[ahydra]

MPs, both non-vul, spots approximate

---

West led the S3, dummy hit with ♠108xx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣K109xx or similar, and declarer made it for a complete bottom. ATB.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

No blame, per se. Both W and E should have known that they were taking positions in their actions.

West chose to double with a strong hand and a long broken suit rather than just bid his suit or pass. If he happened to find partner with a card or two in spades he would get a super result defending 1NTx. Unlucky.

East chose to defend rather than run to his long suit with a smattering of values opposite partner's strength showing double. Had partner cooperated by leading his suit, EW would get a great result. Unlucky.

These things happen.

[RSClyde]

I ATB to the system. Playing penalty doubles over their no trump seems to frequently lead to lots of guessing. Yes you may get a number periodically, but in exchange you give up lots of competitive sequences that could start with a double. Furthermore, when they run out, now what? We had the opponents in 1nt which we may have beat, but now they have escaped into spades and no one's got a suit on the table yet.

[cherdano]

Definitely need to play penalty doubles versus weak NT, it's not just to get a number, you also need to be able to bid your games.

In my mind, East had no business passing with a 64 hand. You know the spade lead is coming.

[aguahombre]

Terminology: Doubles of a weak NT which show a strong NT shouldn't really be called penalty, but they are quite workable. West's Double isn't one, no matter what they call it, but East apparently takes the word "penalty" seriously.

Even though I am not fond of West's double here, If they had a "systems on" agreement as in response to a strong NT the comfortable Diamond partial would be reached. And even without systems on, if East believes double shows a strong NT, he should simply remove to 2D.

We would be playing in an ugly 2S, which might push with 3D.

[RSClyde]

I suppose I could have done the math and determined that it was a weak no trump. Since that wasn't specified I just assumed it was strong.

I'm not totally sold on playing doubles of weak no trumps as penalty at matchpoints. I mean it would help you find games and collect penalties, but I'd rather win a greater number of part score battles. Good pairs know how to scramble out of 1ntX when it's wrong anyway and now you don't know what to do. I mean if I'm looking at a flat 17 count at reds, we could have a game, but it's very tempting to just let them rot rather than chase them away. And if partner's broke and they can make it, where were we going? Maybe there was somewhere to go, maybe not. Furthermore no one ever said that conventional doubles couldn't be converted, or that games couldn't be reached. Even when you have a good hand, partner is allowed to take a call, if he fails to then the chance for a game goes down. It's not perfect, but what is?

I don't pretend system questions like this are easy, it depends on the depth of your agreements and your general style. Playing doubles of weak no trumps as penalty is certainly reasonable, but not automatic.

By the way, declarer took a rather odd position to not run to 2H with a 5-4 hand and then play the doubler for the Q of clubs rather than the A. Now it is true that the doubler could have had AQx, but that looks unlikely given what an air ball the opening lead was.

[sfi]

I'm totally against the concept of penalty doubles of weak NT opening bids. But then I play a weak NT and would love it if the opponents give up their best bid to say "I have a strong hand", so it's all a matter of perspective.

[aguahombre]

You don't have to do math here when the OP provides the information in yellow with the bidding diagram.

[RSClyde]

 aguahombre, on 2013-September-08, 09:13, said:

You don't have to do math here when the OP provides the information in yellow with the bidding diagram.

Ok I see: didn't realize.

[kenberg]

I think with W I would have bid 2♠, I am sure that with E I would have pulled a penalty double to 2♦.

I support aqua's comment about terminology. I would prefer the distinction to be natural versus artificial for a double of 1NT. What's in a name? Well, there is some psychology attached to names. A natural double of 1NT asserts good values. Quite possibly we can beat it. But if I think of something as a penalty double then I think that I should leave it in unless I have a very good reason for the pull. Thinking of as natural suggests a more open ended approach, imo.

Anyway, whatever you call the double, I pull to 2♦ as E.

[PhilKing]

It is a bit unlucky declarer made it - who on earth gets clubs right on this bidding? If he wins the lead and plays a club to the king that is two off for a top.

Anyway, you have got to love it when they open a weakie with a 2524 14 count, dummy loses his mind and forgets to run, and then declarer gets everything right for +180.

[ahydra]

 PhilKing, on 2013-September-08, 10:29, said:

It is a bit unlucky declarer made it - who on earth gets clubs right on this bidding? If he wins the lead and plays a club to the king that is two off for a top.

Anyway, you have got to love it when they open a weakie with a 2524 14 count, dummy loses his mind and forgets to run, and then declarer gets everything right for +180.

Hmm, I think declarer was actually balanced (2434?) so dummy must be slightly incorrect. The play in clubs was: declarer led the CJ from hand and West covered it with the Q.

ahydra

[cherdano]

 ahydra, on 2013-September-08, 11:35, said:

Hmm, I think declarer was actually balanced (2434?) so dummy must be slightly incorrect. The play in clubs was: declarer led the CJ from hand and West covered it with the Q.

Well, that Q cost more in expected IMPs than all mistakes by everyone in the bidding combined. Much more.

[Fluffy]

I blame North, willing to play 1NT doubled with a good 5 card suit when the opponents are on lead with more strength.

[the hog]

Well, if West doubles with that rubbish, then East should pull. Blame is 50% each.

[nate_m]

 ahydra, on 2013-September-08, 11:35, said:

Hmm, I think declarer was actually balanced (2434?) so dummy must be slightly incorrect. The play in clubs was: declarer led the CJ from hand and West covered it with the Q.

ahydra

Blame goes to West for covering looking at K109xx in dummy.

[cargobeep]

If you don't play penalty doubles of 1NT, you WILL get slaughtered. I'll on occasion start opening 12-14 HCP NTs, and you'll be left guessing whether to take it out. I'll even snooker you with my 6-card ♠ suit if I feel like it in 1NTxx. Not a workable system in my opinion.

I would not condemn partner for passing or going to 2♦. With at least 21 HCP and the lead, the opponents ARE likely to go down. If partner did have a maximum, things could get very ugly for N/S

[the hog]

 cargobeep, on 2013-September-08, 21:52, said:

If you don't play penalty doubles of 1NT, you WILL get slaughtered. I'll on occasion start opening 12-14 HCP NTs, and you'll be left guessing whether to take it out. I'll even snooker you with my 6-card ♠ suit if I feel like it in 1NTxx. Not a workable system in my opinion.

I would not condemn partner for passing or going to 2♦. With at least 21 HCP and the lead, the opponents ARE likely to go down. If partner did have a maximum, things could get very ugly for N/S

Who said this was a wnt? Doubling a strong NT on this is crazy. I would even hesitate to double a wnt with this hand.
If you decide to open a 12-14 NT playing 15-17, YOU will get slaughtered when your partner raises. I am also amused by the seeming assumption that if you x to show some systemic hand that partner cannot leave this x in holding a suitable hand. So you may well pick up penalty xs that others don't.Eg, partner xs showing, well lets say S and a minor for the sake of anything. Pd holds
Qx
Axx
KJxx
JTxx
Passing the Xs is a good bet in my opinion.

[wank]

 the hog, on 2013-September-08, 22:13, said:

Who said this was a wnt?

the little yellow box in the diagram

[the hog]

 wank, on 2013-September-08, 22:19, said:

the little yellow box in the diagram

Whoops! Thanks.