Another horrible board

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double,

I do.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
but what would you take South's double as and what would you do with the >above hand?

Partner's double of 2S is 100% penalty. I am not invited to participate
further. I pass. If I bid again it will probably be the last time that
I play with this partner.

Fred.

2018-09-22 00:54:14 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double, but what would you take South's double as and what would you do with the above hand?

Yours is a good hand for a balancing double. Advancer's double
of 2S shows a hand which had to trap because of spade length
and is at least 100% for penalty.

Do not rescue declarer, who, facing a worthless dummy, should
suffer intensely in 2S. Note that your balancing double
promised you were open to partner passing of 1SX, so you
should never have the hand to pull 2SX.

Fred.

a***@yahoo.co.uk

2018-09-22 11:52:27 UTC

I interpreted the double as penalty, it made no logical sense to me to be takeout. My partner didn't think the same way, this is the full deal:

T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
J53 AKQ642
J8653 KQ
93 642
954 73
987
T97
KQ85
KQ8

After the HT lead, I won with the ace and noticed the Q drop. Putting declarer with KQ doubleton, I had a think, and still being convinced that partner held a trump stack (and therefore East had made a rubbish 2S bid), I tried to exit passively with a trump, as I was concerned leading from one of my minors could blow a trick, and partner will get in soon so we can cash minor tricks. That didn't work at all. Declarer won, cashed the HK, drew trumps ending in dummy, and away went the minor suit losers on the hearts. 2SX+2 was the final result. Even if I get the defence right, 2S is unbeatable.

Partner claimed that her double meant she had the minors, and made a statement that she never doubles a two level contract for penalties, which I think was an agreement with her other partners. I didn't get it myself. We can make 5D on these cards, although it is near impossible to find it, but getting +150 for 3D would be far preferable than -1070.

In this situation, I would think that 2NT could be used to show the minors. 2NT natural isn't likely to be a good use of this bid. If you have a trump stack over declarer and the majority of the points, you might as well take a penalty.

Pubkeybreaker

2018-09-22 16:19:03 UTC

I interpreted the double as penalty, it made no logical sense to me to be takeout. My partner didn't think the same way,

Your partner is an idiot. His double is 100% penalty and can't be interpreted any other way.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
J53 AKQ642
J8653 KQ
93 642
954 73
987
T97
KQ85
KQ8
After the HT lead, I won with the ace and noticed the Q drop. Putting declarer with KQ doubleton, I had a think, and still being convinced that partner held a trump stack (and therefore East had made a rubbish 2S bid), I tried to exit passively with a trump, as I was concerned leading from one of my minors could blow a trick, and partner will get in soon so we can cash minor tricks. That didn't work at all. Declarer won, cashed the HK, drew trumps ending in dummy, and away went the minor suit losers on the hearts. 2SX+2 was the final result. Even if I get the defence right, 2S is unbeatable.
Partner claimed that her double meant she had the minors,

*Blithering* idiot.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
and made a statement that she never doubles a two level contract for >penalties, which I think was an agreement with her other partners.

Clueless blithering idiot. You are playing with a novice.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
In this situation, I would think that 2NT could be used to show the minors. 2NT natural isn't likely to be a good use of this bid.

YES. But partner does not "have the minors". 4-3 in the minors
does not count.

Lorne

2018-09-23 10:20:19 UTC

T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
J53 AKQ642
J8653 KQ
93 642
954 73
987
T97
KQ85
KQ8
After the HT lead, I won with the ace and noticed the Q drop. Putting declarer with KQ doubleton, I had a think, and still being convinced that partner held a trump stack (and therefore East had made a rubbish 2S bid), I tried to exit passively with a trump, as I was concerned leading from one of my minors could blow a trick, and partner will get in soon so we can cash minor tricks. That didn't work at all. Declarer won, cashed the HK, drew trumps ending in dummy, and away went the minor suit losers on the hearts. 2SX+2 was the final result. Even if I get the defence right, 2S is unbeatable.
Partner claimed that her double meant she had the minors, and made a statement that she never doubles a two level contract for penalties, which I think was an agreement with her other partners. I didn't get it myself. We can make 5D on these cards, although it is near impossible to find it, but getting +150 for 3D would be far preferable than -1070.
In this situation, I would think that 2NT could be used to show the minors. 2NT natural isn't likely to be a good use of this bid. If you have a trump stack over declarer and the majority of the points, you might as well take a penalty.

I do not think there is clearcut agreement on this double and it can be
played as responsive or penalties.

If the auction is: 1S dbl 2S dbl, the second double is clearly
responsive and shows a desire to compete with less than 4 hearts. 2N
would be Lebensohl so immediate bids are invitational and via 2N weak.

In this auction a peanalty dble is far more attractive but will give you
a problem with 2344 shape and a few points as you want to play in 3C or
3D but only if you know which suit partner has 4 cards in. One solution
is not to play 2N as Lebensohl when you have already passed, now dbl can
be penalty and 2N shows 2 suits of equal length but you lose the ability
to differentiate between 3H to play and 3H to invite game (which is less
likely to be a problem when you have already passed).

Dave Flower

2018-09-24 07:36:24 UTC

Post by Lorne

I do not think there is clearcut agreement on this double and it can be
played as responsive or penalties.
If the auction is: 1S dbl 2S dbl, the second double is clearly
responsive and shows a desire to compete with less than 4 hearts. 2N
would be Lebensohl so immediate bids are invitational and via 2N weak.
In this auction a peanalty dble is far more attractive but will give you
a problem with 2344 shape and a few points as you want to play in 3C or
3D but only if you know which suit partner has 4 cards in. One solution
is not to play 2N as Lebensohl when you have already passed, now dbl can
be penalty and 2N shows 2 suits of equal length but you lose the ability
to differentiate between 3H to play and 3H to invite game (which is less
likely to be a problem when you have already passed).

I agree that the meaning of the second double is unclear. For that reason it was a mistake, especially at IMPs where a misunderstanding is likely to be very expensive.

David Flower

Mick Heins

2018-09-25 16:21:54 UTC

Post by Lorne

I do not think there is clearcut agreement on this double and it can be
played as responsive or penalties.

In standard, it is penalty. Certainly there are partnerships who might have a
specific agreement about it, but lacking that specific agreement, it is penalty.

--
Mickey

Software axiom: Lack of speed kills.

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-09-27 14:21:26 UTC

Post by Lorne

I do not think there is clearcut agreement on this double and it can be
played as responsive or penalties.
If the auction is: 1S dbl 2S dbl, the second double is clearly
responsive and shows a desire to compete with less than 4 hearts. 2N
would be Lebensohl so immediate bids are invitational and via 2N weak.
In this auction a peanalty dble is far more attractive but will give you
a problem with 2344 shape and a few points as you want to play in 3C or
3D but only if you know which suit partner has 4 cards in. One solution
is not to play 2N as Lebensohl when you have already passed, now dbl can
be penalty and 2N shows 2 suits of equal length but you lose the ability
to differentiate between 3H to play and 3H to invite game (which is less
likely to be a problem when you have already passed).

A responsive double is advancer's double of a *raise*.

Other doubles, even if takeout, are not responsive doubles They require extra indication on convention cards.

Carl

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-09-27 14:13:10 UTC

Why would the south hand be confident that the partnership had a makeable 3-level contract?

Carl

Pubkeybreaker

2018-09-27 14:37:36 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net

Why would the south hand be confident that the partnership had a makeable 3-level contract?
Carl

Total tricks

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-09-27 17:56:53 UTC

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net

Why would the south hand be confident that the partnership had a makeable 3-level contract?
Carl

Total tricks

How could the given south hand be confident of 17+ total trumps?

Co Wiersma

2018-09-22 12:04:19 UTC

I disagree with your permission to us to not agree with your double :P
Pass is not an option as partner could still have up to 14 point
And in case partner has much less than 14 pointm a 2C overcall could
easy place us in the wrong suit
And so you double is at least a decent option.

About the second double: note that opponents did not show an 8-card fit
So this situation could well be a total missfit situation.
And so a penalty double is likely the better agreement in this situation.

Co Wiersma

ais523

2018-09-22 16:58:13 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double, but what would you take South's
double as and what would you do with the above hand?

[I'm posting this before reading the rest of the thread, and will be
interested to see what other people chose.]

The most common meaning for it is "pick a minor", i.e. takeout-ish but
tending to deny hearts (as if South had hearts they'd probably just bid
them; most players assume you'll have hearts for your own double, even
though you don't really in this case). As such, I'd bid 3C in this
situation; my hand isn't stronger than I've shown but we seem to have a
double fit.

Even if your partner's playing this as takeout, you'd do the same thing,
so there's no need to worry about that possibility.

It seems unlikely that you'd agree to play this as penalty, simply
because it's unlikely to come up often enough; if that were the
agreement, though, I'd pass (three aces!). I don't think this would be
penalty in any of my partnerships, though, and it'd probably be a
minority choice overall.

--
ais523

ais523

2018-09-22 17:06:20 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double, but what would you take South's
double as and what would you do with the above hand?

[I'm posting this before reading the rest of the thread, and will be
interested to see what other people chose.]

And now I've seen the rest of the thread, I missed that the balancing
double doesn't show much in hearts, and thus that makes it more likely
that penalty is a good agreement here.

That said, I think you do need to have it as an explicit agreement!
Using "bridge logic" to determine what a double means is very likely to
end up with accidents like this one, which is why many less experienced
partnerships will have an objective rule to determine the meaning of a
double.

I note that if South can legitimately penalise 2S here, N/S can probably
make 3NT, so this is likely to be the only vulnerability at which the
penalty is something you'd really want to go for. Assuming East isn't
psyching, they have a 6-card suit, and with the singleton spade in
North's hand, it's highly likely that West has at least a mediocre fit
for it; thus it's going to be very hard to take the contract down more
than 2 or so. It's a low-level contract, after all.

--
ais523

Co Wiersma

2018-09-22 18:12:05 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double, but what would you take South's
double as and what would you do with the above hand?

[I'm posting this before reading the rest of the thread, and will be
interested to see what other people chose.]

And now I've seen the rest of the thread, I missed that the balancing
double doesn't show much in hearts, and thus that makes it more likely
that penalty is a good agreement here.

Of cause the balancing doubles shows hearts
And it shows clubs and diamonds but most of all hearts

Post by ais523
That said, I think you do need to have it as an explicit agreement!
Using "bridge logic" to determine what a double means is very likely to
end up with accidents like this one, which is why many less experienced
partnerships will have an objective rule to determine the meaning of a
double.
I note that if South can legitimately penalise 2S here, N/S can probably
make 3NT, so this is likely to be the only vulnerability at which the
penalty is something you'd really want to go for. Assuming East isn't
psyching, they have a 6-card suit, and with the singleton spade in
North's hand, it's highly likely that West has at least a mediocre fit
for it; thus it's going to be very hard to take the contract down more
than 2 or so. It's a low-level contract, after all.

If South has a hand like
Q109xx
Kxx
Kxx
xx
3NT will likely go down and also 2S will likely go down

If South has a hand like
AQxx
Qxx
Kxx
Qxx
South can choose to bid 3NT instead of double

Co Wiersma

ais523

2018-09-22 18:28:00 UTC

Post by Co Wiersma

North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62

I note that if South can legitimately penalise 2S here, N/S can probably
make 3NT, so this is likely to be the only vulnerability at which the
penalty is something you'd really want to go for. Assuming East isn't
psyching, they have a 6-card suit, and with the singleton spade in
North's hand, it's highly likely that West has at least a mediocre fit
for it; thus it's going to be very hard to take the contract down more
than 2 or so. It's a low-level contract, after all.

If South has a hand like
Q109xx
Kxx
Kxx
xx
3NT will likely go down and also 2S will likely go down

This is IMPs, though. The score for 2SX vulnerable making would be an
utter disaster, so you need to be very very sure it's going down for a
penalty double; "likely go down" isn't enough.

(Or to put it another way: you bid vulnerable games at IMPs even if
they're much less than 50:50 to make, so to penalty-double vulnerable
opponents into game, they have to be much much less than 50:50 to make.)

At matchpoints, I can see more of an argument for the double; if you
have a partscore you may well end up changing 100 to 200 (thus beating
the partscore), and if you have a 400-point game on then the penalty
will probably be 500. These differences are small in IMP terms but much
larger in matchpoint terms.

--
ais523

Fred.

2018-09-22 21:23:18 UTC

North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62

If South has a hand like
Q109xx
Kxx
Kxx
xx
3NT will likely go down and also 2S will likely go down

This is IMPs, though. The score for 2SX vulnerable making would be an
utter disaster, so you need to be very very sure it's going down for a
penalty double; "likely go down" isn't enough.
(Or to put it another way: you bid vulnerable games at IMPs even if
they're much less than 50:50 to make, so to penalty-double vulnerable
opponents into game, they have to be much much less than 50:50 to make.)
At matchpoints, I can see more of an argument for the double; if you
have a partscore you may well end up changing 100 to 200 (thus beating
the partscore), and if you have a 400-point game on then the penalty
will probably be 500. These differences are small in IMP terms but much
larger in matchpoint terms.
--
ais523

If advancer always overcalls 1NT given a good hand with a
trump stack, then I agree that a good IMP double of 2S
is unlikely.

If, on the other hand, advancer passes such hands expecting
4th hand to protect, then advancer can have a 24K double of
2S which may well win the match.

This may not come up as often as pick-a-minor, but the gain
from each superior part score is much smaller. Of course,
playing the double as responsive will keep advancer from
making bad penalty doubles.

Fred.

ais523

2018-09-22 21:59:21 UTC

Post by Fred.
If advancer always overcalls 1NT given a good hand with a
trump stack, then I agree that a good IMP double of 2S
is unlikely.
If, on the other hand, advancer passes such hands expecting
4th hand to protect, then advancer can have a 24K double of
2S which may well win the match.

In the example given, opener had rebid 2S over 1S despite hearing no
help from partner. That implies at least 6 spades. Even if it somehow
lost every trick, that goes for 2300 (not "24K"), and given how
vanishingly unlikely a 6610 distribution round the table in spades is,
it's going to make at least one trick for trump length, so 2000 at
worst even if the advancer somehow manages to drop or finesse every
high trump in declarer's hand.

In practice, the maximum realistic penalty is rather smaller. For
example, down five would give a score of 1400, comparable to making a
vulnerable slam, which seems like a good deal; but in order for the
contract to go down five, the defence have to make ten tricks, i.e. they
have to be able to make game in the opener's six-card suit. And if they
can make game there, they can probably make much more in other suits,
where the opener's long suit can be ruffed rather than dropped and
finessed individually.

I'd put the largest likely penalty from this bidding sequence in the
1100 or even 800 range. That's still a lot, but it's so rare to get
penalties that large that it's probably not worth the memory load on
your system, let alone the other plausible meanings of the bid. (This is
especially bearing in mind that as soon as the vulnerability is anything
other than white vs. red, you'd prefer to make a game your way than for
the opponents to be doubled down two.) I've seen large penalties at the
two-level before, but it normally happens when the declaring side are
balanced-ish with a misfit, not when one of them has a single-suiter.

(Incidentally, I once tried passing an opening bid with 17 points and
trump length, only to discover that my partner also had trump length
and the opening bid got passed out; this implies to me that trap
passes have to be fairly limited. This is presumably more likely to
happen in the land of four-card majors, but there has to be some sort
of maximum strength where you're willing to risk the hand being passed
out. It hardly makes sense to play (1M), Pass, (Pass) as forcing!)

--
ais523

Fred.

2018-09-26 14:29:22 UTC

In the example given, opener had rebid 2S over 1S despite hearing no
help from partner. That implies at least 6 spades. Even if it somehow
lost every trick, that goes for 2300 (not "24K"), and given how
vanishingly unlikely a 6610 distribution round the table in spades is,
it's going to make at least one trick for trump length, so 2000 at
worst even if the advancer somehow manages to drop or finesse every
high trump in declarer's hand.
In practice, the maximum realistic penalty is rather smaller. For
example, down five would give a score of 1400, comparable to making a
vulnerable slam, which seems like a good deal; but in order for the
contract to go down five, the defence have to make ten tricks, i.e. they
have to be able to make game in the opener's six-card suit. And if they
can make game there, they can probably make much more in other suits,
where the opener's long suit can be ruffed rather than dropped and
finessed individually.
I'd put the largest likely penalty from this bidding sequence in the
1100 or even 800 range. That's still a lot, but it's so rare to get
penalties that large that it's probably not worth the memory load on
your system, let alone the other plausible meanings of the bid. (This is
especially bearing in mind that as soon as the vulnerability is anything
other than white vs. red, you'd prefer to make a game your way than for
the opponents to be doubled down two.) I've seen large penalties at the
two-level before, but it normally happens when the declaring side are
balanced-ish with a misfit, not when one of them has a single-suiter.
(Incidentally, I once tried passing an opening bid with 17 points and
trump length, only to discover that my partner also had trump length
and the opening bid got passed out; this implies to me that trap
passes have to be fairly limited. This is presumably more likely to
happen in the land of four-card majors, but there has to be some sort
of maximum strength where you're willing to risk the hand being passed
out. It hardly makes sense to play (1M), Pass, (Pass) as forcing!)
--
ais523

My apologies. The correct abbreviation of 24 karat is 24kt.

Your assumption that the doubler's side is likely to have a better
denomination than spades for offense is unproven. Note that on
defense advancer is likely to take a couple of spade tricks which
may not be realized unless spades are trump.

Besides, if your agreement is that the double of 2S is responsive
here, and the opponents are aware of it, opener may not need
a 6 card suit to blockade 2S.

Fred.

ais523

2018-09-27 23:53:47 UTC

Post by Fred.
Besides, if your agreement is that the double of 2S is responsive
here, and the opponents are aware of it, opener may not need
a 6 card suit to blockade 2S.

Wouldn't a pre-emptive raise of your own suit, with less than 6 cards,
be alertable under nearly all jurisdictions? It's a highly unexpected
meaning, after all.

Once the bid is alerted, that's likely to change the meaning of the
double. So it's hard to take advantage of an opponent's agreement that
doubles of self-raises are non-penalty in practice.

--
ais523

ais523

2018-09-22 22:16:38 UTC

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by ais523
And now I've seen the rest of the thread, I missed that the balancing
double doesn't show much in hearts, and thus that makes it more likely
that penalty is a good agreement here.

Of cause the balancing doubles shows hearts
And it shows clubs and diamonds but most of all hearts

Well, a balancing double of spades "wants" to show a holding in hearts,
but it inherently has to be somewhat wide-ranging, and that's true of
distribution as well as strength. For example, if you have a 2=2=5=4 or
3=1=4=5 hand but your strength is primarily in the 4-card minor, there's
a severe limit on available bids (unless you bundle those hands into a
two-suited overcall); you can't really include those in a double, and
you don't really have a 2-of-a-minor overcall, so the only real
remaining choices are passing the hand out, or bidding 1NT
(typically with no stop, and no guarantee your partner has any useful
help at all). The decision may come down to how wide-ranging the
opening bid is (the narrower the range, the more likely that their
responder would pass rather than invite when the opponents have a
combined 22HCP or so).

In this thread we're talking about a 1=3=4=5 hand, which is both more
likely and more double-suitable than the hands being discussed above, so
many people would consider a balancing double reasonable on three small
hearts. As such, advancer can't really make much assumption about the
heart holdings after the balancing double is made.

--
ais523

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-09-22 23:07:37 UTC

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North
T
A42
AJT7
AJT62
non-vul vs vul
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S X P
?
You may not agree with my double, but what would you take South's
double as and what would you do with the above hand?

[I'm posting this before reading the rest of the thread, and will be
interested to see what other people chose.]

And now I've seen the rest of the thread, I missed that the balancing
double doesn't show much in hearts, and thus that makes it more likely
that penalty is a good agreement here.

Of cause the balancing doubles shows hearts
And it shows clubs and diamonds but most of all hearts

If South has a hand like
Q109xx
Kxx
Kxx
xx
3NT will likely go down and also 2S will likely go down
If South has a hand like
AQxx
Qxx
Kxx
Qxx
South can choose to bid 3NT instead of double
Co Wiersma

QJT9x

is 3 tricks on defense and no tricks as dummy.

That is what penalty means: non-transferable values. (Not just they won't make it.)

Carl

Douglas Newlands

2018-09-22 22:40:53 UTC

What would you do if it went

N E S W
1S P P
X 2S P P
?

Would you double again or ?
You do have much more than the first double showed.

doug

a***@yahoo.co.uk

2018-09-23 09:33:09 UTC

Post by Douglas Newlands

What would you do if it went
N E S W
1S P P
X 2S P P
?
Would you double again or ?
You do have much more than the first double showed.
doug

That is tricky. It is the situation where whether I pass or double again, it could go wrong. If I double, we might end up in 3H on a 4-3 fit and go several off when East has the maximum 1 opening, partner has junk, and the hearts break 5-2. On the other hand, if I pass, we might have a minor double fit and can make 5 minor as on the actual layout. Likely that whatever I do would be wrong :-).

Mick Heins

2018-09-23 00:08:08 UTC

It is penalty. I would pass.

--
Mickey

People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

Will in New Haven

2018-09-27 02:32:50 UTC