[mikeh]

aguahombre, on Jul 17 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

Are we forgetting that opener already did not double 3c?  opener does not have clubs.

Isn't that the nub of the problem? What is opener's minimum club holding on which to double?

I have usually had as a rule of thumb (subject to adjustment based on overall hand) the notion that opener should hold Hxx or so in the minor he doubles.

After this hand, I am now more inclined to Gnasher's view, that opener should be doubling with all (otherwise suitable) hands with any 3 clubs and maybe Hx.

If so, then there is little need for an optional double by responder...opener's failure to double says he wouldn't sit for it anyway.

This makes it important for responder, when doubling the first time, to have some modest length in the minor in which he is not loaded. but I think that is usually how it is played.

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on Jul 17 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

Responder's logic for his action, and against opener's action is superficial.  the hand he actually had is an easy 3D after 3C comes around undoubled.  South must have 4 spades or 6 hearts, or both.  South did fine, North didn't think enough.

I suspect responder is quite capable of some deeper thought than you give him credit for:) One thing he thought about, and discussed in speaking of this with partner, was that opener could be 3532, and unless he doubles with all 3 card club holdings, 3523, and that playing 4♠ on a weak 4-4 fit, when he is 4522 on this auction may be sub-optimum.

It may well be that the best choice is just to ignore the downsides of these distributions, but only a superficial thinker would overlook these possibilities.

As it is, a style that mandates a double of 3♣ by opener with all 3=5=2=3 hands would certainly render the most troubling possibility moot, and the partnership will be discussing this approach.

[jdonn]

Mike does your partner also respond 5♣ to keycard with either 0 or 1 then claim he is playing 30-14 or 14-30 appropriately? Because it's all well and good for him to decide that it would be nice when he holds an optional hand that double is optional even when double is really penalty. But he should probably decide after the hand and let you in on it.

I would have passed the double and probably wet myself while waiting for my largest telephone number of the year. Also sorry to your partner, but the fact that the one worst possible shape over 3♦ leaves you with no bid is not a good reason to not bid 3♦. I also force our side to play in a major sometimes with 5-5 after a 1NT opening even though partner can be 2-2.

[the hog]

kgr, on Jul 17 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

Free, on Jul 17 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

kgr, on Jul 17 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

Partner certainly has not both minors (then he would have started with a pass?) and therefor opps have a good fit in one of the minors. It doesn't feel like we should defend here and the first pass doesn't feel right to me.
Do passers think that defending 3m DBL'ed will be the Par score or do they think it will be the best 'table score'?

Partner can have both minors, why not? His first Dbl tells us he wants to play at least 1 minor suit contract doubled at 3-level. Now it's a VERY clear penalty Double imo, otherwise he would've bid 3♦ to let us bid again.

After:
1♥-(2NT)-DBL-(3♣)
??
Partner says that he has a penalty for one minor and not for both. Because with both he would have passed and DBL'ed later. Therefor I don't really like to pass here.

Well I certainly don't play this. Partner said he could x AT LEAST one of their minors. This is a penalty x and I will certainly pass.

[kgr]

helene_t, on Jul 17 2010, 09:24 PM, said:

Never heard kgr's theory (which is shared by responder on this hand) that the first double denied length in both minors. Agree with campboy.

That is not my theory, but a constraint in the OP:

Quote

Your agreements are that had he passed 2N and now doubled, he has them beat in both minors. His double of 2N invited you to double, promising good defence against one minor. Maybe you should have more detailed agreements, but you don't. Partner is an expert

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jul 18 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

After this hand, I am now more inclined to Gnasher's view, that opener should be doubling with all (otherwise suitable) hands with any 3 clubs and maybe Hx.

On reflection, I think opener should promise three cards with his double. Somebody has to promise three - you don't really want to be doubling them in a 9-card fit that is breaking 2-2.

Quote

This makes it important for responder, when doubling the first time, to have some modest length in the minor in which he is not loaded. but I think that is usually how it is played.

That wouldn't have to be be a requirement for doubling 2NT. With shortage in one minor, responder could double 2NT and then pull his partner's double.

However, I can't see that being a common problem anyway - with 1=5 in the minors you have either heart support or five spades, so in practice you'll almost always have at least a doubleton in the other minor.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

Your agreements are that had he passed 2N and now doubled, he has them beat in both minors.

I don't understand the criticism of this method. I don't have any particularly good use for pass followed by double; using it as pure penalties seems reasonable, and helps to add definition to an immediate double of 2NT.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

When discussing this hand after the event (opener passed, unsuccessfully) the doubler argued that:

(...)

Any thoughts? The partnership would like to resolve this question:)

I can volunteer this.

Agree with gnasher that this is a situation where you probably can't cater for all penalty possibilities at the same time. Thus, it's perhaps best to keep it simple. And your agreements are simple, so you should be able to solve this adequately, though maybe not optimally.

I would see this as:

Dbl = "I can axe them in one of the suits."
Pass to 3♣ = "well, I sure can't axe them in clubs."

Then resp can think along these lines: "If you can't axe them in clubs, they've found their best suit. I'd like to make an optional double, in case you got some left-over clubs but I can't. So that leaves me with bidding 3♦, 3♥ or 3NT. Let me pick the one I think it's best."

Now that I think of it, I remember being once in a similar situation. I also doubled with something like pard's hand. Pard took me seriously and passed for an overtrick

Conclusion: I see your pard's point, but honestly he is trying to arguing/find a way to cater for all situations and I think that can't be done. Besides, the sort of reasoning he did to justify his double as optional is, in my opinion, pretty much irresponsible. At table you don't do that sort of thing. You avoid disasters and mudding the waters.

By the way, I'm familiar with your system of (dbl = pen in one, pass+dbl = pen in both), but I see a minor flaw of it. If advancer sees RHO in his side of the curtain salivating in

1M 2NT pass

he might very well consider passing as well.

[mich-b]

gnasher, on Jul 17 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 17 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

When discussing this hand after the event (opener passed, unsuccessfully) the doubler argued that:
...
Any thoughts? The partnership would like to resolve this question:)

At the point that they bid 3♣, there are three categories of layout where you might want to penalise them:
(1) Responder has trump length
(2) Opener has trump length
(3) Nobody has real trump length, but you both have defensive hands
If, for example, they're in an eight-card fit, our trumps mught be 1=4, 4=1 or (3-2).

Unfortuately you can cater for only two of these layouts.

As I understand it, your responder thinks (1) will never happen, or only very rarely, so he wants to be able to cater only for (2) and (3). To me, that seems, to put it mildly, illconsidered.

The layout where you most want to defend is (1). Because opener is known to have five cards in the major that he opened, (1) is also either the most likely or the second most likely. Therefore it seems clear that (1) should be one of the two layouts that you cater for. That's a long-winded way to reach the conclusion that responder should be able to double for penalties.

Which other layout should you cater for? (3) will occur more often than (2), but (2) is probably worth a bit more when it happens. I'd go for frequency of gain over magnitude, but there's not much in it.

So, I would play:
- Opener's double = a defensive hand with 3+ trumps (or occasionally 2).
- Opener's pass = less defensive than that
- Responder's double = penalties

The only thing I have to add is that the situation where "Opener has the trump length" and trumps are 1-4, is unlikely also because with shortage in their suit , responder would be very likely to have supported opener's suit (♥) , or had length in ♠s , in both cases making a non-double on the 1st round.