When your partner's 1NT overcall is doubled for penalties

[wackojack]

You are vul against not.  You have:

  53
  J107543
  5432
  9

You pass and the bidding goes:
pass - (1 ) - 1NT - (double)
The double was alerted as a penalty double.
Clearly you cannot stand the double and you want to get out into 2 .    So what is the normal agreement?  BWS has nothing to say about it. 

I had this hand and bid 2 directly as a natural weakness take-out bid .  Partner thought this was a transfer to 2 and I had to bid 3 and played there when it was doubled and we scored -500.  The other table was in 3 making an overtrick and so we lost 9 imps on this board. 

My reasoning for thinking that 2 has to be a natural weakness take-out and transfers are out is that if you have a weak hand with long diamonds you would want to play in 2 and for that matter if a weak hand with long clubs you would want to play in 2 . 

Of course you could play transfers where redouble =  s, 2 =  s, 2 =  s but this looks unusual and would require a special agreement. 

I notice that whenever I go to BWS for answers that sadly it does not have one. 

Another related question: 

Suppose it was partner who opened 1NT and RHO doubled for penalties.  How do you get out into 2 . 

If you play weak no trump, penalty doubles come up often and the partnerships always have a wriggle to get out of it.  The most popular is Helvic where:

Redouble = I have a long suit. Partner please bid clubs.
I will then pass or correct
1 of a suit = I am 4-4 in this suit and the one immediately above
Pass = I am 4-4 in non touching suits, please redouble
I will then bid the lowest of my non touching suits

If think you can make 1NT x you would pass.  If that is passed round to the 1NT opener he must redouble and you would pass. 

So with my hand (weak with long hearts)  the bidding would go:

1NT -(dbl) - rdbl -(pass)
2 -(pass) - 2 . 

Of course the opps would likely compete before or over 2 .  Whichever way you have safely navigated your escape over 1Nt doubled for penalties.

 

[jcreech]

It really depends on your understandings.  In this case, I have two sets of understandings that would have come into play.  The first involves that many of my discussed partnerships includes that you treat a NT overcall the same as a NT opener, so system is on and 2 would have been a transfer without the intervening double.  The second is that system is on after doubles (but with some additions possible regarding a direct and indirect redouble); nonetheless, the 2 would be a transfer.

However, that is me and many of my partnerships.  The question is whether you have similar understandings in place.  If you do, then you are to blame, if not, then your partner is.  Undiscussed, the blame goes to your partner for presuming an expanded set of understandings.  But now that the disaster has happened, discussion is needed to prevent a reoccurrence.

[kenberg]

There are a lot of related situations. For example, suppose that your left hand opponent opens 1 , your partner bids a natural 1NT and your right had opponent doubles for penalties. It seems unlikely you could have a hand where 2 would be useful as a transfer to so what does it mean?  Probably either 2 or 2 is a transfer to but which one? Once one decides which one shows spades, the other could, I suppose, show . Or . Or 5-5 in the minors. Who knows?

I generally play that when the bidding goes 1something on my left and 1NT by pard then everything goes just as it would have if it had begun (pass)-1NT. So this leaves both  (1 ) -1NT -(Pass)- 2   and  (1 ) -1NT -(X)- 2 with no (useful) meaning at all. obviously not optimal, I just don't worry about it.

The solution for a regular partnership is you agree on source material. Hopefully some good or at least some decent source, call him X, has written these things down and you and your pard agree that it means whatever X says it means. Probably there is no X to handle everything but maybe you can find X, Y, and Z and use that to get agreements. No debate, these things don't come up often enough for debate, you just say "Whatever X, or Y, or Z" says". If X and Z both address the same issue but do it differently, go with X.

So a challenge: Who knows of an X source for the problem Jack describes? How about the  (1 ) -1NT -(Pass)- 2 ?  And other such?

[wackojack]

It really depends on your understandings.  In this case, I have two sets of understandings that would have come into play.  The first involves that many of my discussed partnerships includes that you treat a NT overcall the same as a NT opener, so system is on and 2 would have been a transfer without the intervening double.  The second is that system is on after doubles (but with some additions possible regarding a direct and indirect redouble); nonetheless, the 2 would be a transfer.

However, that is me and many of my partnerships.  The question is whether you have similar understandings in place.  If you do, then you are to blame, if not, then your partner is.  Undiscussed, the blame goes to your partner for presuming an expanded set of understandings.  But now that the disaster has happened, discussion is needed to prevent a reoccurrence.

I was looking for what is the "normal" or "standard" way of taking out of the doubled 1NT to see if I could adopt the standard.  It appears that you are telling me that there is no standard and so each partnership has to work out "understandings"  Hmm! Not what I was looking for. 

So a challenge: Who knows of an X source for the problem Jack describes? How about the  (1 ) -1NT -(Pass)- 2 ?  And other such?

As Ken says a challenge.  I would like to adopt the "expert standard" if there is one.

[Masse24]

Undiscussed, I assume "systems on" (aka front of card) when partner makes a 1NT overcall. Not because I think it best, but because I think it to be "normal" (aka standard). Certainly the best argument for playing it this way is that it is simplest.

Is it best? I don't believe so based on my reading. I can recall a book by the Granovetter's on conventions. They discuss this and recommend playing "systems off." I've seen three or four variations on this theme online. As for what's "expert standard," heck if I know.

I was kibbing when this hand was played. I asked Jim, who was also kibbing, what he thought. He thought 2 was natural. I thought a transfer. Shows what I know. With a regular partner willing to invest the time I would figure out a better method. Lacking that, I'll stick to systems on.

[blubayou]

Suprize!  I have no wisdom about which way is best to rescue our doubled !NT overcall.   But Ken brought up in the 3rd reply here.."If you decide or assume our bids are transfers,  what does "transferring into opener's major" mean?"
  That's easy!  It's a complete 3-suiter!  If not running from a double, then it's a serious hand, and if running rom a double--let the good times roll. Wouldn' want to be left with NO way to "cue-bid"  would we?

[jcreech]

I consider the type of agreement that Todd mentions as a "macro" or "default" agreement.  It is a way to deal with specific undiscussed auctions, but allows the partnership to work together with some basic understandings.  That said, it still requires agreement to work - something along the lines of "the principles we have agreed to will apply in undiscussed situations so we are not stuck for bids or feel that we are likely to be hung out to dry." 

With some partners, I even have the understanding that if something has been discussed with a common partner with all present, it is assumed to apply in all combinations of partnerships unless there is a subsequent discussion to modify or substitute between a specific partners.

[kenberg]

Suprize!  I have no wisdom about which way is best to rescue our doubled !NT overcall.   But Ken brought up in the 3rd reply here.."If you decide or assume our bids are transfers,  what does "transferring into opener's major" mean?"
  That's easy!  It's a complete 3-suiter!  If not running from a double, then it's a serious hand, and if running rom a double--let the good times roll. Wouldn' want to be left with NO way to "cue-bid"  would we?

Here is one possible approach after (1 ) - 1NT - (X) - ?
4th and might have four spades, 4th hand might have five or more spades. So 2 could be a transfer to spades, 2 ould be Stayman. presumably Stayman with a back-up plan. If second hand lacks four spades then he bids 2 over 2 and we move on to the back-up plan. And, at times, 2nd hand might decide that !s AQx is enough and bid 2 over 2 . Not great, but they are looking for an exit and this might be best.

I have some vague memory of seeing such a thing written down somewhere but it's very vague.

On Jack's original post, after (1 ) - 1NT - (X) - ?, he points out that 4th hand might want to run to 2 . Indeed he might. So then 2 perhaps should be natural. And then  should be natural.
That certainly has merit.   

The general problem is that unless you are a long-term partnership, situations arise that have not been discussed. What to do? Have a disaster is a common answer.

[yleexotee]

I may not have read closely enough above, but I think a near standard is for XX to be "We have problems partner! rescue us". He bids any 5 card suit, or his lowest 4 card suit and you stay there, with hopes of at least a 4-3 fit in something. There may be an alternative where rescuer just bids clubs and its up to XXer to stay put in clubs or bid diamonds (I think this is only over 1h or 1s original open)