[cherdano]

ceeb, on 2011-January-26, 10:38, said:

What does partner do to punish West -- who incidentally is begging for trouble -- for being out of line? (I'm presuming that your agreement with MFA extends to agreeing that pass would not be forcing.) Partner is unlimited and could have a huge hand with a slew of hearts. Does West have a license to steal?

West is already getting punished. He gave partner a chance to define his hand very well by bidding 2♠, then doubling. Meanwhile, opener also described his hand much better.

[ceeb]

han, on 2011-January-26, 11:12, said:

I probably play takeout doubles in many situations where you play penalty doubles. This will cause me to miss an occasional big penalty in exchange for greater flexibility and clarity on a (far?) larger number of hands. It mostly is a matter of partnership agreement.

I realize that thoughtful modern pairs have reasonably well-defined rules for when a double is takeout, and that a side-effect of having unambiguous and reasonably simple rules is that a few (hopefully obscure) situations will slip through the cracks. That's life. So I accept that even if we agreed 100% that this particular double should ideally be penalty, it wouldn't follow that our shared opinion would make it penalty at the table or even that you should necessarily make your double-rules more complicated in order to cater to this situation in the future.

But it does seem odd to me. If this double by an unlimited hand when a pass wouldn't be forcing, over a rebid by an unsupported overcaller/preemptor, isn't penalty, what is?

Quote

I don't find your simplistic Does West have a license to steal? very convincing, are you related to pooltuna?

I debated whether I was engaging in hyperbole when I was composing but after reflection I decided the words are justified. I grant that West hasn't a license to preempt and then rebid on ♥Jxxx. But what West apparently can do, having gotten away with 2♥ on whatever and detecting that LHO has a powerful hand, is to rebid the ♥ with impunity. My use of "license to steal" is comparable to the typical bridge use of the phrase.

[gnasher]

West's 3♥ bid hasn't stolen anything from us: we have all of the space that we would have had if he had passed. We could, if we chose to, play a double as any hand that would have cue-bid 3♥, and 4♥ as a splinter.

[Phil]

I've come around to the idea that 4♥ isn't a COG. Partner should double 3♥ with many flexible hands that are unsure about strain. So, at a (second) look, partner has spades or diamonds, but not both.

I'm also wondering about 4♣, but this seems to be a search for strain since we are in a stressed auction. Yet, hands that are looking for clubs can double. What about 4♣ as a flag for diamonds and 4♥ a flag for spades?

I am now really bullish on slam. I can't tell how useful my diamonds are, but its easy to see how this is a magical minimum.

5♠ should look for the heart card. That's my call.

[ceeb]

ceeb said:

What does partner do to punish West -- who incidentally is begging for trouble -- for being out of line?

cherdano, on 2011-January-26, 12:04, said:

West is already getting punished. He gave partner a chance to define his hand very well by bidding 2♠, then doubling. Meanwhile, opener also described his hand much better.

I'll try to refine my blood lust.

[ceeb]

gnasher, on 2011-January-26, 12:55, said:

West's 3♥ bid hasn't stolen anything from us: we have all of the space that we would have had if he had passed. We could, if we chose to, play a double as any hand that would have cue-bid 3♥, and 4♥ as a splinter.

You're right but what if ♣ and ♦ were exchanged, or if West bid 4♥?

Seriously, I'm really curious what the rules about meanings of doubles look like. I hope they are not vague.

[peachy]

4S. It does not mean we necessarily will play in 4S but I should at least show partner the Kx whether he was on a path to diamond slam or to spade slam.

[y66]

4S showing SA or SK and some slam interest.

I think 4H agrees diamonds and asks about slam.

[gnasher]

ceeb, on 2011-January-27, 08:46, said:

Seriously, I'm really curious what the rules about meanings of doubles look like. I hope they are not vague.

I have one partnership where the meanings of doubles are well defined. That partnership has a rule "Penalties ... if partner has shown a defined one-suiter". That would apply here.

I have another partnership where the section about meanings of doubles reads, in its entirety, "To be discussed". In that partnership double would be takeout-oriented, because it's "obvious" that it needs to be.

In the first partnership, the rule is not well thought-out - it was intended to cater for low-level sequences where there is room for a cue-bid on a game-forcing hand, but was written in a way that made it too general. Sometimes vagueness can be a good thing.

[han]

ceeb, on 2011-January-26, 12:27, said:

If this double by an unlimited hand when a pass wouldn't be forcing, over a rebid by an unsupported overcaller/preemptor, isn't penalty, what is?

First of all, the fact that partner is unlimited and pass is not forcing is not a reason to play penalty doubles. On the contrary, these are reasons to play takeout doubles.

Few people play penalty doubles after a simple overcall, even though they are unlimited and their pass is not forcing. However, if the opponents come in after a 2/1 auction, double is often played as penalty. The same is true after 1NT - Dbl* - Rdbl, where redouble shows a good hand and forces the auction to 2NT. If the opponents bid, it is possible to play takeout doubles but many play penalty doubles. However, after (1NT = 12-14) - Dbl - (2H) most do not play forcing passes and then it makes more sense to play takeout doubles.

Having limited yourself also makes it more likely that double is penalty. If we pass partner's 2S but the opponents balance, double is penalty. Why play takeout doubles when we have already found our fit and have no interest in bidding game?

In the auction 1H - (P) - 1NT - (3D) - p - p - Dbl, I would argue the double needs to be a penalty double. The 1NT bidder has limited himself not only in terms of point count, but also by denying 4 spades or 3 hearts. While it is possible that one could come up with a hand where responder might want to make a takeout double, a penalty double must be more common and useful.

After (1S) - p - (1NT) - p - (2S) I think that double should be played as penalty. By passing initially we have limited the hands we could have. Penalty will both be more common and more useful here.

Your final point is that the opponents have shown that they have no clue by first bidding 2H and then 3H. I don't see this as a good reason to play penalty doubles. In my experience, people who bid like this often have more hearts than you would expect, not fewer. In terms of defining rules this is also messy, should double be penalty when it is obvious that the opponents are bad, or only when they make a really stupid bid? I'd rather define my doubles in terms of what we have shown or denied.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2011-January-28, 03:59, said:

I have one partnership where the meanings of doubles are well defined. That partnership has a rule "Penalties ... if partner has shown a defined one-suiter". That would apply here.

I also have this rule, and would also play double as penalties here. This is the same reason as we play double as penalties after partner has pre-empted: there's no need for a take-out double if partner already has a well-defined hand.

Even if I agreed that double was take-out, would partner do it on a singleton heart very often? What's he expected me to do on a minimum hand with spade shortage other than pass?

I think it's close between 4S and 5S.

[gszeszycki]

Playing 2/1

I am very concerned that some bidding 4s thought it showed slam interest. What was opener supposed to do with
a hand similar to say Kx Qx Axxxxx Kxx? They have been virtually forced into bidding 4s to try and put the
brakes on an auction that sounds out of control. Those that bid 4S as a sign off at least realize they are
showing honor x in spades and offering to play there if p is happy. I disagree with the 4S bid because I feel it
is too weak of an action.

The first thing to consider is what were P options over 3h??

Pass - it is forcing and should show a hand with no clear direction
something similar to AQxxx xxx xx AKx also many hands with 18+.

double - desire to penalize opps and no strong reason to prefer 3n (due to vulnerability etc.)
something similar to AQJxx KJx Q xxxx

3s at least 6 decent spades (none of this Kxxxxx stuff) tends to be max of around 16 (stronger can pass and pull)

3n simlar to double but having both clubs and hearts stopped and vulnerability makes penalty less desireable.

4c forcing showing fairly radical distribution similar to AQJxx xx x AQJxx

4d just enough to raise your dia and unable to bid 3n (non forcing something like AQxxx xx Qxx KQx)

4h either independent spade suit or a hand with dia support extra values (16-17 range with stronger pass
first) and short in hearts.

If we follow this line of thinking no matter what kind of hand P has our minimum has become much better
and we need to cue bid to show this to p


BID 5C

[gnasher]

gszeszycki, at what point do you think this sequence became game-forcing?

[mtvesuvius]

Partner's actual hand was:

I chose 4♠, which did make 6 when diamonds were 2-2, however I am not really concerned about the result, I really did feel that I had the perfect hand for him, and that if there was any time I could make a move, this hand would qualify. I asked partner what he meant 4♥ as the other day, he said choice of games with mild SI. I think this is a textbook hand for that type of bid, and agree with 4♥ -- Thoughts?

---

[gnasher]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-02, 17:21, said:

I asked partner what he meant 4♥ as the other day, he said choice of games with mild SI.

Did he say what he'd do with choice of games and no slam-interest?

[mtvesuvius]

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 17:36, said:

Did he say what he'd do with choice of games and no slam-interest?

Nope, will ask him lol