[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (3♦);
?

---

I assume over 2♦, this is an easy 2♥ call, intending to complete your description on the next round. What about over this 3♦ call?

[Phil]

Put me down for 3♥. I think I'm a skosh too good for pass.

Doubles are blood in 2/1 auctions.

[awm]

The standard agreement is that double is penalty here (admittedly I play it as takeout in some partnerships, but we should assume standard agreements unless otherwise specified).

This leaves pass and 3♥. I think that 3♥ should show a better suit (usually five) and less interest in clubs. So I'll go with pass here. This gives partner the chance to penalty double (no one said partner can't have four good diamonds for example) and is also a bit more encouraging about clubs than a 3♥ bid would be (i.e. 3♥ could easily be stiff club, pass normally includes 2-3 clubs). Another nice thing is that 3♠ from partner is usually a real fit here (whereas it could be preference over 3♥) and that if we have a good heart fit partner can always introduce the suit.

[jdonn]

I like pass, 3♥ just feels wrong with Qxxx and of course partner has a cheap heart bid at his turn if he wants it.

[gwnn]

pass, I am happy to pass if partner swings the axe.

[quiddity]

awm, on Apr 21 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

This leaves pass and 3♥. I think that 3♥ should show a better suit (usually five) and less interest in clubs. So I'll go with pass here. This gives partner the chance to penalty double (no one said partner can't have four good diamonds for example)

Isn't partner forced to double with 2335 and no diamond stopper (for example)?

[jjbrr]

pass

[rogerclee]

quiddity, on Apr 21 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 21 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

This leaves pass and 3♥. I think that 3♥ should show a better suit (usually five) and less interest in clubs. So I'll go with pass here. This gives partner the chance to penalty double (no one said partner can't have four good diamonds for example)

Isn't partner forced to double with 2335 and no diamond stopper (for example)?

You are right.

[nige1]

Echognome, on Apr 21 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (3♦);?

---

IMO 3♥ = 10, _P = 8, 4C = 4. Partner's 2♣ bid improved your hand.

[awm]

rogerclee, on Apr 21 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

quiddity, on Apr 21 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 21 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

This leaves pass and 3♥. I think that 3♥ should show a better suit (usually five) and less interest in clubs. So I'll go with pass here. This gives partner the chance to penalty double (no one said partner can't have four good diamonds for example)

Isn't partner forced to double with 2335 and no diamond stopper (for example)?

You are right.

I disagree. While there are certainly times in high level auctions where it's normal to double with two or three small cards in the opponents suit, I don't think this auction is sufficiently obstructive. In particular, it will often be that we can make 4♠ on a 5-2 or 3NT on opener's one diamond stopper, and that 3♦X goes down only one or two tricks at most. Playing a style where responder doubles on 2-3 small also means that opener has to act with a singleton, and you thus cannot penalize when opener has a stiff and responder has a strong four-card holding (i.e. one of the most lucrative times to penalize).

If I held a 2335 hand with three little diamonds after 1♠-P-2♣-3♦-P-P, I would bid 3♠.

[rogerclee]

I think we simply view this double differently. You seem to want to play it is highly penalty oriented, but I think that playing this double as just "I can't bid anything" is better. Even though in theory this makes me more exploitable to unsound preempts, in practice I've found that my opponents are quite conservative about coming into my 2/1 auctions.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Apr 21 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (3♦);
?

---

I assume over 2♦, this is an easy 2♥ call, intending to complete your description on the next round. What about over this 3♦ call?

Great post for B/I


What should double show here in B/I

I would pass but I think this is a good discussion even at my lower B/I level. thanks

[Codo]

Luckily I still play take out doubles, so this is easy.

In good ol America (and maybe everywhere else too?) I would pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Since X is penalty, assuming standard forcing pass agreements, it is either
Pass or 3H, I would go with 3H, intending to pass 3NT from p

If you are certain, that 2C showes a 5 carder, 4D is a real alternative.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdanno]

I think passing, then pulling a double to 3H is a better description than a direct 3H. It shows shortness, but a reason not to bid 3H directly, so probably a bad suit and/or interest in other strains.
I also think it's better than passing partner's double, assuming partner plays clee-style doubles. If partner plays awm-style doubles, then of course we will pass his double, but we have a bit more of a problem when he bids s.th. other than a double; I guess we will bid 4C over 3S.

[vuroth]

rogerclee, on Apr 21 2010, 07:54 PM, said:

I think we simply view this double differently. You seem to want to play it is highly penalty oriented, but I think that playing this double as just "I can't bid anything" is better. Even though in theory this makes me more exploitable to unsound preempts, in practice I've found that my opponents are quite conservative about coming into my 2/1 auctions.

So what does pass mean to you, then? Desire to penalize?

I always thought the natural meaning of PASS was "I can't bid anything".

[aguahombre]

vuroth, on Apr 22 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Apr 21 2010, 07:54 PM, said:

I think we simply view this double differently. You seem to want to play it is highly penalty oriented, but I think that playing this double as just "I can't bid anything" is better. Even though in theory this makes me more exploitable to unsound preempts, in practice I've found that my opponents are quite conservative about coming into my 2/1 auctions.

So what does pass mean to you, then? Desire to penalize?

I always thought the natural meaning of PASS was "I can't bid anything".

Glad I am not the one who said that. But, I surely thought it. Am trying to turn over new leaf, all of a sudden.

[helene_t]

vuroth, on Apr 22 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

I always thought the natural meaning of PASS was "I can't bid anything".

Yeah, just like the natural meaning of a 2♣ opening is a hand that can't open at the 1-level, can't pass and can't open at a higher level than 2♣. Not so helpful.

Should pass here be forcing? We were not told if we play 2/1 so I assume we don't. I really wouldn't know if pass is forcing or not in SAYC, Forum-D, SEF etc. It used to be (back in 2005) a non-default option in Biedermeijer to play this pass as forcing. Dunno what it is now. Obviously it is not forcing in (English) Acol.

[Phil]

helene_t, on Apr 22 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

Should pass here be forcing? We were not told if we play 2/1 so I assume we don't.

Since Echognome posted this I assumed it was 2/1. I could be wrong.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Apr 22 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

vuroth, on Apr 22 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

I always thought the natural meaning of PASS was "I can't bid anything".

Yeah, just like the natural meaning of a 2♣ opening is a hand that can't open at the 1-level, can't pass and can't open at a higher level than 2♣. Not so helpful.

Should pass here be forcing? We were not told if we play 2/1 so I assume we don't.

Yeah just like since we were not told we aren't playing 2/1, I assume we are. Not so helpful.