[Cyberyeti]

---

Teams of 4, I'm unsure of the actual vulnerability and small spots, 1♦ was 4+ cards, X was pens.

Do you take any action and does it matter if you play penalty or takeout doubles of 2♥ ?

Edit: you are green, they are red

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 11:19, said:

---

Teams of 4, I'm unsure of the actual vulnerability and small spots, 1♦ was 4+ cards, X was pens.

Do you take any action and does it matter if you play penalty or takeout doubles of 2♥ ?

I would pass unless by agreement pd's pass over 2♥ was forcing. I have no reason to believe they/we have a fit. I dont feel more comfortable to play at 3 level than defending 2♥ undoubled.

It of course matters if we play neg doubles from both sides, (thats what i meant if pd's pass over 2♥ was forcing) then pd's DBL would be negative too and with a penalty double he would have to pass and wait us to dbl. If thats the agreement then i think i have to DBL now.

[bluecalm]

If I play t/o double here (which I hope I do) I double because partner might have heart stack and very strong hand.
Regardless, I think his pass is forcing and i need to bid something. This something will be probably 2N.

Quote

I would pass unless by agreement pd's pass over 2♥ was forcing.

I don't get it.
Partner made penalty double so we should try to get them. The way to get them is mainly to double them with trump stack behind their trump length. If we are to achieve that partner should always pass with balanced hand without having trump stack hoping we do have it. As he will do that with any strength (the stronger hand the better !) we shouldn't pass ever.

[gnasher]

I think partner's pass is forcing. If we play takeout doubles, I double. If we play penalty doubles, I bid 2NT.

[aguahombre]

If I played Takeout doubles after having made a penalty double, I would expect the men in white coats to be coming for me.

The only question is whether the double of 1NT set a force thru the two-level. We believe it does, so we must bid 2NT to scramble for a minor fit. A double of 2H by either of us would have been penalty.

[Cyberyeti]

At the table, I know the passes over 2♦ and 2♥ were not alerted. So I suspect no forcing passes existed but am trying to clarify. This is a directorial thing with MI, but in the post mortem the NOS said they'd do something that probably worked but I don't think is remotely sane so am checking.

[MrAce]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-19, 11:31, said:

I don't get it.
Partner made penalty double so we should try to get them. The way to get them is mainly to double them with trump stack behind their trump length. If we are to achieve that partner should always pass with balanced hand without having trump stack hoping we do have it. As he will do that with any strength (the stronger hand the better !) we shouldn't pass ever.

Simple, if u dont play neg doubles after u already double 1 NT and showed interest in punishing them, then pd doesnt have it, neither do you. Then it becomes a choice of partscore competition decision, shall we let them play or shall we compete more.

Also what u said is totally a mystery to me, first u said "I hope we play neg dbl" and then u said "pd maybe passing with balance hand with the hope that we do have a trump stack". And what will happen if i do have stack since you want this double to be negative ?

And you are overestimating the strength of 1NT DBL. Pd can not possibly have a hand that is forcing in strength wise. He at most will have 12 hcp, but usually arround 9-10 hcp. ( if we assume opener has minimum 12 and NT bidder has minimum of 16 =28 ) Thus putting the minimum opener hands into a forcing auction just because of DBL of 1 NT needs agreement, it is not like your side is overwhelmingly strong for 2 level penalties. In average the split will be arround 22 vs 18.

EDIT: Over 2♥ if i am doubler of 1NT (responder), i would just bid game with all 11-12 hcp hands and good spot cards. I know pd has about 12 hcp but we will play this hand double dummy and i have the spots, defense has no communication and their long suit is in weak hand, i would just pass all 9-10 hcps if i dont have penalty double and would dbl them if i have one. Or i would just simply make a competitive bid over 2♥. All this neg double suggestions make me nothing but dizzy and i dont even see the upside for it. Imo it is best to straight forward DBL them when we started with DBL of 1NT.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 12:41, said:

At the table, I know the passes over 2♦ and 2♥ were not alerted. So I suspect no forcing passes existed but am trying to clarify. This is a directorial thing with MI, but in the post mortem the NOS said they'd do something that probably worked but I don't think is remotely sane so am checking.

I don't know about over there, but in a sane world when we double for penalty, it sets in motion a cooperative doubling situation when they run to another strain. In that same sane world the person who doubled 1NT had enough strength to suggest it is our hand. Failing to double diamonds (artificially bid) or hearts states the player did not have extra diamond length above what was already shown...and lack of desire to defend 2H.

Why would alerts even be considered? And common sense would say that if we don't want to double them, we should bid ourselves when it is our hand.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-19, 13:31, said:

I don't know about over there, but in a sane world when we double for penalty, it sets in motion a cooperative doubling situation when they run to another strain. In that same sane world the person who doubled 1NT had enough strength to suggest it is our hand. Failing to double diamonds (artificially bid) or hearts states the player did not have extra diamond length above what was already shown...and lack of desire to defend 2H.

Why would alerts even be considered? And common sense would say that if we don't want to double them, we should bid ourselves when it is our hand.

Low level forcing passes are generally alertable here in England.

Having clarified, X directly over 2♥ would be penalties, X in the passout seat would be takeout, but more or less guarantee 4 spades. The initial double was apparently 9+ so there's no guarantee you have a fit or much more than half the deck (it's pretty ugly opposite a 4333 9 count).

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 13:39, said:

Having clarified, X directly over 2♥ would be penalties, X in the passout seat would be takeout, but more or less guarantee 4 spades. The initial double was apparently 9+ so there's no guarantee you have a fit or much more than half the deck (it's pretty ugly opposite a 4333 9 count).

This is unplayable.

If u make one person's DBL penalty and the other one's negative, how will you get a penalty double when opener has 4 good ♥ ? And there will be times vulnerability will make it very attractive.

No need to mention, when opener has 4♥ he is actually behind the long ♥ suit, this is when u actually want to DBL them, but people make comments as if it is other way arround which escapes me.

I know declarer may have the honor(s) but he wont really enjoy them much without shortening the dummy's trumps by ruffing for entry, and thats only if dummy has any early ruffs.

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2012-February-19, 14:02, said:

This is unplayable.

If u make one person's DBL penalty and the other one's negative, how will you get a penalty double when opener has 4 good ♥ ? And there will be times vulnerability will make it very attractive.

No need to mention, when opener has 4♥ he is actually behind the long ♥ suit, this is when u actually want to DBL them, but people make comments as if it is other way arround which escapes me.

I know declarer may have the honor(s) but he wont really enjoy them much without shortening the dummy's trumps by ruffing for entry, and thats only if dummy has any early ruffs.

Welcome to the nonsensical world of Norfolk bridge

I'm pleased to say I'm only involved in this as a member of an appeals committee and don't play this

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 13:39, said:

Low level forcing passes are generally alertable here in England.

Having clarified, X directly over 2♥ would be penalties, X in the passout seat would be takeout, but more or less guarantee 4 spades. The initial double was apparently 9+ so there's no guarantee you have a fit or much more than half the deck (it's pretty ugly opposite a 4333 9 count).

try the effect of not doubling 1nt with a 4-3-3-3 nine count.

[JLOGIC]

I definitely do not think doubling 1N sets up a force. It is very common to double with random 10 counts or 9 with a nice lead like KQT9x of clubs and an ace. Unless they are psyching a LOT of the time, I do not think you need a force, you never have slam and with game you can just make a bulky cuebid or jump in spades or jump in NT. Not perfect, but you don't usually have game either on just power.

Likewise I do not think doubling and bidding a suit is forcing. I do prefer to play takeout doubles after we double their 1N overcall and they bid, I think it's much better, but standard is obv penalty so I would pass.

[karlson]

Is it so obvious to double if you play it as takeout and pass non-forcing? This hand is really trashy, we could easily go minus in 2♠ or 3m, and partner is not all that likely to penalty pass in front of the hearts.

[whereagles]

Looks like a simple 2NT or 3C to me.

Pard's pass is forcing unless you have a specific agreement otherwise. It just says "I [have]/[don't have] a penalty dbl of 2H" [delete where appropriate].

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the X from p should generate a FP up to a certain level, and whatever level you agree on,
passing out 2H should bot be an option.
We play X as T/O, even in a FP seq, ... as long as the level is low, but default FP rule
would be to play a direct X as penalty.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pooltuna]

I make a DSIPX over ♥

[mikeh]

I don't think that we are in a forcing auction, for the reasons given by Justin. The double of 1N announced the expectation that, with the benefit of the opening lead, we will probably beat 1N: it didn't promise anything more than that.

Partner could have doubled 2♥ for penalty....while takeout might be better, I think penalty is standard. So partner MIGHT have a decent takeout of hearts.

But we have the world's worst possible hand on which to compete....Qx hearts, xxx in spades, 4-4 in our 'long suits', which would be trump only at the 3-level, and a minimum opening, with the strong likelihood that our diamond holding is now worth considerably less than it was when we opened.

We have no real equity in this hand to 'protect'.....it's not as if we expect to make 3minor all or indeed most of the time.

I would think our choices are double, suggesting we defend, 2♠ would be natural, presumably suggesting 5 diamonds, and 2N would be pick a minor, but pass makes more sense with this holding.

[FrancesHinden]

There's no real answer to the problem as posed.
If pass is forcing, I wouldn't pass. Whether it 'ought' to be forcing or not is a matter for partnership agreement. One possible agreement that pass is forcing after, say, 1D 1NT dbl 2H natural, but after 1D 1NT dbl 2D transfer, I double 2D to say that I have extras and want to set up a forcing pass, and pass it if I have a minimum and may be prepared to pass out 2H. That may be a more useful meaning of a double of 2D than one saying 'I meant it when I opened 1D'.

Similarly, it is very playable, arguably technically superior, and certainly the way I play, to play double as takeout in this auction.

It's not playable to have it as penalties over, take-out under as others have said. It is playable to have pass as non-forcing, and double as penalties over and cooperative under, but on this auction'over' is opener's hand, and 'under' is responder's hand.

So personally I play double as take-out and pass as forcing and I would double. If I played pass as non-forcing, I would pass whatever the meaning of double.

[nigel_k]

I agree with Mike and Justin. The double of 1NT should not create a force. This is just based on frequency.

Usually partner's double will be based on a hand where there is no game when we have a minimum opening bid. If he has the less common hand type where he expects game to make opposite this hand but doesn't have a penalty double, he needs to cue bid or just blast game. But I agree this is not very nice on the occasions when those hands do come up.

At IMPs I would just pass because I expect both sides making their part score is less likely than both sides not making.