[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

P - 1NT(14-16) - 2♦(♥ or ♠) - Dbl;
P - P - 2♠ - P;
P - Dbl - All Pass

---

Result: 2♠X making -470 NS (East played the ♠9 to the K, losing 2♠, 2♦, and 1♣)

Assign the blame.

[OleBerg]

100% the person in charge of system.

Double should be takeout, which South could then have done.

And North shouldn't sit. (Only at MP's with red opp. is it worth considering.)

[jdonn]

South for doubling 2♦. Why would he want to invite his partner to double 2♠ with one ace, a bunch of garbage, and not enough strength for game? Only a slave to high card points would double.

[Echognome]

OleBerg, on Sep 25 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

100% the person in charge of system.

Double should be takeout, which South could then have done.

And North shouldn't sit. (Only at MP's with red opp. is it worth considering.)

I'll take your response to mean that North shouldn't double 2♠ for penalties, since if he shouldn't sit for a takeout double, then hopefully you would agree he shouldn't make a penalty double!

However, I fail to see how system makes a lick of difference in that judgment.

[Hanoi5]

Doubling a part-score at imp's is always some sort of taboo. Here you were unlucky, say partner's double means 'I can double one of those 2 suits' he doesn't quite have a 2♥ double, in any case a borderline-one. Then North knows his/her partner holds hearts and not spades and should be careful before doubling.

I say 45% South, 45% North and 10% of general bad luck.

[OleBerg]

Echognome, on Sep 26 2009, 12:07 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Sep 25 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

100% the person in charge of system.

Double should be takeout, which South could then have done.

And North shouldn't sit. (Only at MP's with red opp. is it worth considering.)

I'll take your response to mean that North shouldn't double 2♠ for penalties, since if he shouldn't sit for a takeout double, then hopefully you would agree he shouldn't make a penalty double!

However, I fail to see how system makes a lick of difference in that judgment.

My point is, that to be able to find out whether to compete or not, you need takeout-doubles. (Catching the opponents for a number, will only be done circumstantially.)

So if South' double invites a penalty, he shouldn't do it. He should pass, and then double 2♠ for take-out. (Since the opponents has been nice enough to give us two routes to doubling two spades, it seems clear that one of them should be take-out.)

I still believe the double of 2♦ should simply show points, inviting opener into the bidding fray, where he might make a take-out double, or bid a strong 5-card (minor) suit.

[mike777]

South 95%

dislike x of 2d.

prefer:


1nt=(2d!)=p=(2h!)
p=(2s)=(2nt, takeout)

[OleBerg]

A side note on T/O vs penalty:

The more competent and well-organized you opponents are, the more you need take-out doubles.

If you are up against competently challenged opponents, penalty might make some sense, but you'll have to be ready to swallow a few results like this.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Sep 25 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

A side note on T/O vs penalty:

The more competent and well-organized you opponents are, the more you need take-out doubles.

If you are up against competently challenged opponents, penalty might make some sense, but you'll have to be ready to swallow a few results like this.

For the life of me I can't see why I would want or need to play takeout doubles after the double of 2♦. It's equivalent to a redouble of a takeout double, it tells partner we want to penalize them if we can. I think it really dodges the question to blame the methods in this case, even if you don't like them. They are the methods the majority of the world would use in this spot. The methods did not make the result predetermined in this case, one of the players simply used bad judgment.

[effervesce]

mike777, on Sep 25 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

South 95%

dislike x of 2d.

prefer:


1nt=(2d!)=p=(2h!)
p=(2s)=(2nt, takeout)

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam.

[mike777]

effervesce, on Sep 26 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

mike777, on Sep 25 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

South 95%

dislike x of 2d.

prefer:


1nt=(2d!)=p=(2h!)
p=(2s)=(2nt, takeout)

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam.

and your point is what?

[kgr]

jdonn, on Sep 26 2009, 12:07 AM, said:

South for doubling 2♦. Why would he want to invite his partner to double 2♠ with one ace, a bunch of garbage, and not enough strength for game? Only a slave to high card points would double.

I agree most with this answer.
DBLing 2♦ is not good (if it prepares a penalty DBL) because you know they will have a ♠ fit.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Sep 26 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Sep 25 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

A side note on T/O vs penalty:

The more competent and well-organized you opponents are, the more you need take-out doubles.

If you are up against competently challenged opponents, penalty might make some sense, but you'll have to be ready to swallow a few results like this.

They are the methods the majority of the world would use in this spot.

Well, the majority of the world belongs in the B/I forum.

And the discussion penalty vs T/O at low levels have been taken thousands of times before.

I know they do not apply as strongly after a strong NT-opening, but they are still compelling enough to make me play T/O.

So, if you play penalty doubles against competent opposition, the times you'll collect numbers vs nothing, will be small, while the number of times you are impaired in competing will be high.

A quick glance at the non-linear IMP-scale will show that protecting (any) plus score, is the overriding concern in competitive sequences. A few excamples:

Turning -50 into +50: 3 IMP's
Taking 300 vs your part score: 4 or 5 IMP's.
Letting them make a partscore, when you have one: 6 IMP's
Missing a NV laydown 3NT: 6 IMP's

If you want to make a big effort, you could divide opponents into two categories; Those where you go for the throat, and those were you want to compete effectively.

And note that playing T/O doesn't give opponent carte blanche to bidding; they might still either be doubled for T/O and left in, or simply turn a plus into a minus by bidding.

As for the actual hand, blame hinges on the agreement about 2♦. If it invites a penalty double, blame goes to South. South has a perfect hand for a take-out double of 2♠, and that's what should have been chosen. (When there is two ways to get to double 2♠, obviously one of them should be T/O.)

[gnasher]

Ole, all of your arguments apply to auctions where pass isn't forcing. It applies to 1NT (2S) dbl, but for most people it doesn't apply to the actual auction, because the double of 2♦ created a forcing-pass situation.

If pass is forcing, there is no practical difference between
- Double = penalties; pass = takeout
and
- Double = takeout; pass = penalties

[andy_h]

Pity North didn't have the ♠7. Not sure who to blame, since I generally play double, double, double (values, t/o and penalties) over artificial conventions so I think I would have replicated the auction. However I'm not sure what pass over 2♦ then X the expected 2♠ is.

[Fluffy]

If south judged that his hand was GF it is ok to double.

What it is not right is to stand to play this contract. He must dodge this.

North bid 100% right, just as partner asked him to.

[655321]

It seems obvious to me that North has only made normal bids, therefore 100% of the blame goes to South.

However, it is not obvious to me that South has bid too terribly. True, South shouldn't have a singleton to bid like this. When partner has opened 1NT you don't want to defend a doubled 2 level contract in your singleton. But sometimes you don't have the perfect hand - with a stronger hand, 3♠ over 2♠ might show this hand. Or, a weaker hand might pass throughout. Perhaps 2NT instead of pass over the double is possible.

If I did decide to defend 2♠X this way (perhaps reasoning that my singleton ♠Q was as good for defense as a small doubleton), I would just apologize, take the blame, and move on to the next board.

[pooltuna]

Echognome, on Sep 25 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

P - 1NT(14-16) - 2♦(♥ or ♠) - Dbl;
P - P - 2♠ - P;
P - Dbl - All Pass

---

Result: 2♠X making -470 NS (East played the ♠9 to the K, losing 2♠, 2♦, and 1♣)

Assign the blame.

South as I suspected was a Killer Klown From Outer Space.

[Jlall]

South should not X 2D, a better way to bid his hand is to pass 2D and then double 2S imo. Now partner knows you have a light takeout double and can bid accordingly.

[aguahombre]

655321, on Sep 26 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

It seems obvious to me that North has only made normal bids, therefore 100% of the blame goes to South.

However, it is not obvious to me that South has bid too terribly.  True, South shouldn't have a singleton to bid like this.  When partner has opened 1NT you don't want to defend a doubled 2 level contract in your singleton.  But sometimes you don't have the perfect hand - with a stronger hand, 3♠ over 2♠ might show this hand.  Or, a weaker hand might pass throughout.  Perhaps 2NT instead of pass over the double is possible.

If I did decide to defend 2♠X this way (perhaps reasoning that my singleton ♠Q was as good for defense as a small doubleton), I would just apologize, take the blame, and move on to the next board.

yep. but would be a little more critical of the double with the stiff spade. The double sets up a cooperative auction and North cooperated. If South felt obligated to perpetrate the double, he should remove the 2S double to 2NT preventing disaster and maybe creating a new one.