[mikeh]

Scoring: MP

You open 1♥, LHO bids 2N, partner doubles, and RHO bids 3♣.

1. Do you make a call other than pass?

2. If you pass and partner reopens with a double, what do you do and why?

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

---

[Furlan]

Pass and pass.
Partner has 3♦ available for "takeout", so X sounds like 100% penalty and I don't see any good reason to pull... on IMPs would think a bit but still pass.

[JLOGIC]

I pass and pass and collect a big number!

[Free]

P P

[kgr]

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'?

[Free]

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.

[kgr]

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.

[mikeh]

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

1. with both minors and a strong desire to defend, he would have passed initially then doubled

2. opener should assume that the opps have found their best fit...admittedly, when they bid clubs it is possible they are equal (ignoring 6-5 hands for the 2N bidder)..it is clearer that they are in their best fit if they bid 3♦

3. When opener is short in both minors, he should infer that partner is stronger in the other...see (2)

4. But the double of 2N invited a double of 3♣ if opener held a good holding there, so responder has some tolerance for the minor he is not loaded in

5. If, for example, clubs are 3-2 or 2-3, then opener's side wants to defend a doubled contract, especially when responder is loaded in diamonds....see (2)

6. If double is now pure penalty, responder cannot double with 2 or 3 clubs. So must do what? Assume 4=2=4=3 or 4=2=5=2...heck give him Qxxx Jx KQ97x Ax...which is what he held...passing is out....the double of 2N established a force. 3♦ as takeout sounds ok until you realize that opener will sometimes be 3=5=2=3 on this auction and all suits are breaking poorly....so takeout to where?

7. Thus, so argued responder, double should be optional.

8. This generated the reply that opener would be inclined to double 3♣ with a 3 card holding, inferring that responder was loaded in diamonds and had tolerance for defending clubs...see (2). Thus when opener did not double, he was marked with short clubs and hence, probably, 6 hearts or 4 spades and a 3♦ takeout would find an 8 card fit.

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

[Siegmund]

Especially at this vulnerability I am surprised to see anyone passing as opener. (In light of the agreement that responder can penalize only one minor.) 3H is the knee-jerk-reaction rebid, but I think a natural 3S or an I-have-a-big-hand-for-the-majors 4C might be better.

[campboy]

I don't see the point in playing that you pass initially if you have a double of either minor; partner will often be forced to bid in front of you if you do because he can't make a forcing pass.

[helene_t]

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.

So the double is penalty and I would expect responder to have four clubs. Maybe some hands with 3 clubs would double also. Anyway, opener is expected to pass with a doubleton clubs. A singleton honour probably also but here he has has a doubleton diamonds so I don't think pass is clear. My first inclination was to bid an immediate 3♦, hoping responder would take it a 4-6 majors. But pass is certainly reasonable. I don't think pass would be forcing, hence pass followed by 3♦ would show a weaker hand.

[Mbodell]

Yeah, I play a pass over 2nt and then double of a minor shows I have a penalty of this 1 minor, and a double of 2nt shows that I have at minimum some defense against either minor, so I can help out if partner wants to make an optional type double.

[nigel_k]

The odds favour responder having most of the partnership's minor suit cards so it just seems better that opener doubles if he has some help in their suit and responder doubles when he has really got them.

Sure, responder can pass then double when he wants to defend regardless, but on the given hand, why can't responder have e.g.

Axxx
xx
Qxx
KJxx

[aguahombre]

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.

[whereagles]

Apparently opps have diamonds, so they seem to have landed in the wrong minor. Pass for now. If they pull to diamonds, bid 3♥.

[hanp]

I don't like the optional doubles here. Playing penalty doubles you miss out on some penalties when opener has Jxx and responder has Kx... but then it isn't down yet. Playing penalty doubles you win when responder has xx and opener has 4 clubs or 3 really good ones. Playing optional doubles responder would have to guess whether to sit or not. Life gets easier playing penalty doubles.

Playing penalty doubles life is also easy with the current hand. Pass and pass if partner has a penalty double of clubs. If partner does not have a penalty double of diamonds, you'll be able to stir the partnership into a major suit game.

[gnasher]

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

[helene_t]

hanp, on Jul 17 2010, 11:25 PM, said:

I don't like the optional doubles here. Playing penalty doubles you miss out on some penalties when opener has Jxx and responder has Kx... but then it isn't down yet. Playing penalty doubles you win when responder has xx and opener has 4 clubs or 3 really good ones. Playing optional doubles responder would have to guess whether to sit or not. Life gets easier playing penalty doubles.

I think in general it's best to play optional doubles when we are in an FP situation because if we have 3+2 enemy trumps we might get too high if we don't opt for defending doubled as we probably have two losers in their suit.

OTOH if we are not in an FP, it may be better not to play optional doubles as we may not be able to beat them when their trumps split nicely for them. So with 3+2 in their suit we may defend undoubled. With 4+1 we may defend doubled by the one who has 4 (if double is penalty) or the one who has 1 (if double is t/o).

[aguahombre]

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

[jjbrr]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

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

1. with both minors and a strong desire to defend, he would have passed initially then doubled

i lol'd