[gwnn]

unfavourable at MP, we pass in first seat.
p-1NT-X-p
?

KJ82
85
742
8752

Partner doubled 1NT for penalties (showing 16+ or so).

Is it close?

prealert: I have a strong opinion on this one but I'm thinking of changing it.

[jmcw]

No!, its not close

[mikeh]

I really, really don't like this definition of 'penalty double'. At the very least, anyone who doubles a strong 1N with a 16 count ought to have a good lead.

In any event, 16 should be the worst hand he holds, and he could have a better hand. In addition, even if he is a Walter the Walrus doubler, why should we have or be able to reach a good spot?

Pass: and it's clear and not particularly close either.

[billw55]

Yeah pass .. I have no long suit, and I do have a little defense to contribute.

To pull I would want something more like

Jxxxxx
x
Jxx
xxx

.. or something similar that could produce tricks declaring my suit, but is worthless defensively.

[neilkaz]

Pass and it isn't close. Why would I bid a flat hand in hopes of finding a fit when we should have good chances to set?

[Phil]

Pass.

If we are supposed to bid because we can get 110/140 out of 2♠ and only 100 from 1N, then that is too bad.

[S2000magic]

Pass.

Presumably partner knows partner's hand; I don't. He hasn't asked for my opinion, and I don't have one.

[nigel_k]

I can definitely understand the desire to pull.

At IMPs we can live with -180 and against good opponents that may be our cheapest available minus score. But at matchpoints -180 will be really bad and partner will tend to double a bit more often at MP (e.g. on am average balanced 16) because passing out the opponents in 1NT doesn't have a good MP expectation. Also, the field will probably be doubling on any hand where partner does and many will pull on our hand and convert -180 into -100 or +100 into +110.

Without any agreements, obviously you cannot pull to a four card suit. Plus our hand is good enough that we expect to usually beat 1NT. But it could be worthwhile to have the agreement that 2♣ initiates scrambling manoeuvres and I would use it if the hand was slightly weaker.

[barmar]

 nigel_k, on 2011-December-08, 17:17, said:

Also, the field will probably be doubling on any hand where partner does and many will pull on our hand and convert -180 into -100 or +100 into +110.

Is "the field" playing penalty doubles? Many people play artificial doubles over strong NT.

[Free]

Pass, we have half the deck but we have the tempo of the lead.

[gwnn]

I passed, partner had a 14 count, declarer misplayed for -280, and my partner explained to me friendlily that I really shouldn't pass when I know they will make. I told him he could have a 20 count, or the agreed-upon 16 count at least, he said he never has 20 when he doubles, I guess he redoubles instead.

Sorry didn't mean to rant.

[mikeh]

 gwnn, on 2011-December-09, 11:42, said:

I passed, partner had a 14 count, declarer misplayed for -280, and my partner explained to me friendlily that I really shouldn't pass when I know they will make. I told him he could have a 20 count, or the agreed-upon 16 count at least, he said he never has 20 when he doubles, I guess he redoubles instead.

Sorry didn't mean to rant.

Maybe he shouldn't make a penalty double of a strong 1N when he 'knows' they will make

[Free]

lol @ your partner. With 14 he doubles for penalty, with 20 he passes? ²

[mwalimu02]

pass

[barmar]

There's actually some logic to it. If you're that strong, partner is likely to be broke, so you'll be constantly end-played. Although so is declarer. So it's just a matter of which one of you wins the race to 7 tricks, and it will be close. Or a broke partner might pull the double because they can't help the defense; if you want them to leave it in, double when you're weaker and they can participate.

I just don't play penalty doubles of strong NT, so I don't have to worry about when it's right.

[mikeh]

One reason I stopped playing penalty doubles of a strong 1N was that all too often, when I had the strength to beat it in my own hand, partner was so weak that he pulled. So I switched to a style in which double announced they were going down and partner was not to pull except with extreme length. That, of course, never came up, so some 20 years ago I just stopped playing penalty doubles, and haven't missed them at all.

[Cascade]

 mikeh, on 2011-December-09, 12:04, said:

One reason I stopped playing penalty doubles of a strong 1N was that all too often, when I had the strength to beat it in my own hand, partner was so weak that he pulled. So I switched to a style in which double announced they were going down and partner was not to pull except with extreme length. That, of course, never came up, so some 20 years ago I just stopped playing penalty doubles, and haven't missed them at all.

I am sure your story is not unique.

Interestingly while there are many non-penalty doubles of 1NT there has also been a trend to open 1NT on weaker hands.

[barmar]

 Cascade, on 2011-December-09, 13:32, said:

Interestingly while there are many non-penalty doubles of 1NT there has also been a trend to open 1NT on weaker hands.

Analogous to the trend to overcall on weaker hands since negative doubles became common.

[mike777]

 barmar, on 2011-December-09, 13:36, said:

Analogous to the trend to overcall on weaker hands since negative doubles became common.

I think Justin may have recently sighted a trend at top levels of using penalty x of strong nt coming back into favor big time.

this may have to do with playing 14-16 as a strong nt and many opening it with a good 5 card suit and 13 hcp.

[billw55]

 gwnn, on 2011-December-09, 11:42, said:

I passed, partner had a 14 count, declarer misplayed for -280, and my partner explained to me friendlily that I really shouldn't pass when I know they will make. I told him he could have a 20 count, or the agreed-upon 16 count at least, he said he never has 20 when he doubles, I guess he redoubles instead.

Sorry didn't mean to rant.

.. and did you discuss with him the possible results had you pulled? My guess is that not many matchpoints were lost.