[semeai]

Bridgewinners posted the convention cards of USA 2, and I notice that all three pairs play penalty doubles of strong (or weak) 1NT in direct seat. I understand this is at imps so it's more attractive than it would be at matchpoints, but it still seems surprising and very neoclassical.

Is there new thinking on this? Why use penalty doubles of strong 1NT?

For comparison, none of USA 1 use penalty doubles of strong 1NT.

[han]

Joe: "F**k man, we have to fill out a conventioncard for this thing!"

Justin: "alright, I'll do it. What do you want to play?"

Joe: "I don't care, just write down what you think is standard, I'll look at it before gametime."

[wyman]

One of the better players on this site (from another board):

Quote

I would rather play any system where 2C= majors than any other system.

There seems to be a thought process that the best systems over 1N allow you to show the most hand types, and the best of those allow you to show the most hand types and stop at the 2 level in your fit as often as possible.

IMO this is wrong, not all hand types are created equal. Some hand types are much more important than others, and those hand types should be catered to.

Likewise, all bids are not created equal. Bidding 2M more often gives the opps much more problems, bidding X or 2C very often gives them no problems (and in fact gives them even more space).

Lastly, artificial bids with multi meanings are worse than natural bids because partner will be less likely to compete/save/help you lead effectively.

So it might be obvious that I strongly favor natural 2M bids. They take up much more room, and show your suit right away so partner is in good shape to bid 4M to make or save, or preempt to take up their room etc. Whether or not I have a minor is unlikely to be important, it is much more likely to be correct to bid 4M than 5m.

Yes sometimes we play a stupid partscore, but if partner has 2 we're usually fine in 2M, and if partner has 1 we sometimes have 6, and if we're in a 5-1 then whatever, worse things have happened. I don't think it's such a huge deal for the tactical advantages gained by being able to show your suit and take up room at the same time.

Often times the opps will end up playing the hand anyways and it's better that we haven't shown them whether we have a 1 suiter or a 2 suiter directly.

I also am strongly in favor of 2C for the majors. It leaves room for partner to bid 2D to ask for our major so that we can always play the right fit. This is very important when we're 5-4 or 4-5 and partner has equal length. It also allows our game tries to be much more accurate since we have 2D, 2N, and 3M all available (and notably we can bid 2D then 2S to try for game in spades and still stop at the 2 level).

All of this allows us to bid 2C more aggressively, and competing with the majors can only be a good thing. When you compete with any other 2 suits, it's likely the opps will just find a fit and play 2M (thanks to your help) anyways. When we overcall, it should be with the goal of declaring a game or partial. If we defend we have just helped them find the fit, and with their play, which is not good. We are infinitely more likely to declare when we have both majors, and if we have a game it's usually when we have both majors (or if we have 1 major and our partner knows about it...see above re 2M overcall natural).

So getting in with the majors is good, and having the extra room is vital, this is why I hate any system that doesn't include 2C majors. Over 2D majors we do not have the same luxury to always get to the right fit, and have reasonable game try auctions.

I also am in favor of a penalty double. This is not necessarily to extract a penalty, that happens only occasionally (but more than people act like). It's so that partner can bid a suit if he has a weak hand with a 5+ card suit and we can declare a partial rather than defend 1N on lead and constantly endplayed. It also helps us find a game, and allows us to double and bid a suit with a strong hand which also leads to us finding game.

You'll note again, my main goals when I bid are to DECLARE a partial (hopefully the right one), DECLARE a game, or otherwise preempt them. If we bid and they end up declaring, we've gained nothing other than helping them. If we are going to defend, I'd rather not bid.

I'm perfectly happy giving up the ability to show clubs at the 2 level, or to declare in 2 clubs with a clubs+major 2 suiter, becuase usually if we're going to declare 2 of a minor they can bid on to 2 of a major (with the help of a takeout X of our minor).

Yes it's possible bidding our minor will get us to compete to the 3 level in that suit and that is a real gain, but I think it's secondary to everything else.

This leaves 2D as natural, it shows a suit and takes up some room immediately (this is the main benefit, no more transfers etc), and if it is right to compete to 3D it is usually when I am 1 suited not 2 suited.

If you prefer you can play 2D D+M though.

Compared to capp landy loses the ability to show a major+unspecified minor 2 suiter but gains being able to overcall a suit naturally immediately when you have one leading to partner being able to compete immediately, and leading to your bid preempting them immediately far more often, and it also allows you to overcall 2C when you have the majors leading you to always find the right fit.

This is not even close to me that landy >>> capp, on top of being simpler.

Compared to meckwell lets keep the 2D=D+M version to make it simpler, you gain:

-ability to show a 1 suited minor
-ability to show clubs+M

you lose:

-ability to show majors directly
-ability to ask for longer major when you show majors
-a lot of preemptive value
-a penalty X

I also don't think that one is close.

VS weak NT I like playing the 2D bid as a bad 2M overcall, and 2M as a good 2M overcall (and with the nuts you can X and bid your major). This maximizes your ability to bid game accurately while also allowing you to compete aggressively.

[xxhong]

Players nowadays frequently upgrade their hands. In my observation, many claim to play 15-17 1NT, but indeed play a 14.5-17 (or even weaker, like 14-16 for some) 1NT. These actions make penalty double more attractive because you may miss game more frequently if you pass with strong balanced hands. Also, against NT range that is weaker than 15-17, IMO, one has to play a penalty double to hold their own.

semeai, on 2011-September-16, 12:18, said:

Bridgewinners posted the convention cards of USA 2, and I notice that all three pairs play penalty doubles of strong (or weak) 1NT in direct seat. I understand this is at imps so it's more attractive than it would be at matchpoints, but it still seems surprising and very neoclassical.

Is there new thinking on this? Why use penalty doubles of strong 1NT?

For comparison, none of USA 1 use penalty doubles of strong 1NT.

[semeai]

Some good reasons, thanks.

Justin & Joe do have listed what Wyman's quote describes (where is this from?).

The other two pairs play multi Landy. I was curious why this and not Woolsey. The bit about declaring instead of defending with your own good hand opposite a weak hand with 5 cards is good, and then there's the more obvious double & bid your major type hands. It would be nice to check on frequency of this versus frequency of 4M-5C (plus how much better it is to act instead of not acting with these two types, of course).

[Foxx]

Seems pretty simple.

When you're playing against these guys and you open 1NT, now you have to worry about being eaten by a grue.

[MickyB]

I agree with most of JLOGIC's thought processes, but not all of his conclusions.

Bidding 2C for the majors is great, and being able to show a natural 2C overcall is fairly useless, you'll often just push oppo into their 4-4 major fit. Likewise showing C+M when you don't have spade length. However, I strongly dislike not being able to get in on 4S5+m. My methods let me get in on these hands, as well as bringing all three suits into the game on 34(15) and 35(14), which I think is a huge plus - our fit will often be higher-ranking than theirs.

I play good multi/bad 2M bids vs a strong NT but not a weak NT. This is not because I think the distinction is more useful versus a strong NT, but because giving up my penalty double allows me to do this without compromising the hands I mentioned above - indeed, I have further gains, as I have lost a 2D overcall but gained a double.

[JLOGIC]

semeai, on 2011-September-16, 21:13, said:

Some good reasons, thanks.

Justin & Joe do have listed what Wyman's quote describes (where is this from?).

The other two pairs play multi Landy. I was curious why this and not Woolsey. The bit about declaring instead of defending with your own good hand opposite a weak hand with 5 cards is good, and then there's the more obvious double & bid your major type hands. It would be nice to check on frequency of this versus frequency of 4M-5C (plus how much better it is to act instead of not acting with these two types, of course).

Pretty sure I was the one who wrote what wyman posted, based on writing style and the fact that I agreed with basically everything. Wyman and I both post on 2+2 so I probably wrote it there. I don't have that much to add to it, except that kevin likes X as 4cM and longer minor also when they play real strong NT (15-17), but not against 14-16 (which is often 13), so I assume he just plays penalty X because Dan likes it. Also, I don't really care how we use 2D and Joe likes D+M. Joe/Johnny/Me all feel very similar about penalty Xs and landy though.

[wyman]

JLOGIC, on 2011-September-18, 06:14, said:

Pretty sure I was the one who wrote what wyman posted, based on writing style and the fact that I agreed with basically everything. Wyman and I both post on 2+2 so I probably wrote it there.

+1

[whereagles]

Quote

I also am in favor of a penalty double. This is not necessarily to extract a penalty, that happens only occasionally (but more than people act like). It's so that partner can bid a suit if he has a weak hand with a 5+ card suit and we can declare a partial rather than defend 1N on lead and constantly endplayed.

DOH! That's not a penalty dbl. It's a take out dbl!!!!

[dake50]

Is this semantics? Penalty double *means* STRONG T/O Dbl?
Convert if you will. But this is so-o rare.
Weak takeouts elsewhere.

[semeai]

whereagles, on 2011-September-19, 17:19, said:

DOH! That's not a penalty dbl. It's a take out dbl!!!!

Nice one. Of course, later in that 2+2 thread, Justin explains that he passes with a weak hand with no 5 card suit.

Maybe we should split the difference and call it cards?

[whereagles]

Well, you can call it "optional". Since you're expecting pard to pull with a 5 card suit, you're probably better doing it only if your hand is balanced. With an unbalanced 16+ you either pass and hope to beat it or bid your long suit anyway. I've had some sucess passing 1NT with a side suit of AKJxxxx

Anyway, I have a book somewhere that argues against penalty dbls of 1NT in a convincing way. I'll have to see if I can find it.

[han]

jlall vs book. Tough choice.

[JLOGIC]

Amusingly in the first match of the RR that we played against USA 1, the auction went p p 1N (15-17). Joe had I believe KQxx KQT8 Qxx Ax, and he did in fact rip it. We ended up getting 800 against 2D. Not that this means anything, but I was definitely thinking of this thread when it happened.

Worthy of note that Joe made a good double as he had a good lead and 4-4 majors, but still a double many people would not make.

Also amusingly, this was against martel/stansby who are diehard weak NTers, but don't play it in 3rd seat vul as they don't want to go for a number.

[the hog]

On looking at the system cards of the pairs playing in the BB, it can be seen that by far the majority use the double to show some sort of takeout bid and not as penalties.

[jallerton]

the hog, on 2011-November-01, 18:17, said:

On looking at the system cards of the pairs playing in the BB, it can be seen that by far the majority use the double to show some sort of takeout bid and not as penalties.

Really? Last week, I looked through the convention cards from the 24 pairs whose teams made it through to the quarter finals. According to my counting, 16 of these pairs played as penalty orientated and the other 8 played double as showing some sort of 2-suiter or 1-suiter.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-November-02, 02:02, said:

Really? Last week, I looked through the convention cards from the 24 pairs whose teams made it through to the quarter finals. According to my counting, 16 of these pairs played as penalty orientated and the other 8 played double as showing some sort of 2-suiter or 1-suiter.

Perhaps playing penalty doubles of 1NT gave one a much better chance of getting to the quarter finals. I was surprised at Brighton when a strong but occasional partnership, Gold and Cope, were playing an artificial double of a weak NT. They thought that was best at matchpoints, but would play a penalty double at teams.

[han]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-01, 17:57, said:

I was definitely thinking of this thread when it happened.

We can now officially say that reading the BBO forum increases ones chances of reaching the BB final.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2011-November-02, 06:02, said:

We can now officially say that reading the BBO forum increases ones chances of reaching the BB final.

So does posting on a dutch bridge/ww forum, or so I'm hoping!