[jillybean]

What are the standard agreements here

a passed hand:
1. P (1♦) P (1♠)
2nt?


2. P (1♦) P (1♠)
X?

as opposed to unpassed hand:
3. (1♦) P (1♠) 2nt?


4. (1♦) P (1♠) X?


My guess is
1. minors
2. other 2 suits
3. 18-19
4. penalty

[irdoz]

How I play these bids would be:

Quote

a passed hand:
1. P (1♦) P (1♠)
2nt?

5+/5+ clubs and hearts

Quote

2. P (1♦) P (1♠)
X?

Unbid suits

Quote

as opposed to unpassed hand:
3. (1♦) P (1♠) 2nt?

I play this as 5+/5+ hearts and clubs too - with a bigger than 1nt hand I x

Quote

4. (1♦) P (1♠) X?

Unbid suits or very strong hand

[Cascade]

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

What are the standard agreements here

a passed hand:
1. P (1♦) P (1♠)
2nt?


2. P (1♦) P (1♠)
X?

as opposed to unpassed hand:
3. (1♦) P (1♠) 2nt?


4. (1♦) P (1♠) X?


My guess is
1. minors
2. other 2 suits
3. 18-19
4. penalty

I would make no distinction between a passed hand and un-passed hand other than you can't have a very strong hand.

So

1. ♣s and ♥s 5/5- but we could also bid 1NT to show this so maybe 2NT is even more extra distribution - say 5=6. If you can't have this because you would have opened something then maybe this doesn't exist.

2. takeout similiar to 1. but less distribution 4=4 or maybe 4=5 in the other suits

3. As for 1. but stronger

4. As for 2. but stronger

[rogerclee]

jillybean2, on Mar 26 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

My guess is
1. minors
2. other 2 suits
3. 18-19
4. penalty

1. 5♥-5♣, could be more, 1NT is usually 4♥-5♣ if you use it as takeout.
2. Yes, takeout, at least 4-4 in the others.
3. No, though 18-19 does x and then rebid NT. It shows the same two suiter as above, except not really limited.
4. Takeout, same minimum strength, unlimited maximum strength.

[gwnn]

Yes, but not every 5-5 qualifies, you need decent concentration and at least a little strength.

KQxxx and KQxxx is usually enough, especially as a PH, but say Qx K7xxx A J5xxx is not a 2NT bid, and neither is x xxxxx xx xxxxx

[awm]

Wow, penalty?

In modern bidding there are very few penalty doubles at the one-level. It's probably a good rule that low-level doubles of suits are never penalty except in a few very exceptional cases. Typical such exceptions:

(1) If we have already indicated desire to defend, for example by redoubling or penalty doubling something else, or converting a takeout double of something else to penalty.
(2) If we have already found our fit (bid and raised a suit).
(3) If we or partner have already shown length in the suit (for example 1♥-X-1♠-X is penalty because partner's takeout double of hearts already showed length in spades).
(4) If all four suits have been bid.
(5) If partner opened with a preempt or 1NT bid.

Anyways I agree with Cascade about what the standards are. In general 2NT bid is a preemptive hand and could be pretty weak, like ♠x ♥KT9xx ♦x ♣QT9xxx, whereas double promises some defense and should be an opening hand or a max passed hand, like ♠Ax ♥QJ9x ♦xxx ♣KT9x.

Another important point that others have mentioned is the 1NT call. By a passed hand this also shows the unbid suits (unusual notrump). It is weaker than double, looking more like the 2NT bid but not requiring quite as much shape since you are a level lower. Typical is something like 8-10 points with 4♥ and 5♣ or a bit lighter with 5-5.

In fact some people play the 1NT bid in this position by an unpassed hand in a similar way (sandwich notrump) but that's not standard. Whether it's good or not has been the subject of some intense arguments in earlier forum threads and is better not to rehash here. In any case, if 1NT here is natural I think it should include 18 point hands.

[jillybean]

another one
5. (1♦) X (1♠) X? this is the penalty over 1x

http://forums.bridge...opic=18003&st=0

As you can see I am somewhat confused and need to sit down and think about all of these sequences

[whereagles]

You can play it as penalty (anti psyche), and you can play it as take-out. It all depends on agreements and opps. If they seldom psyche, take-out is more appropriate. If they're jokers, PENALTY

[jtfanclub]

I play

P-1D-P-1S-2NT 5-5 clubs + hearts.
P-1D-P-1S-X Takeout of spades with 3+ diamonds.
P-1D-P-1S-2S More extreme takeout of spades with 4+ diamonds. Often 3 clubs.
P-1D-P-1S-1NT Takeout of spades without 3+ diamonds, usually 4 hearts and 5+ clubs.

1D-P-1S-2NT 5-5 clubs + hearts
1D-P-1S-X usually 4 hearts and 4+ clubs, but says nothing about diamonds.
1D-P-1S-2S Extreme takeout of spades with 4+ diamonds. Often three clubs.
1D-P-1S-1NT A real 1NT overcall.

Yes, I know that in SAYC-land 1D-P-1S-2S is natural. But...
A) I don't know anybody who actually does that, and
I can't imagine I would ever need it.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Yes, I know that in SAYC-land 1D-P-1S-2S is natural. But...
A) I don't know anybody who actually does that, and
I can't imagine I would ever need it.

Not just there, here too. And I've used it several times, especially against Polish ♣ players who seem to be more inclined to "make up" a 3-card major suit in this position than others.

So:

1♦ p 1♠ ?


Dbl = TO, must not have 4 - 4 if strong
1NT = 5 - 4 hand with ♣ and ♥ (I don't like a natural 1NT here)
2♦ = Natural
2♠ = Natural
2NT = preemptive, ♣ and ♥

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Mar 27 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

Not just there, here too. And I've used it several times, especially against Polish ♣ players who seem to be more inclined to "make up" a 3-card major suit in this position than others.

Polish Club doesn't count, since there they've promised at least 4 diamonds (and more often than not have 5, particularly if they open 3-2-4-4 13 counts 1 club).

The uncovered distribution with your system is 4 hearts and 5+ diamonds. The uncovered distribution with my system is 5+ spades. Which one is more likely is dependent upon how many of each suit the opponents have promised.

[1eyedjack]

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

another one
5. (1♦) X (1♠) X?  this is the penalty over 1x

http://forums.bridge...opic=18003&st=0

As you can see I am somewhat confused and need to sit down and think about all of these sequences 

A while back I wrote a brief article aimed at "B/I" level, here
http://www.acolatbbo...ubletrouble.pdf
that might be worth a read. Hope it helps. Applying that algorithm to the quoted auction, the double of 1S is penalties because partner has implied Spade length by reason of his takeout double of Diamonds. He will not always have Spade length, of course - there are other hands that might be concealed in the double. But the implication alone is sufficient for the algorithm.

[irdoz]

A long time ago I found these three articles on doubles useful...

http://www.prairiene...e/BB/b_dbl1.htm
http://www.prairiene...e/BB/b_dbl2.htm
http://www.prairiene...e/BB/b_dbl3.htm

[han]

I like these articles by Karen.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies and great links.

[rogerclee]

han, on Mar 27 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

I like these articles by Karen.

I like all the articles by Karen. I have read a lot of them and though I do not always agree with the material, I think they've improved my game.