[mikestar13]

Edgar Kaplan advocated for takeout doubles of suit overcalls of a weak NT to collect more penalties. The NT opener is known to be balanced and is more likely to have four cards in the enemy suit than responder. Plus some of the lost penalties when responder does have the length come back when opener reopens with a takeout double after responder's pass. This last part happens even more frequently after a strong NT, as opener is able to reopen more often. I have been in this camp ever since I read the KS system book back in the 70's, and it has paid well.

[nige1]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-12, 05:56, said:

1NT (2♥) X (P) ? Penalty or takeout? (We aren't yet up to taking on Rubensohl)

IMO this double should be competitive: a willingness to compete, with coresponding values, usually including 2+ cards in opponent's suit; but you can have a singleton if you are 4441. You might even have 3+ cards, as the first move with a good hand. Opener will usually remove the double unless he has 4 cards in opponent's suit. This is consistent with double by the 1N opener being for T/O, which seems to be a good idea.

[lrussell]

Caitlynne is correct:
"in the absence of discussion is unequivocally penalty"

In a BBO ACBL tournament however, absent any discussion, it's quite likely partner's double of 2♥ is a transfer to spades.

[helene_t]

It matters very little technically IMO (there are significant pros and cons but they probably roughly even out). This means that it is best just to play whatever is easier.

You may decide to player whatever your partner plays in other partnerships so he is less likely to forget.

[vmsmith]

Penalty.
Do the math!

[Wackojack]

 vmsmith, on 2016-January-14, 05:12, said:

Penalty.
Do the math!

Err no! You do do it if you can. Convince yourself that double for take out scores better than double for penalty particularly over a strong no trump where you can re-open with a double more freely.

[Phil]

 vmsmith, on 2016-January-14, 05:12, said:

Penalty.
Do the math!

My math looks like this:

((Competing effectively for the partial) + (penalty when partner reopens with a x)) > ((penalty when responder was converting a takeout double anyway) + (penalty when partner couldn't reopen with a x))

[kenberg]

A. "What is it?" and "What agreement is best?" are two different questions.

B. I prefer playing it for penalties, but I do also play Lebensohl and you have stipulated that you don't.

C. Undiscussed I would take it as being for penalties. Partner also knows that it is undiscussed and he should be prepared for a pass. If he has a big hand, one where he cannot stand to pass, and he is not interested in defending he could bid 3H. That is also undiscussed but at least he would know I won't pass. And we might land on our feet. If an undiscussed situation arises, of course there can be trouble.

D. Generally: If a call is undiscussed and it could reasonably be taken as natural, I take it as natural. I think that making an undiscussed artifical call is not only apt to work badly on that hand but also later partner will wonder what you are doing on other calls. Quite a few calls in quite a few auctions have been given artificial meanings by some partnerships. How is anyone supposed to guess which ones?

E. Perhaps take-out is better, I am not prepared to argue. I can only say, as I did, that I prefer penalty.

F. I know some play it as "Stolen" (so X="he made the call I would have made, so X means I would have transferred to spades". I don't play that, I am not prepared to argue its merits (or lack of merit).

[mikestar13]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-15, 21:28, said:

A. "What is it?" and "What agreement is best?" are two different questions.

B. I prefer playing it for penalties, but I do also play Lebensohl and you have stipulated that you don't.

C. Undiscussed I would take it as being for penalties. Partner also knows that it is undiscussed and he should be prepared for a pass. If he has a big hand, one where he cannot stand to pass, and he is not interested in defending he could bid 3H. That is also undiscussed but at least he would know I won't pass. And we might land on our feet. If an undiscussed situation arises, of course there can be trouble.

D. Generally: If a call is undiscussed and it could reasonably be taken as natural, I take it as natural. I think that making an undiscussed artifical call is not only apt to work badly on that hand but also later partner will wonder what you are doing on other calls. Quite a few calls in quite a few auctions have been given artificial meanings by some partnerships. How is anyone supposed to guess which ones?

E. Perhaps take-out is better, I am not prepared to argue. I can only say, as I did, that I prefer penalty.

F. I know some play it as "Stolen" (so X="he made the call I would have made, so X means I would have transferred to spades". I don't play that, I am not prepared to argue its merits (or lack of merit).

WRT item F, I am prepared to argue for the extreme lack of merit for Stolen Bid Doubles. Worse than almost anything else. Exception: a SBD of a 2♣ intervention is a reasonable treatment if and only if the 2♣ bidder has no known suits (for example, Cappelletti 2♣= any single suited hand).

[kenberg]

 mikestar13, on 2016-January-15, 22:48, said:

WRT item F, I am prepared to argue for the extreme lack of merit for Stolen Bid Doubles. Worse than almost anything else. Exception: a SBD of a 2♣ intervention is a reasonable treatment if and only if the 2♣ bidder has no known suits (for example, Cappelletti 2♣= any single suited hand).

Using the double of 2C as Stayman when 2C shows both majors makes little sense, using it as Stayman over Capp seems right to me, just as you suggest. As a practical matter I often agree simply to play that the double of 2C is Stayman unles it makes no sense.

And I avoid Stolen. I imagine I could make a good case for avoiding Stolen, I just figure I won't use it so I won't bother to analyze it. I am pretty sure that this view is shared by the vast majority of strong players.

Commenting on the NB forum carries a risk, I always worry someone will ask "What part of the word beginner do you not understand?". My general advice is that when choosing whether to play a call as natural or as artificial, go with natural unless you are quite convinced of the merits of the artificial treatment. So playing 1NT-(2 something)-X as penalty is fine by me. If one wants to move up from there, playing that when the 2something does not show any length at all in the something then the X shows a decent hand with some values and length in the something will probably work pretty well as an all-purpose agreement. At any rate, keep it simple. A long list of different meanings in different settings is asking for trouble.

A friend of my wife's (well, she is my friend too) is learning to play. My advice is to keep the bidding simple and learn how to play the cards well. Later some bidding stuff can be added.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you.

[Zelandakh]

 mikestar13, on 2016-January-15, 22:48, said:

a SBD of a 2♣ intervention is a reasonable treatment if and only if the 2♣ bidder has no known suits.

You do not think it is a reasonable treatment over a natural 2♣ overcall or one showing diamonds?