[bluecalm]

The problem with not creating force is that we won't be able to double them from opener side as responder will be worried to pass with good hands.
I think this double should create force to 2NT but if it doesn't then we need some better agreements than penalty doubles.
I think that when playing negative doubles there is not that much need for forcing passes here.

[aguahombre]

 bluecalm, on 2012-February-20, 13:29, said:

The problem with not creating force is that we won't be able to double them from opener side as responder will be worried to pass with good hands.
I think this double should create force to 2NT but if it doesn't then we need some better agreements than penalty doubles.

Or better penalty doubles.

[mike777]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 11:19, said:

---

Teams of 4, I'm unsure of the actual vulnerability and small spots, 1♦ was 4+ cards, X was pens.

Do you take any action and does it matter if you play penalty or takeout doubles of 2♥ ?

Edit: you are green, they are red

very interesting thread, thank you for putting it up. Great comments by the posters.

[FrancesHinden]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-19, 15:16, said:

I definitely do not think doubling 1N sets up a force. It is very common to double with random 10 counts or 9 with a nice lead like KQT9x of clubs and an ace. Unless they are psyching a LOT of the time, I do not think you need a force, you never have slam and with game you can just make a bulky cuebid or jump in spades or jump in NT. Not perfect, but you don't usually have game either on just power. Likewise I do not think doubling and bidding a suit is forcing. I do prefer to play takeout doubles after we double their 1N overcall and they bid, I think it's much better, but standard is obv penalty so I would pass.

 nigel_k, on 2012-February-20, 13:25, said:

I agree with Mike and Justin. The double of 1NT should not create a force. This is just based on frequency. Usually partner's double will be based on a hand where there is no game when we have a minimum opening bid. If he has the less common hand type where he expects game to make opposite this hand but doesn't have a penalty double, he needs to cue bid or just blast game. But I agree this is not very nice on the occasions when those hands do come up.At IMPs I would just pass because I expect both sides making their part score is less likely than both sides not making.

I'm slightly surprised at the emphasis on whether or not you are likely to have game on. The logic for playing pass as forcing is that
(i) if you have a good 9/normal 10 count opposite an opening bid, you are expected to have the balance of strength (or opener has extra playing strength). Therefore it is very unlikely that you want to pass out their 2-level contract.
(ii) if you do not play pass as forcing, then you cannot give both players freedom decide whether to defend a doubled contract or compete the partial. The hand in the immediate seat can't afford to pass with a hand that wants to compete (in case partner wants to double for penalties) because it might end the auction. Similar arguments apply when playing double as take-out, although it's not quite as bad.

I'm not saying you _have_ to play pass as forcing - we only play it as forcing at the 2-level if we opened 1m, or to 2 of our major if we opened a major - but that it's not really about whether you have game or slam on or not, it's about making the right decision at a lower level.

[mikeh]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-February-21, 13:51, said:

I'm not saying you _have_ to play pass as forcing - we only play it as forcing at the 2-level if we opened 1m, or to 2 of our major if we opened a major - but that it's not really about whether you have game or slam on or not, it's about making the right decision at a lower level.

It is evident that many forum posters open light, even with balanced hands. It is also apparent that many forum posters will double 1N with as few as a chunky 9 hcp, with a decent lead. Thus, if we play double as forcing, we may be putting ourselves into a lose-lose situation, especially if we are vulnerable. We may be getting to a 4-4 or 4-3 fit at the 3 level on 9 opposite 12, when our par was allowing them to be +110.

I'm all in favour of developing the ability to make the right decision at a lower level, but why isn't defending 2M undoubled sometimes the right decision? And if it is, then we CANNOT play a forcing pass here and still make that right decision.

I can see that those playing a weak 1N style will have significantly different factors impacting their approach after a 1m opening, and even 1M if you open all 5332 12-13 counts 1N.