means our side's best fit is quite likely to be in clubs, although there is some chance of a 4-4 diamond fit outplaying a 5-3 club fit or the like. The 1NT bidder is also very likely to be balanced, since he could raise clubs or bid 1♦ with most unbalanced hands here.

This seems like the best possible situation to play penalty doubles. Partner is balanced and limited. If we hold four spades behind the bidder, we can often take them for a big number on hands where partner would have trouble balancing (or would balance with 3♣). If we have a "takeout double" type hand (say 2335 or 1(43)5) then we can compete in clubs; that's a good fit anyway and it's not like partner would've converted a takeout double.

Further, if double were takeout then we would need a bid with 18/19 balanced and a non-takeout shape. Bidding 3NT seems a little weird, since we were presumably going to bid 2NT without intervention and the knowledge that RHO has long spades if anything makes 3NT less likely to make. The implication is that 2NT probably has to be 18/19 balanced if double is takeout (so we can't use it as good/bad). It seems a lot better once again to play double=penalty, which frees up the 2NT call (you could use it as 4♦-5♣, or to distinguish competitive and forward-going 3♣ calls).

So I think it's pretty clear that 1♣-P-1N-2♠-X is better as penalty. Can an equally good case be made for playing some of the other sequences (i.e. 1♠-P-1N-2♥) as takeout? If so, how should we draw the line?

[Apollo81]

How about "penalty only when we open a minor and they overcall a major"

[gnasher]

MickyB, on Sep 9 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

Does opener's double below two of his opened suit show extras?

I don't think it promises much more than a bare minimum. With AQ10xx Qxx x KQxx, I'd want to double 2♦ for takeout. Take away ♠Q and I probably wouldn't.

[JLOGIC]

I would double with any hand I opened if it was below 2 of my suit, I don't think it shows extras more than 1S p 1N 2D 2H does (aka it doesn't). You're just bidding your hand.

[hanp]

Agree, passing 2D with gnasher's 11-count is way more dangerous than not opening it. Another argument for... playing takeout doubles!