[jillybean]

I held this uninteresting hand at the club tonight, 87,KT98,Q83,QJ98

Partner opens 1N and RHO makes a 2♠ (spades) bid.

After 1nt interference we play penalty doubles at the 2level, negative doubles at the 3level so holding this
hand I have to pass. I hate that, partner doesn't know if I have 0 or 9 HCP.

I am wondering is there any advantage in playing negative/penalty doubles here dependant on vulnerability?
What I was thinking was vs. V 2 level doubles could be negative, vs. NV 2 level doubles could be penalty.

Or is there a better method?

Thanks, in advance.

[awm]

I don't really see why it would depend on vulnerability.

There are definitely advantages to play negative doubles in this auction. The problem (over 2♠ overcall especially) is that you can't really rely on partner to balance so you will miss some penalties. But when you have a hand like yours (which is somewhat more common than the penalty double hand) a takeout double is a big advantage. I've played both styles and don't find one to be "clearly" better than the other in the long run.

[jillybean]

awm, on 2011-April-27, 23:42, said:

I don't really see why it would depend on vulnerability.

I am told one of the reasons for playing penalty doubles at the 2level is to punish the opps who get into the auction on thin air.
My thinking is they are more likely to do this when NV than V so we would want to retain the penalty double here and use the negative double to compete when they have made a vulnerable overcall.

[1eyedjack]

It may depend partly on whether you want to play a system that varies according to your perception of the skill of your opponents, with a view to bashing the bunnies with the maximum clout.
Personally I cannot cope with the brain overload that this entails, and I would rather play a system which is optimised against the best opponents (who will themselves consider vulnerability when choosing their overcalls), and trust that I will beat the bunnies anyway using that method even though I might have thrashed them by a greater margin using a different style.

Anyway, I am firmly in the take-out camp. To my mind the most difficult question that arises from this method is the circumstances when opener might sit for the double, especially at IMP when they are doubled into game. This in turn may depend on what minimum values you require for the take-out double. If you (say) pass on a 1-4-4-4 six-count you will miss some partscore battles but you really don't want opener passing a double. On the other hand, a 2-4-3-4 nine-count and you are more relaxed if partner is sitting there with four Spades and nowhere attractive to run.

You may want to vary the strength of the double according to how many bids opener has available at the 2-level. After a 2S overcall you may want to keep the call up to strength. But that may be outside the scope of the OP question.

[Lurpoa]

jillybean, on 2011-April-27, 23:36, said:

I held this uninteresting hand at the club tonight, 87,KT98,Q83,QJ98

Partner opens 1N and RHO makes a 2♠ (spades) bid.

After 1nt interference we play penalty doubles at the 2level, negative doubles at the 3level so holding this
hand I have to pass. I hate that, partner doesn't know if I have 0 or 9 HCP.

I am wondering is there any advantage in playing negative/penalty doubles here dependant on vulnerability?
What I was thinking was vs. V 2 level doubles could be negative, vs. NV 2 level doubles could be penalty.

Or is there a better method?

Thanks, in advance.

I would say, it is not so important what you play here... sometimes one is good, sometimes the other..


More important is, that indeed you have agreements on it.


Personally I like to have a penalty double availble here...If not, and opps know, they will fool you around......

[1eyedjack]

Lurpoa, on 2011-April-28, 11:16, said:

Personally I like to have a penalty double availble here...If not, and opps know, they will fool you around......

Well, I have no particular desire to dissuade you from that view, but personally, if I know that may opponents are playing penalty doubles I would be more inclined to "fool around". This is because of my belief, which I accept may be unfounded, that penalty doubles here are inferior; but in that context I would want to increase the frequency with which I place my opponents in the position of having to employ their (to my mind) inferior methods. In other words I hope to gain more by reason of their having a problem on the more frequent occasions in which they would want to make a takeout double, but cannot do so for lack of system, then I expect to lose when they catch me with a double. Perhaps this philosophy is more relevant at MP scoring.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I am told one of the reasons for playing penalty doubles at the 2level is to punish the opps who get into the auction on thin air.
My thinking is they are more likely to do this when NV than V so we would want to retain the penalty double here and use the negative double to compete when they have made a vulnerable overcall.

...but turning +50 into +100 isnt what gets you rich (well, sometimes your side makes exactly 90); turning +100 into +200 does, anytime you don't have a game-going hand; if I had to play penalty only half the time I'd play it when they are vulnerable (at matchpoints.)

I personally prefer to play it penalty all the time. I know the folk on the forum who spend all day playing expert-level opps say that there aren't many penalties to be had; at the club level there are.

Quote

But when you have a hand like yours (which is somewhat more common than the penalty double hand) a takeout double is a big advantage

IMO the "hand like yours" - strong enough to want to compete, short in their suit, AND has no bid - is a very rare one (the posted example, and its slightly weaker cousins) is a great deal *less* common than the penalty double hands (which can include a wide array of balanced 6-8 counts as well as a bunch of game-strength hands that have the opps' suit covered.)

On the actual posted hand, with 8HCP and the -98 sequences, I probably would have stretched to bid 3S, rather than settled for pass.

[Lurpoa]

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-28, 11:41, said:

Well, I have no particular desire to dissuade you from that view, but personally, if I know that may opponents are playing penalty doubles I would be more inclined to "fool around". This is because of my belief, which I accept may be unfounded, that penalty doubles here are inferior; but in that context I would want to increase the frequency with which I place my opponents in the position of having to employ their (to my mind) inferior methods. In other words I hope to gain more by reason of their having a problem on the more frequent occasions in which they would want to make a takeout double, but cannot do so for lack of system, then I expect to lose when they catch me with a double. Perhaps this philosophy is more relevant at MP scoring.

yes, I have to say, that i am always reasoning in a IMP context.

[Cascade]

Takeout doubles work for me.

I don't think I have a selective memory but for me penalty opportunities don't seem to come around often enough that I miss them.

In fact I have one partner who insists on penalty doubles and I can certainly recall several times where I wished he didn't have a penalty double available - part-scores making, down one when we had game somewhere else etc

[JLOGIC]

Big fan of t/o Xs here

[Free]

Imo takeout doubles are much better than penalty doubles. You play them after 1♣-(2♠), so why not after 1NT-(2♠)?

[han]

I also much prefer takeout doubles here.

Your thinking (penalty doubles comes up more often when they are NV than when they are V) is good, but (1) I think that takeout doubles is always better, and (2) there are a lot of different auctions, I prefer not to let the meaning of my bids depend on the vulnerability. Don't change the agreements, but take the vulnerability into account when you pick your bid.

[jillybean]

Thanks all. I like takeout doubles too, however "standard" around here is penalty at the 2 level, takeout at the 3 level. I'll have to talk with my partners some more and start tracking a few hands.

[jillybean]

btw, here is the hand that sparked the question. I'm South and had forgotten we had changed 2level doubles to penalty.

---