[Fluffy]

LHO bid is insane, doubles over insane bids tend to be penalty. Unless LHO is a friend of Lanzarotti there is nothing to worry about this hand.

[kfay]

A lot of conflicting views on this problem. I was the doubler and did have a penalty double.... but didn't have hearts.

Scoring: IMP

---

Obviously LHO is a little insane here. But couldn't the hand just as easily be:

Scoring: IMP

---

Either way we still make 6♠. I'm not saying we should or even could get to 6♠, but +480 would be nice as opposed to +100 or even the +300 of the hypothetical hand. And that's assuming we negotiate the club ruff... which becomes harder when partner leads a heart which seems like a foolish lead to me.

Isn't 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ just the same auction as 1NT-2♦-p-2♠... doesn't it broadcast your own spade suit that isn't interested in playing in diamond or hearts if partner has them? Here you have no idea that partner has spades and in fact it's quite likely that he has hearts!! I have no problem with 3♦. I have spoken to a few people about my hand and none of them have a problem with double... Partner did take a bid afterall and looking at my hand this contract could easily go down 2 while we might not be making anything and I certainly don't know partner has spades at this point.

For all of you out there arguing that my double is a penalty double, you are right that's what I intended it as. But what's to say I can't penalize and have spades and diamonds? What's to say that we don't have a better spot even if it IS a penalty double? And isn't Han's reasoning spot on that this bidding makes it unlikely that I do have a stack of hearts? Frankly I don't understand why people are so adamant that double forbids you to bid. This seems foolish... aren't you there to be partner's consult? If I were sitting South I would be totally unsurprised by North's holding for the double.

Edit: Furthermore I'm not saying that I have a problem with passing the double. But saying 'partner's double forbids me from passing' is just taking the onus of the hand off of yourself. I still like to think in these situations, personally.

[jdonn]

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

I have spoken to a few people about my hand and none of them have a problem with double...

Sorry I do. 4♠ all day. Our diamonds were raised!

[kfay]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

I have spoken to a few people about my hand and none of them have a problem with double...

Sorry I do. 4♠ all day. Our diamonds were raised!

The second I do that this hand comes up:

Edit: Maybe not...



And we missed our last plus. Why am I making a unilateral decision to go on? This is a team game after all.

[jdonn]

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

I have spoken to a few people about my hand and none of them have a problem with double...

Sorry I do. 4♠ all day. Our diamonds were raised!

The second I do that this hand comes up:

Scoring: IMP

---

And we missed our last plus. Why am I making a unilateral decision to go on? This is a team game after all.

No it doesn't, because partner doesn't make crazy raises

It's not unilateral. Partner gave his input when he raised us, and that's how we know we shouldn't double IMO.

BTW bidding is right on YOUR OWN example, unless partner makes a double dummy club lead vs. 4♥X which is otherwise making.

[kfay]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

BTW bidding is right on YOUR OWN example, unless partner makes a double dummy club lead vs. 4♥X which is otherwise making.

Realized that at the last second... tried to squeak in a modificaton before you caught it but now I'm pretty sure that's not even right. Another attempt to follow.

[jdonn]

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

BTW bidding is right on YOUR OWN example, unless partner makes a double dummy club lead vs. 4♥X which is otherwise making.

Realized that at the last second... tried to squeak in a modificaton before you caught it but now I'm pretty sure that's not even right. Another attempt to follow.

Isn't that missing the point? Look how hard you have to try to find a hand where you want to defend after the raise, but how easily hands where you don't want to defend are coming up (both in real life and your own examples.) Shouldn't that show doubling is clearly against the odds?

[kfay]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

BTW bidding is right on YOUR OWN example, unless partner makes a double dummy club lead vs. 4♥X which is otherwise making.

Realized that at the last second... tried to squeak in a modificaton before you caught it but now I'm pretty sure that's not even right. Another attempt to follow.

Isn't that missing the point? Look how hard you have to try to find a hand where you want to defend after the raise, but how easily hands where you don't want to defend are coming up (both in real life and your own examples.) Shouldn't that show doubling is clearly against the odds?

No I'm seeing your point. Maybe 4♠ is the right call.

[kfay]

Clearly I wasn't thinking in the right direction. We don't even know if partner has spades. What if this is the hand?

---

Partner converts to diamonds and now we're in trouble or thinks we're 6-5 and leaves spades and we're still in trouble but we set 4♥ 2 easily.

In fact I think this hand is more likely since partner might well have bid spades if he had them.

Perhaps partner doesn't raise on this hand but he might.

[MFA]

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ just the same auction as 1NT-2♦-p-2♠... doesn't it broadcast your own spade suit that isn't interested in playing in diamond or hearts if partner has them?

I'm beginning to hate these methods more and more, when it's so hard all of a sudden to get to spades.

jdonn:

Quote

QUOTE (kfay @ Nov 20 2007, 12:21 PM)
I have spoken to a few people about my hand and none of them have a problem with double... 


Sorry I do. 4♠ all day. Our diamonds were raised!

I think the chain of logic has been broken here. How can overcaller expect advancer to have 4c spade fit, when he didn't try to locate it over 2♥?
I would expect 4♠ now to show 5.

...
Really, with so shady agreements, I'd much prefer to stick to landy instead.

[keylime]

This hand is one of the prime reasons why I prefer specific suit defenses that are major centric in their early bidding engines (for the record, Lionel is what I prefer).

[Codo]

keylime, on Nov 21 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

This hand is one of the prime reasons why I prefer specific suit defenses that are major centric in their early bidding engines (for the record, Lionel is what I prefer).

And what exactly did this hand prove?

THis was a threat about judgement, not about systems.
Both partners made descissions which did not result in a good score.

Lionel has many upsides, so has any other system against their NT. But this hand is a prove for nothing. (Besides how difficult judgement and understanding in unkonwn territority is.)

[keylime]

The reason is, like 2 suited overcalls, you remove the ambiguous nature of the call itself. Additionally, most competitive auctions land in a major, so why wouldn't you strive vigorously to that? One of the minuses of DONT style overcalls are, since you only know one suit, the other suit gets buried when it comes back to you. Lionel being major centric also has this issue - but, since it's based on majors, you can gear your system to locate the minor for cheap sacrifices - you don't for example have to compromise your double, and it reduces you total partnership load to remember and practice (Brozel is even better as this - you know what's going on, and can get on with it). With DONT, there's plenty of ambiguity and that adds to the load that p'ships need to practice.

Analogous to this are the Michaels major overcall of 2M over their 1M opening. You know what the major is, but you have no clue what the minor is. This doesn't help 4th seat bid if RHO makes a call and you have a little bit of length in that suit, but not enough to rule out that suit as being the other suit of pard's hand.

I am of the view that it is easier to compete, when you know both the strain of contract, and what the nature of pard's hand is, without the guesswork. Even since migrating to specific 2 suiters, it has helped my competitive bidding.

[FrancesHinden]

kfay, on Nov 20 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

A lot of conflicting views on this problem. I was the doubler and did have a penalty double.... but didn't have hearts.

Ah. Obviously you don't play the double of 1NT as for penalties, as you seem to have a penalty double...

[ArtK78]

I will bring up a point I raised in an earlier post.

Why didn't the weak hand bid 2♠ at its first opportunity instead of raising diamonds? This would solve all of the problems.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on Nov 21 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

I will bring up a point I raised in an earlier post.

Why didn't the weak hand bid 2♠ at its first opportunity instead of raising diamonds? This would solve all of the problems.

This point has already been raised and explained twice, I think.

While it would be nice to play 2S here as showing spades & diamond support, the consensus is that 2S looks more like a longer, better spade suit and a desire to play in 2S. Holding, say, KJ109xx xx Qx xxx you would like to bid 2S and have partner pass. On this hand, you wouldl ike to bid 2S and have partner bid 3D if spades is not his second suit - but you can't have it both ways.