[kdr_fm]

Just wanted to get peoples view on the auction

1NT dbl

and the related one

1NT P P dbl

over a 15-17 NT ...

[Winstonm]

The best thing I ever played was from a suggestion by Ron Anderson that the immediate double is penalty and means, "Pard, I have a real good lead to meake against 1N doubled."

xxx, Axx, Kx, KQJ9xx would be toward the low end holding.

The balancing double is just to move them from 1N.

[mtvesuvius]

The first X can be conventional, or (Conventional) penalty. Generally I like to use it as Penalty, showing a 1NT opener, with 2♣ by responder being a getout, and everything else natural.

In balancing seat, it is just general takeout.

[jdonn]

I am definitely not a fan of penalty doubles over a strong notrump, I think they are utterly useless. Of course there are myriad conventional options, with my favorite and perhaps the most popular these days being woolsey:
DBL: 4 major, 5+ minor
2♣: Majors
2♦: 1 Major
2♥: 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠: 5+ spades, 4+ minor
Hands with a long minor and a major on the side are very useful to be able to compete on, it has been a big winner for me over time. Also every now and then partner can pass the double, especially if he has good strength with something like Hxx in each minor since he expects you will lead yours.

[Lobowolf]

I don't play Woolsey, and this is without deep premeditation on my part, so excuse me in advance if I'm asking a moronic question, but...
Any theoretical merit to changing the double/2M bids around so that the double would show a longer major than minor, and 2M would show a 4-card suit with a longer minor? That way if partner didn't like your major and you ended up at the 3-level, it would be in your 5+ card suit.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 29 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I don't play Woolsey, and this is without deep premeditation on my part, so excuse me in advance if I'm asking a moronic question, but...
Any theoretical merit to changing the double/2M bids around so that the double would show a longer major than minor, and 2M would show a 4-card suit with a longer minor? That way if partner didn't like your major and you ended up at the 3-level, it would be in your 5+ card suit.

I think the current/actual way is better, because you won't have to go to the three level nearly as often, and when you do it will be based on more shortness in overcaller's suit so you will on average be longer in the side suit anyway which mitigates your concern. But to answer your question, sure reversing them has theoretical merit.

[JLOL]

Lobowolf, on Jan 29 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I don't play Woolsey, and this is without deep premeditation on my part, so excuse me in advance if I'm asking a moronic question, but...
Any theoretical merit to changing the double/2M bids around so that the double would show a longer major than minor, and 2M would show a 4-card suit with a longer minor? That way if partner didn't like your major and you ended up at the 3-level, it would be in your 5+ card suit.

no

[mike777]

kdr_fm, on Jan 29 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

Just wanted to get peoples view on the auction

1NT dbl

and the related one

1NT P P dbl

over a 15-17 NT ...

Modified DONT
Direct and balance seat.


long minor or both majors....x forces 2c....more shape or hcp if unfav.....less if at fav.

[awm]

Well obviously this depends on whether you've agreed to some conventional defense to notrump.

But suppose you are playing "natural" or are using some defense with a "natural" (penalty) double. It's reasonable to ask what the expected hand is for this action.

My view is that both the direct-seat double and the balancing double normally show 15+ hcp. However, it is okay to be a few points light if holding a good suit to lead (for example Axx Ax xx KQJ9xx is a very clear double and even changing one of the aces to king it is fine).

Against a weak notrump I normally tone down the balancing double to something like 13+, but I'm not convinced this is a good idea against 15-17 or stronger.

[brianshark]

I like penalty doubles over strong NTs. I understand that this is pretty anecdotal, but I can remember numerous times we got good scores from having it, and a few times when not having it missed out on a good score from our inability to penalty double them.

I can remember only once or twice when we went for a number after a penalty double opposite a broke partner. It's harder to remember situations where a conventional double would have gained/cost imps.

Regarding the double in balancing seat, I think there is merit in playing it as lighter than the normal 15+, eg 12+, or 10-11 as a passed hand.

[helene_t]

mtvesuvius, on Jan 29 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

In balancing seat, it is just general takeout.

What does "general takeout" mean?

Specifically 4333 so that p can bid any 4-card?

(semi)-balanced so that p can bid a 5-card but pass and pray without a 5-card?

(semi)-balanced but p bids and prays with any weak hand?

(semi)-balanced and p bids up the line, possibly in combination with 2♣ showing a 1-suiter?

(semi)-balanced but showing 3+ in (say) two specific suits so p can bid some 4-card suits safely?

I don't like any of the above. Pass with balanced hands, please.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I like penalty doubles over strong NTs. I understand that this is pretty anecdotal, but I can remember numerous times we got good scores from having it, and a few times when not having it missed out on a good score from our inability to penalty double them.

Most likely because your opponents don't know what to do after them. With reasonable hands, first priority of 3rd seat should be to punish you for stepping in. With weak hands, run.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I am definitely not a fan of penalty doubles over a strong notrump, I think they are utterly useless.

Josh,

I have found the if used judiciously that the opponents can hold the balance of power by a substantial margin, have no real reason to run, and have no play for 1N doubled - and that is the strong NT.

Like the hand I described: xxx, Axx, Kx, KQJ9xx - if partner holds as little as Qxxx, xxxx, Qxx, xx a two-trick set is realistic and opps hold 23 HCP with most likely balanced hand facing balanced hand.

[shevek]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

I am definitely not a fan of penalty doubles over a strong notrump, I think they are utterly useless. Of course there are myriad conventional options, with my favorite and perhaps the most popular these days being woolsey:
DBL: 4 major, 5+ minor
2♣: Majors
2♦: 1 Major
2♥: 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠: 5+ spades, 4+ minor
Hands with a long minor and a major on the side are very useful to be able to compete on, it has been a big winner for me over time. Also every now and then partner can pass the double, especially if he has good strength with something like Hxx in each minor since he expects you will lead yours.

This is Multi-Landy. Yes? At least that's the name in Australia.
It's pretty good.
The plus is symmetry with the common opening style, wherein
2♣ = strong, 2♦ = standard multi, 2♥/♠ = Mm 2-suiters (Muiderberg)

A few negatives:
2♣ majors is a bit extravagant on a specific hand, though 2♦ relay over that is useful (compare Cappelletti)
X needs to be penalty vs a weak notrump. Hate to see someone open 14-16 and wonder which regime applies so I prefer X as penalty vs all.
This serves to limit other actions. I'm happy to double any notrump with top of their range. Not so much to collect but to allow is to compete when partner has say ♠QJTxx and out.
2♥/♠ are not great either. Very rarely do you find partner with something like 1444 and escape to your spot at the 3-level, so basically it ends up being a 5-cd overcall, somewhat duplicating 2♦.
Prefer Asptro or similar meself. It's a bit tricky though ...

[Mbodell]

shevek, on Feb 3 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

I am definitely not a fan of penalty doubles over a strong notrump, I think they are utterly useless. Of course there are myriad conventional options, with my favorite and perhaps the most popular these days being woolsey:
DBL: 4 major, 5+ minor
2♣: Majors
2♦: 1 Major
2♥: 5+ hearts, 4+ minor
2♠: 5+ spades, 4+ minor
Hands with a long minor and a major on the side are very useful to be able to compete on, it has been a big winner for me over time. Also every now and then partner can pass the double, especially if he has good strength with something like Hxx in each minor since he expects you will lead yours.

This is Multi-Landy. Yes? At least that's the name in Australia.
It's pretty good.
The plus is symmetry with the common opening style, wherein
2♣ = strong, 2♦ = standard multi, 2♥/♠ = Mm 2-suiters (Muiderberg)

A few negatives:
2♣ majors is a bit extravagant on a specific hand, though 2♦ relay over that is useful (compare Cappelletti)
X needs to be penalty vs a weak notrump. Hate to see someone open 14-16 and wonder which regime applies so I prefer X as penalty vs all.
This serves to limit other actions. I'm happy to double any notrump with top of their range. Not so much to collect but to allow is to compete when partner has say ♠QJTxx and out.
2♥/♠ are not great either. Very rarely do you find partner with something like 1444 and escape to your spot at the 3-level, so basically it ends up being a 5-cd overcall, somewhat duplicating 2♦.
Prefer Asptro or similar meself. It's a bit tricky though ...

The bigger negative to multi-landy is that it isn't legal in most/many ACBL events. While certainly legal in all the big events (which likely is where jdonn would play it), it isn't legal on BBO ACBL tournaments or in most sectional or regionals as it is a midchart method (calls other than X and 2♣ over a natural 1NT have to show a specific anchor suit to be GCC legal).

That said, it is one of the more common illegal systems played. In most sectionals in my area you'll see a pair or two playing it even though the pairs event (even when stratiflighted) is GCC and this defense isn't legal. But that may partially be because most club games near me have much more friendly liberal restrictions and tend to allow midchart + more in local club games.

[blackshoe]

Frankly, if a pair are playing an illegal method for the event in question, they ought to be told by the TD to knock it off, whatever their local club allows.