[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-05, 00:57, said:

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.

This actually came up for me yesterday. At favourable, partner opened a weak NT and RHO overcalled 2♠ on trash. I held ♠KQJx with ♥Ax and passed. Unfortunately partner also passed with ♠Tx so we missed out on the juicy penalty. We discussed afterwards precisely this point - the need to re-open aggressively at the 2 level with a small doubleton in their suit.

[sathyab]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-05, 00:44, said:

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.

I was doing a sanity check. I think it's reasonable to reopen with this hand if you do play negative doubles at the 2-level.

The small sample where it has done badly got slightly bigger (:- You catch partner with ♠8xx ♥K9xx ♦xxx ♣Txx. Nowhere to go except pass. Declarer had 1-4-2-6 shape and wrapped up 8 tricks without too much trouble. Opponents can make 8 tricks in either rounded suit, but only two other pairs found 2♥ surprisingly. Others played in their 6-1 ♣ fit and made 8 tricks although some couldn't stop at the 2-level.

[rsteele]

Bridge theory comes and goes depending on the opponents. Assuming sound opponents I prefer negative at the three level and penalty at the two. However at imp pairs on line I think penalty is best. The opponents seem to be overcalling on even lighter hands these days and I find it hard to pass up big numbers.