[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2012-August-16, 09:05, said:

Interesting, I would say that penalty doubles have more merrit if you play a weak NT. But maybe I have it backwards.

I don't think you have it backwards, but I think that a significant factor here is that people will not interfere over a weak NT with the kind of garbage they might interfere over a strong NT with. So the increased chance of 3^rd hand having more values is offset by the certainty that 2^nd hand has more (has a higher minumum, anyway).


EDIT: Some people do prefer penalty doubles always, and this "Stolen Bid", whatever that means; so these should be added as options.

[barmar]

I think the expert concensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around, so anyone who would select it in the poll is not worth considering.

Unfortunately, my regular partner insists on playing it, and I've never been able to convince him otherwise. He's under the impression that all methods of dealing with interference are flawed, and this is the least evil (or maybe just the simplest).

[aguahombre]

Congrats, JD. With Posts 18 and 20, your forum rep is now official.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-August-21, 09:51, said:

I think the expert concensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around, so anyone who would select it in the poll is not worth considering.

You may well be correct here, but "never" as a poll answer would cover penalty doublers.

[32519]

barmar, on 2012-August-21, 09:51, said:

I think the expert concensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around,

I find this post of yours quite intriguing. I would love to hear more on the reasoning behind it, why “the expert consensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around.”

Partner opens the bidding with 1NT (15-17 HCP). RHO is holding a hand with which he is willing to compete. So his overcall is either natural or conventional. However as responder you also want to compete. Unfortunately by the time the bidding gets to you the HCP still available are starting to run out. So you wanting to enter the auction as well will probably with a distributional hand of your own.
1. A natural overcall by the opponents has “stolen the bid” which you would have used for Jacoby Transfers e.g. 2♥. Without the “stolen bid double” responder has to bid 2♠ directly now and the weaker hand becomes declarer.
2. A conventional overcall e.g. 2♣ promising both majors; doubling the bid as your real suit gives opener some more information on the hand layout enabling him to make a better decision as to what level to compete the auction.

[Stephen Tu]

32519, on 2012-August-22, 00:01, said:

Partner opens the bidding with 1NT (15-17 HCP). RHO is holding a hand with which he is willing to compete. So his overcall is either natural or conventional. However as responder you also want to compete. Unfortunately by the time the bidding gets to you the HCP still available are starting to run out. So you wanting to enter the auction as well will probably with a distributional hand of your own.
1. A natural overcall by the opponents has "stolen the bid" which you would have used for Jacoby Transfers e.g. 2♥. Without the "stolen bid double" responder has to bid 2♠ directly now and the weaker hand becomes declarer.

You are overestimating the advantage of the strong hand being declarer. It is a small fraction at a trick at most, which is worth a lot less than being able to effectively compete for the partial when responder doesn't have a 5+ spade suit.

Quote

2. A conventional overcall e.g. 2♣ promising both majors; doubling the bid as your real suit gives opener some more information on the hand layout enabling him to make a better decision as to what level to compete the auction.

Different situation. A lot of experts are fine with "stolen bid" double of 2c = stayman, particularly when 2c is unspecified single suiter like Capp. Over 2c = majors though, probably more would play it as setting up a cooperative penalty situation. With actual clubs, it's often more effective to just bid 3c or a Lebensohl 2n. This puts more pressure on 4th hand, who might have a hand that can gladly support at the 2 level, but less sure about bidding 3/3, given the ambiguity of overcaller's major suit length.

[aguahombre]

The "stolen bid" concept has its place. Stephen points out stolen-bid Stayman as one example. We see a whole lot of silly results from opponents who have not discussed stolen bid doubles of overcalls higher than 2♣ and/or whether suit bids are transfers.

Barmar's opinion about "stolen bid" has validity. But, there are situations where we must say "they stole our bid, so...." One is when the opponents are using xfer responses and we need to double because what they bid is what we wanted to bid.

[CSGibson]

One of the most amusing moments I had at a regional last year was playing a Montana pair at the Seaside regional. They opened 1♣, and I overcalled a heart. RHO now doubled, which was alerted. My partner asked, and we heard this amazing explanation:

"Its a stolen bid double, showing 4+ hearts"

When partner, intrigued, asked for further information "Do you mean its a penalty double?", opener clarified that it was not penalty, it just showed 4 or more hearts with no values promised in the suit.

After the round, I asked why they played stolen bid doubles for overcalls, and was informed that they were having trouble identifying stoppers for NT, and this was their solution to the problem. I thanked them politely for the explanation and left trying not to be obvious about my mirth.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-23, 09:58, said:

The "stolen bid" concept has its place. Stephen points out stolen-bid Stayman as one example. We see a whole lot of silly results from opponents who have not discussed stolen bid doubles of overcalls higher than 2♣ and/or whether suit bids are transfers.

Stolen bid doubles almost always go along with "systems on" -- that's the reason the LOLs play it, so that they can play their regular transfer system and still have a way to transfer into the suit above the overcall.

And the general argument against stolen bids only applies over natural bids, there's not as much problem playing them over artificial bids. I think the original reason people disliked stolen bids was because it allows opponents to overcall with nothing, since responder can't penalize them easily. And people who play negative doubles just find it a more useful agreement.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-23, 09:58, said:

But, there are situations where we must say "they stole our bid, so...." One is when the opponents are using xfer responses and we need to double because what they bid is what we wanted to bid.

If the opponents are transfering to spades you want to transfer to spades too?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-24, 19:34, said:

If the opponents are transfering to spades you want to transfer to spades too?

Thinking would help. If the opps are transfering to spades, you want to show a 1H overcall....which you could not have done over 1S. It is a bonus you get when they play xfer responses.

[awm]

32519, on 2012-August-22, 00:01, said:

I find this post of yours quite intriguing. I would love to hear more on the reasoning behind it, why “the expert consensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around.”

Partner opens the bidding with 1NT (15-17 HCP). RHO is holding a hand with which he is willing to compete. So his overcall is either natural or conventional. However as responder you also want to compete. Unfortunately by the time the bidding gets to you the HCP still available are starting to run out. So you wanting to enter the auction as well will probably with a distributional hand of your own.
1. A natural overcall by the opponents has “stolen the bid” which you would have used for Jacoby Transfers e.g. 2♥. Without the “stolen bid double” responder has to bid 2♠ directly now and the weaker hand becomes declarer.
2. A conventional overcall e.g. 2♣ promising both majors; doubling the bid as your real suit gives opener some more information on the hand layout enabling him to make a better decision as to what level to compete the auction.

There are essentially four types of hands where responder will want to bid after 1NT and an overcall by RHO. These are:

(1) Game hand. Yes, it's very possible to have this after the overcall, and I want to be able to find the right game.
(2) Hand with a long suit of my own. I'd like to be able to introduce this suit in a non-forcing way.
(3) Competitive hand where I'm not sure where to play; moderate values with two or three of the unbid suits.
(4) Opponents have made a mistake, and I want to penalize them.

Playing double as takeout, you are in good shape on all but hand type 4, where you have to pass and hope for the best. Playing double as penalty, you are in good shape on all but hand type 3 (perhaps a bit ahead of takeout doubles on hand type 1 because you can penalize if this seems more lucrative than bidding your own game). Playing double as "stolen bid" you're only well-equipped to deal with hand types 1-2. Further, you may have some problems even on hand types 1-2; for example after 1NT-(2♥) how do you bid stayman on hand type 1? The opponents have really "stolen" both 2♣ and 2♥ (and 2♦, but you probably didn't have that hand considering). If 3♣ is stayman (seems to be how a lot of people play it) then what if you had the hand that bids 3♣ without interference? Playing "stolen bid" here seems to prioritize the (really rare and not that useful) three-level "system bids without interference" over truly necessary calls like stayman.

This is not to say that "stolen bid" is always a bad strategy in all situations; in fact good players often use it when opponents made the cheapest bid. But it's not a good general method for coping with interference to our 1NT opening... which is how a lot of bad players use it.

[Mbodell]

Siegmund, on 2012-August-16, 08:21, said:

Only when our opponents get good enough to quit overcalling on garbage that gives up huge penalties will we be willing to give up our penalty doubles against them.

This! Especially when playing weak or mini.

I like some runouts (that allow a penalty XX by an UPH and allow us to play 1ntX as the least bad spot) over X, stolen bid over 2♣ (probably not best for stayman when 2♣ is majors, but whatever), penalty over other 2-level bids, and negative over 3-level bids.

[Zelandakh]

CSGibson, on 2012-August-23, 14:42, said:

One of the most amusing moments I had at a regional last year was playing a Montana pair at the Seaside regional. They opened 1♣, and I overcalled a heart. RHO now doubled, which was alerted. My partner asked, and we heard this amazing explanation:

"Its a stolen bid double, showing 4+ hearts"

As a junior I played this double as Stolen Bid but showing diamonds rather than hearts. After all, they stole our 1♦ response too. I think this method is actually easier than standard negative doubles for beginners since it allows them to play System On on more hands. A corollary to this was that the auction 1♣ - (1♠) - 1NT was also Stolen Bid showing diamonds (with double instead of 1NT being Stolen Bid/Negative showing hearts). Yes, that's right. What is a negative double other than a form of Stolen Bid double? 1♦ - (1♠) - X "You stole my 1♥ response!"

So I am not as hard on the concept as many because it is a good idea in many situations when applied logically. Of course using it to show the same suit as the opponents is not logical. That said, after 1NT and an overcall higher than 2♣ there is not really any good method involving Stolen Bid doubles. To barmar, have you tried selling the idea of simple Rubensohl over 2♦♥♠ to your partner? Double = takeout; 2 bids are weak, competitive; bids of 2NT through 3♥ are transfers, with a transfer to the opponents' suit being Stayman; 3♠ is a 3NT raise without a stopper; 3NT is to play. There is also a slightly more complicated method which gets in extra invites but given your partner's level I would be worried about system forgets with that. The above method is simple enough for most intermediates to be able to remember it reliably with some effort. I cannot believe your partner could consider it more flawed than the current methods!

[Quantumcat]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-03, 04:54, said:

To barmar, have you tried selling the idea of simple Rubensohl over 2♦♥♠ to your partner? Double = takeout; 2 bids are weak, competitive; bids of 2NT through 3♥ are transfers, with a transfer to the opponents' suit being Stayman; 3♠ is a 3NT raise without a stopper; 3NT is to play. There is also a slightly more complicated method which gets in extra invites but given your partner's level I would be worried about system forgets with that. The above method is simple enough for most intermediates to be able to remember it reliably with some effort. I cannot believe your partner could consider it more flawed than the current methods!

I learned rubensohl when I first learned to play, and also think it excellent, however hardly anyone I came across had heard of it so I stopped asking if new partners wanted to play it, thinking it just a quirk of my teacher. You can show invitational hands too; if you could have bid your suit at the 2-level then transferring shows at least an invitation. If you couldn't, then transferring is either weak or gameforce. You can play it over a 2♣ overcall as well, as long as it shows a particular suit.

[Zelandakh]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-03, 17:51, said:

You can show invitational hands too; if you could have bid your suit at the 2-level then transferring shows at least an invitation. If you couldn't, then transferring is either weak or gameforce.

I was actually aware of this but thought it would be obvious enough to barmar not to mention. I was talking about methods which also allow for some invites in lower-ranking suits. I believe they were presented in the last 2 or 3 threads on the subject so it should be easy to find a write-up if that interests you. FWiiW I would not bother asking a pick-up partner whether they played it either. On the other hand I simply taught it to my regular partner. Some form of transfer Lebensohl makes sense in this situation even when some form of regular Lebensohl is better in some other situations (like after a weak 2 and takeout double). Andy (Gnasher) has explained why a few times in various threads on the subject. One final side note: you can also play transfers after a reverse instead of regular Lebensohl.

[phil_20686]

jillybean, on 2012-August-16, 07:59, said:

Only bbf'ers, not your average club player.

I must be way out of touch. I cannot remember ever sitting down opposite a player and feeling like this needed any discussion. Even my dad thinks t/o double is standard, and its hard to get any more old school than that*.


(*He was born 39)

[sathyab]

A question for anyone who plays negative doubles at the 2-level. MP, w/w, after two passes you open 1nt with ♠AK96 ♥82 ♦AQ83 ♣Q85. LHO overcalls 2♥ which is alerted as 4-card ♥ + possibly longer minor. Partner and RHO pass. Do you reopen ? If not, what would have to be different to make you reopen ?

[CSGibson]

sathyab, on 2012-September-05, 00:22, said:

A question for anyone who plays negative doubles at the 2-level. MP, w/w, after two passes you open 1nt with ♠AK96 ♥82 ♦AQ83 ♣Q85. LHO overcalls 2♥ which is alerted as 4-card ♥ + possibly longer minor. Partner and RHO pass. Do you reopen ? If not, what would have to be different to make you reopen ?

Yes, I reopen. By agreement, I reopen aggressively as the NT bidder with a doubleton in their suit. This agreement has scored relatively badly in a small sample, though, so it might be worth reexamining.

[aguahombre]

Since Sathyab mentioned they use neg doubles in this situation, and that doesn't apply to opener but rather to responder ---the question seems to be whether we must double in his given situation to allow for a penalty pass.

Since we use neg doubles at the 3-level only, after a 1NT opener, I don't know. But, it doesn't seem reasonable to require re-entry.