[straube]

We're playing that 1C=usually 16+ and 1H is a generic semipositive of 5+

After 1C P 1H we've agreed to be in a force through 2N (opponents can't play 2N or lower undoubled). This means...

1C P 1H (2D) dbl becomes penalty and pass is takeout or directionless.

1C P 1H (2D) P P 2N by responder is takeout.

We also play Rubensohl by opener so that

1C P 1H (2D) 2N shows clubs and opener may plan to bid again.

I like our method, but especially when responder acts, we're unable to tell whether he has extra or not. He can't pass out 2-level interference.

Thoughts? Should we play forcing pass to lower levels (like 2H) or not at all?

[awm]

I'll just comment that it seems a lot better to play the normal meanings of pass/double in low-level auctions even if pass is actually forcing. The agreement looks like:

Dbl (in direct seat) = takeout, partner can bid as appropriate, transfer leb. can be on
Pass (in direct seat) = shows a hand unsuited to takeout double or a direct bid, usually length in the opponents suit
Dbl (in passout seat) = automatic if would pass a penalty double from partner; other actions after opener's pass show freakish shape

Advantages include:

(1) Opener's double is "real" takeout and responder can thus assume a fit for unbid suits; opener's pass in your structure could include length in opponents suit w/o penalty interest
(2) On hands where responder wants to double "for takeout" he gets to do that, rather than having to bid up to 2NT right away.
(3) In some cases opener can use any of double-then-bid, pass-then-bid, direct bid to distinguish strength/shape, whereas in your structure there can be no double-then-bid.
(4) If there's ever any confusion or "forget" about whether pass is forcing, mistakes are less costly because the meaning of pass/double doesn't change much.

The only real disadvantage is if the opponents overcall was an outright psych, and opener has substantial length in their suit but a weak holding, whereas responder has a penalty double. Now in my structure opener will pass (double would be takeout) and responder can no longer penalize (since his double is almost mandatory and not penalty). However, I think these outright psychs are rare, and potentially they still get in trouble when opener has the penalizing holding or when the suit breaks badly between opener and responder.

[JLOGIC]

+ 1 million to takeout Xs here.

[straube]

awm, on 2010-December-29, 12:55, said:

I'll just comment that it seems a lot better to play the normal meanings of pass/double in low-level auctions even if pass is actually forcing. The agreement looks like:

Dbl (in direct seat) = takeout, partner can bid as appropriate, transfer leb. can be on
Pass (in direct seat) = shows a hand unsuited to takeout double or a direct bid, usually length in the opponents suit
Dbl (in passout seat) = automatic if would pass a penalty double from partner; other actions after opener's pass show freakish shape

Advantages include:

(1) Opener's double is "real" takeout and responder can thus assume a fit for unbid suits; opener's pass in your structure could include length in opponents suit w/o penalty interest
(2) On hands where responder wants to double "for takeout" he gets to do that, rather than having to bid up to 2NT right away.
(3) In some cases opener can use any of double-then-bid, pass-then-bid, direct bid to distinguish strength/shape, whereas in your structure there can be no double-then-bid.
(4) If there's ever any confusion or "forget" about whether pass is forcing, mistakes are less costly because the meaning of pass/double doesn't change much.

The only real disadvantage is if the opponents overcall was an outright psych, and opener has substantial length in their suit but a weak holding, whereas responder has a penalty double. Now in my structure opener will pass (double would be takeout) and responder can no longer penalize (since his double is almost mandatory and not penalty). However, I think these outright psychs are rare, and potentially they still get in trouble when opener has the penalizing holding or when the suit breaks badly between opener and responder.

Appreciate the response, but I want to debate the point. If we switched to this, now responder in balancing seat has to bid 2N with length in their suit....so we wind up playing the hand when the opponents have overcalled a misfit.

Up to now, we've played that a direct double is penalty and a balancing double is penalty or balanced. So for example, 1C P 1H (2D) P P dbl P 2S would show that opener had a takeout double and not the balanced sort of hand.

Granted, 1C P 1H (2D) P P 2N as takeout gets us high, but this is opposite a balanced/directionless hand or against a takeout double pattern, so usually we will find a fit.

I guess some of the same logic of this topic is similar to weak notrump defense after a penalty double. I never understood why double was recommended as takeout after the opening side started to run.

[awm]

Well there's a general question about when to defend. Suppose that opponents have overcalled a suit where it turns out they have only 6-7 cards combined. We obviously want to be able to penalize if there's a long and strong holding in that suit behind the bidder.

The question is whether we're more interested in being able to defend when: (1) There's a long/strong holding in front of the bidder (2) The suit is breaking 3-3 or 4-3 between our hands (in the latter case the 4-card holding is not very strong).

You seem to be suggesting that your method allows to penalize in case (2) because opener will pass (forcing) and responder will double (balanced hand) and then opener will leave it in. However, you now have no way to penalize in case (1) because opener will pass (forcing) and responder will double (usually a balanced hand) and opener will not leave it in with shortage. My approach allows to penalize in case (1) because opener will double and responder will convert, whereas I can't penalize in case (2) because opener will pass (forcing) and responder will double (basically forced) and opener won't leave it in.

While this is not particularly obvious, I find that I do a lot better penalizing in case (1) than in case (2).

[JLOGIC]

straube, you say:

"1C P 1H (2D) dbl becomes penalty and pass is takeout or directionless."

You don't think the difference in these 2 things is very important? You are also suggesting using a 2N reopening as takeout, what?? That is super bulky and uses a lot of room, not to mention wrongsiding NT and forcing you to a very high level. I think reopening with 2N takeout is not playable, and what generally happens is that you just bid a 4 card suit (as if responding to a takeout double).

Passing with a penalty double or a directionless hand, and doubling with a takeout double works much better. For starters, if you have a penalty partner usually reopens X anyways. Secondly, partner is able to reopen X not for penalty, and thus if he bids a suit over your pass it's a real suit, and with 4 card suits he will usually just reopen X. The auction is much better when you know immediately if partner has a balanced hand or a takeout X.

Playing penalty doubles when you are in a GAME FORCE is a reasonable/playable (though probably suboptimal) approach, but when you are not yet in a game force I have never heard of it, even given that you're in a one round force.

[straube]

To address JLogic's specific question, using 2N in the balancing seat would generally show shortness (singleton or void) and double in the balancing seat would show balanced or penalty. Opener would assume balanced and would take out with a takeout shape or pass with balanced shape (likely 3+ of their suit).

It seems like both of you are more interested in penalizing when the suit breaks badly for them and are willing to play 2N when it doesn't.

I'll have partner look this thread over with view to changing what we're doing. Thanks for the help.

[straube]

Still thinking about this. It seems to me that double as takeout is crossed-purpose with being in a force. Maybe we shouldn't be in a force. I thought the main point of having a force was to allow opener to make a penalty double.

If dbl is takeout and we're in a force, then 1C P 1H (2D) P P 2N means that responder has been endplayed into bidding 2N and we can't even learn if responder was maximum or minimum or even has a diamond stopper. Maybe we'd have been better off if responder could have passed. Let them play 2D undoubled.

Certainly responder will try to compete, but if he can't...

[awm]

straube, on 2011-January-01, 01:13, said:

If dbl is takeout and we're in a force, then 1C P 1H (2D) P P 2N means that responder has been endplayed into bidding 2N and we can't even learn if responder was maximum or minimum or even has a diamond stopper. Maybe we'd have been better off if responder could have passed. Let them play 2D undoubled.

Responder is supposed to double in balancing position on almost all hands. Opener's double is true takeout, responder's double basically just says "if you had made a penalty double, I would not have removed it." So I do not think this 2NT call means what you think it means....

[straube]

awm, on 2011-January-01, 02:25, said:

Responder is supposed to double in balancing position on almost all hands. Opener's double is true takeout, responder's double basically just says "if you had made a penalty double, I would not have removed it." So I do not think this 2NT call means what you think it means....

I think that only leaves 2N as takeout, i.e. with shortness and not willing to sit for a penalty double. Is that what you mean? That would be the same meaning (for 2N balancing) then as for our initial agreement.

I suppose after a balancing double, opener will frequently bid 2N on many of his balanced hands and only pass with a penalty double. Opener certainly can't bid 2N directly because that shows clubs.

[awm]

The balancing double is supposed to be left in when opener has a real stack, not when opener has a random balanced hand. Thus I'm happy to double on "true takeout" hands like a 4441, as well as doubling on some flattish hands like 4333. When opener bids over this double, he will often be showing a four-card suit combined with some length in the opposing suit (if short in opposing suit he would've doubled or bid earlier, if he has a good five-card suit he would've bid it or maybe doubled earlier). We can then bid 2NT or our own suit on hands where we lack tolerance for opener and just doubled in case he had a penalty pass.

So we don't need a call for "I have a balancing takeout double" -- we double with that. We also double off-shape sometimes to protect (but it's surprisingly rare that it's very off-shape; the opponents almost have to have psyched for that to happen). The 2NT call is used as either two places to play (i.e. a fairly extreme two-suiter where both suits are at the three-level) or as lebensohl. Which one depends on agreement; which is better may depend on how wide responder's range can be in this auction.

[straube]

awm, on 2011-January-03, 23:16, said:

The balancing double is supposed to be left in when opener has a real stack, not when opener has a random balanced hand. Thus I'm happy to double on "true takeout" hands like a 4441, as well as doubling on some flattish hands like 4333. When opener bids over this double, he will often be showing a four-card suit combined with some length in the opposing suit (if short in opposing suit he would've doubled or bid earlier, if he has a good five-card suit he would've bid it or maybe doubled earlier). We can then bid 2NT or our own suit on hands where we lack tolerance for opener and just doubled in case he had a penalty pass.

So we don't need a call for "I have a balancing takeout double" -- we double with that. We also double off-shape sometimes to protect (but it's surprisingly rare that it's very off-shape; the opponents almost have to have psyched for that to happen). The 2NT call is used as either two places to play (i.e. a fairly extreme two-suiter where both suits are at the three-level) or as lebensohl. Which one depends on agreement; which is better may depend on how wide responder's range can be in this auction.

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

Responder's range can be pretty wide (3-5 QPs) so I'm thinking Lebensohl for 2N. I guess responder can use Lebensohl whether opener doubles or passes.