[Phil]

I was South here.

I don't think Matt and I had discussed specifically what a card showing double entailed. As far as I was concerned I had about an invite across from a 14-16 NT. Double doesn't feel too far off the mark here. I think its resulting to say I should simply pass.

However, Justin's suggestion is best. Odds favor RHO having spades and we have an easy balancing double of 2♠. Matt might leave it in, but with me having spade shortness, and not enough for initial action, he would find a 3♣ call.

We are probably fixed if RHO has hearts.

From now on, I think in my partnerships we will define a 'card showing' double of 2♦ as invitational or so, but with more of a balanced shape.

I learned something as usual.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Sep 26 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

I was South here.

I don't think Matt and I had discussed specifically what a card showing double entailed. As far as I was concerned I had about an invite across from a 14-16 NT. Double doesn't feel too far off the mark here. I think its resulting to say I should simply pass.

However, Justin's suggestion is best. Odds favor RHO having spades and we have an easy balancing double of 2♠. Matt might leave it in, but with me having spade shortness, and not enough for initial action, he would find a 3♣ call.

We are probably fixed if RHO has hearts.

From now on, I think in my partnerships we will define a 'card showing' double of 2♦ as invitational or so, but with more of a balanced shape.

I learned something as usual.

I don't think it's resulting at all to say you should pass, you are allowed to defend an undoubled contract with the majority of the strength and take a small plus every now and then. In any case it wasn't the overall strength that was the whole problem, change the red suits to QT9x xxxx and I like double much better.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Sep 25 2009, 05:07 PM, 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.

agree

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Sep 26 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

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.

I see that playing pro is making you a lot less confrontational when expressing your views - what happened to the old Justin who would start off with, Jane, you ignorant slut!?

[Jlall]

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 26 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

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.

I see that playing pro is making you a lot less confrontational when expressing your views - what happened to the old Justin who would start off with, Jane, you ignorant slut!?

Because it's not that horrible to X first, you may get to a 4H game you miss by passing and doubling. I mean you do have NINE POINTS so normally you would double, they just suck.

I try to respond with the appropriate level of hate/like for a bid.

[nige1]

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.

---

I blame the rub of the green. I admit that my judgement is suspect but I would achieve the same result, on this layout, playing the North-South methods Hence, IMO, neither North nor South did anything egregious. Nor is their system bad.

[aguahombre]

I am interested in the line of play where declarer lost 2 diamonds and one club.

[Echognome]

aguahombre, on Sep 27 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

I am interested in the line of play where declarer lost 2 diamonds and one club.

Yeah. I messed up the lost tricks. 1♦ and 2♣ is right. I think most people understood.

For what it's worth, I didn't blame partner. I was more interested in understanding my own actions. I'm also sure my partner understands that.

[effervesce]

mike777, on Sep 26 2009, 02:37 AM, said:

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?

That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not.

Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p)
means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X?

[cherdanno]

effervesce, on Sep 28 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

mike777, on Sep 26 2009, 02:37 AM, said:

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?

That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not.

Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p)
means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X?

No, but what is wrong with defending 2♦ undoubled with your hand in this thread?

[effervesce]

cherdanno, on Sep 28 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

effervesce, on Sep 28 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

mike777, on Sep 26 2009, 02:37 AM, said:

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?

That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not.

Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p)
means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X?

No, but what is wrong with defending 2♦ undoubled with your hand in this thread?

Fair enough, on this hand passing may work out as its unlikely that you have game. But 4♥ _may_ be cold on this hand.

But a much simpler way is to play first double values, second takeout, third penalties.

[gnasher]

effervesce, on Sep 28 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

But a much simpler way is to play first double values, second takeout, third penalties.

Why is that simpler than to play first double values, second double penalties, third double penalties?

[rhm]

Jlall, on Sep 27 2009, 01:18 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 26 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 26 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

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.

I see that playing pro is making you a lot less confrontational when expressing your views - what happened to the old Justin who would start off with, Jane, you ignorant slut!?

Because it's not that horrible to X first, you may get to a 4H game you miss by passing and doubling. I mean you do have NINE POINTS so normally you would double, they just suck.

I try to respond with the appropriate level of hate/like for a bid.

Exactly.
There was nothing wrong with South double of 2♦. Since 2♦ was artificial, double showed values.
It was South pass, in particular South final pass, which shows a lack of basic understanding for IMP odds.
It is clear that opponents have at least an eight card fit in spades and judging from their lack of high cards East will have a long suit. South has one (!) defensive trick to contribute in 2♠ doubled.
Surprise, surprise North has no more than 4!

South should bid 2NT at his second turn. Since he is not interested in 2♠ doubled he must be short in ♠. Since he neither cuebid 3♠ nor bid 3NT South can have only invitational values.
Note, that North has more or less 8 easy tricks in notrump and a good player is likely to find another one (After a spade lead East as well as West can be end-played for a ninth trick), while 2♠ can not be beaten.

Rainer Herrmann

[effervesce]

gnasher, on Sep 28 2009, 06:39 AM, said:

effervesce, on Sep 28 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

But a much simpler way is to play first double values, second takeout, third penalties.

Why is that simpler than to play first double values, second double penalties, third double penalties?

That works too - but then south would have to stick with the agreement. Either south bids over 2♠, or takes out partner's penalty double via 2NT - which south did not do on this particular hand.

[OleBerg]

Sorry for the slow reply, busy weekend.

gnasher, on Sep 26 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

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.

The point I was trying to make was, that the double should not set up a force, and that subsequent doubles should be takeout. I believe the double should show values (at least sligthly invitational), and invite partner into the partscore battle, via take-out doubles.

So do we need take-out doubles, both via an initial pass and double? I believe we do. You need to be able to describe hands that has perfect distribution for pressuring the opponents, but also hands with so much strength, that you believe that it is your hand. On these last hands, you need to be able to compete correctly.

Quote

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

I believe there is. You also have to consider the hands that are not suited for either T/O or penalty (or a bid). If you pass these hands under both agreements, pass will have a broader meaning than double would have under the other agreement.

You are right however, when a forcing pass is set-up in a fit-auction, where pass really isn't penalty, but rather a warning not to bid any higher. I know theorists have tinkered with a reverse forcing pass (Double = suggests bidding on, pass = warning), but I haven't tried it, and know very little about it.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Sep 28 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

effervesce, on Sep 28 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

But a much simpler way is to play first double values, second takeout, third penalties.

Why is that simpler than to play first double values, second double penalties, third double penalties?

I didn't write that, but if I had, my reply would have been:

It is agood and simple agreement to have, that whenever you make a double that purely shows values, the scond double is T/O and the third double is penalty.

Having already the second double being penalty is actually simpler, but not as good.

If you generally have high requirements for value-showing doubles, the second method will have more merit.

[gnasher]

OleBerg, on Sep 29 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

The point I was trying to make was, that the double should not set up a force, and that subsequent doubles should be takeout. I believe the double should show values (at least sligthly invitational), and invite partner into the partscore battle, via take-out doubles.

That may well be a playable method. Do those of us who prefer to play something different still "belong in the B/I forum"?

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Sep 29 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Sep 29 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

The point I was trying to make was, that the double should not set up a force, and that subsequent doubles should be takeout. I believe the double should show values (at least sligthly invitational), and invite partner into the partscore battle, via take-out doubles.

That may well be a playable method. Do those of us who prefer to play something different still "belong in the B/I forum"?

No definetely not.

The argument: "Most of the world plays" belongs in the B/I forum.