[shugart24]

Looking for some suggestions. Playing a weak NT (10-13), if overcalled 2C, we play double is stolen bid. We have no agreement as to what a double means over 2D or 2M overcalls ( we do play lebensohl). Would it make sense for a double to be negative showing the unbid Major ( or both if over call was 2D)?

[helene_t]

Negative makes sense, but the weaker your NT range, the more sense it makes to play dbl as penalty.

[mycroft]

This won't be the first time I've said this, but we switched to negative doubles of our 12-14 NT because we kept getting 35% or -5 when they overcalled and we couldn't double and couldn't one-suit compete. I will never go back.

Now, we are biased because in the 50 table field, we're the only ones (unless G and H are playing our direction) opening this 1NT, and that does affect the other auctions. OTOH, I know where you live, too.

[Shugart23]

I can see the issue where if you pass, then your partner with a doubleton may feel compelled to double on your behalf ?

[helene_t]

No, playing a weak nt, opener shouldn't make reopening doubles as part of the reason for playing weak nt is to let opps play partscores with 26 hcp.

[Shugart23]

And that’s the downside of using negative doubles if you need to forego penalty doubles, I suppose

[mycroft]

Our agreement isn't Helene's - we will reopen with a double (if we haven't been given sufficient warning from opponents) with Jx or worse.

It so rarely happens (and rarely it hits, too, but "if they have a fit, we have a fit", and "if they don't have a fit and we have more points, they likely won't make 8 tricks" - so it's only when both of those do not apply that we're in trouble), and compared to the number of times we should be competing, the missed penalty doubles aren't a huge deal.

Again, "in a world of strong NT" makes a difference here than elsewhere.

[DavidKok]

The debate between penalty doubles and takeout doubles has been pretty solidly settled for something like half a century, if not longer. Some people, when first moving from penalty doubles to takeout doubles (be it on a specific auction or in general), are scared of the idea of not being able to double with a penalty double. The traditional reply is something along the lines of "do not worry, partner will keep it open with a takeout double, and you can make a penalty pass". This is false, but it does happen some of the time, and it's a nice way to stop any rising panic from taking hold.
Unfortunately, if people take this advice a tad too literally, you get all kinds of bidding rules like 'always keep open at the 2-level with a doubleton or fewer'. By frequency this works OK, but it's not a particularly accurate rule.

In my opinion a more accurate evaluation is that 1) penalty doubles don't matter that much. We simply do not want to penalise at the 2-level that often. Plus, even when we do, defending undoubled is often already a good score. It's a low frequency win-more agreement. Also 2) sometimes responder can double and opener can convert. These 'collaborative' penalties, with the points split 12-10 and neither hand having a pure penalty double, are more frequent than traditional penalties.

It does mean you'll miss some penalty doubles, once in a while. But you will be able to compete to good partscores far more often. I have played takeout doubles in these situations for a long time, and I would hate to have to regress to penalty doubles. It's just worse.

Then, to answer the original question: I don't like stolen bid doubles or 'system on'. They have the benefit of being somewhat simple, but since they tend to only work over 2♣ or a double of the 1NT opening, there are a lot of exceptions. What's more, a lot of partnerships play an artificial 2♣ overcall of 1NT (e.g. 'both majors'). I prefer to play something different depending on the meaning of 2♣. This is more work, but in a way it's also less work, since my agreements here conform to my general competitive agreements. From that point of view it makes complete sense that a 2♣ showing the majors should be treated differently from a 2♣ showing clubs, which should be treated differently from a 2♣ showing diamonds. I mentally file these auctions under '(artificial) interference with our opening', and apply my standard competitive defences to them. The fact that the opening was 1NT helps responder make better decisions and turns on Lebensohl, but otherwise doesn't change the scheme all that much.

I like mycroft's agreement and I will normally reopen with a doubleton in the opponents' suit, but not always. I don't agree with the comment about the strong NT world, but that's a different story.

[steve2005]

If you make your negative promise 2 cards in the bid suit partner can leave in with 4
or maybe a good 3 a maximum and no suit to bid

[P_Marlowe]

Neg.

If the bid does not show a specific suit, X can be used to establish, that partnership has at least half of the deck,
after that I would still play neg.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TMorris]

Playing a weak (12-14) nt I play t/o doubles of opponents overcalls. It works very well. Sometimes you pass with length in their suit and a 9 or 10 count and some of the time you do so partner will reopen with a doubleton in their suit and, usually, a maximum. If their bid is conventional it is often worthwhile waiting until they unwind and bid a natural suit then you can make a t/o double of that if appropriate.

Doubling a conventional call to say you would have bid that as a convention yourself is not something I would consider. It is likely to give information at a point in time when you want to receive information.

[AL78]

helene_t, on 2025-February-16, 13:43, said:

No, playing a weak nt, opener shouldn't make reopening doubles as part of the reason for playing weak nt is to let opps play partscores with 26 hcp.

In my experience, the frequency of the hand being a part score battle after we open a weak NT far exceeds the frequency the opps miss a game with a combined 26 hcp, so I don't think I agree with you here.

[akwoo]

AL78, on 2025-February-18, 05:13, said:

In my experience, the frequency of the hand being a part score battle after we open a weak NT far exceeds the frequency the opps miss a game with a combined 26 hcp, so I don't think I agree with you here.

You're playing in a place where the weak NT is frequent.

Here it's quite common, even at advanced levels, to be playing against a pair that hasn't seen a weak NT even once in the last several years, and one partner thinks that 2 level overcalls (natural or artificial) promise 11+, and the other thinks that 2 level overcalls (natural or artificial) only promise enough shape to compete, like against a strong NT.

[TMorris]

akwoo, on 2025-February-18, 13:05, said:

You're playing in a place where the weak NT is frequent.

Here it's quite common, even at advanced levels, to be playing against a pair that hasn't seen a weak NT even once in the last several years, and one partner thinks that 2 level overcalls (natural or artificial) promise 11+, and the other thinks that 2 level overcalls (natural or artificial) only promise enough shape to compete, like against a strong NT.

I also play in England and agree with AL78. My 2 level overcalls also promise only enough to compete against both a weak and strong nt (more obviously when vulnerable). This is normal for the reason AL78 gives.