[HighLow21]

mike777, on 2012-March-14, 03:18, said:

Everything depends on system here.



NO you miss the entire message of the book...


You dont lose based on your system.

Mike, WYLAB had no discussion whatsoever about responsive doubles, which is what the first and second paragraphs of my response are about. In fact those paragraphs are kind of a polemic against them, which I am sure SJ Simon would enjoy, because he was very much a believer in natural bidding and bidding what one can make, and about the use of doubles in this spot as at least a suggestion, if not a mandate, to partner.

And with respect to system, SJ Simon's quote about it is effectively that he doesn't much care what system you play, only that you prefer a bad system you play well over a good system you play poorly. WYLAB is about judgment on a number of different fronts. System and judgment are nearly independent of one another.

I never said that one wins or loses based on system. I said you cannot double here if your system includes responsive doubles. Big difference.

[HighLow21]

bftboy, on 2012-March-14, 20:36, said:

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

I would have to see the full hand, but I cannot imagine how your partner can make 4♦ while your side cannot defeat 3♥ by at least two tricks. It is obvious on the auction that every single suit for the opponents is going to break badly if they declare it. EVEN IF AQT♥ is to your left.

[JLOGIC]

bftboy, on 2012-March-14, 20:36, said:

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

You are definitely resulting yourself. If you play penalty doubles, then you should double.

[P_Marlowe]

bftboy, on 2012-March-14, 20:36, said:

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

If he is 6-5 he is allowed to show it, and in fact he should.
And of course, it may have even be better, if he had started to bid his suits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

I actually *like* Simon's "proposal to partner" doubles. I just like the modern, conventional meanings of doubles more.

I've played "proposal to partner" doubles, in real partnerships (well, some, anyway), and when they work, boy do they work. Also, if it happens to be a long match, boy do we get a lot more free rein in our bidding after we catch them for 5 or 800 in 2 of "our" suit. But in Negative, Responsive, and other cases (but, in my opinion, not "extended Responsive", i.e. 1m-X-1M-X) the other meaning comes up so much more often that it's not worth it. But when I don't need conventional double X, and Simon would have played it as "proposal to partner", so do I.

[Codo]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-15, 01:56, said:

If he is 6-5 he is allowed to show it, and in fact he should.
And of course, it may have even be better, if he had started to bid his suits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

He has at most 2 spades, else he would have raised us at some point, he surely has around zero hearts, so with the rule of 13 cards, he should have around 11 minor cards. He had not shown them, but we did see them anyway.

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on 2012-March-16, 01:59, said:

He has at most 2 spades, else he would have raised us at some point, he surely has around zero hearts, so with the rule of 13 cards, he should have around 11 minor cards. He had not shown them, but we did see them anyway.

Sure, but ... does partner know, that we can deduct his 65 holding,
so that he knowes, that we know? I am pretty sure, he cant know this.

Nevertheless - It was a good sequence to ask my partner, we disagreed
on the meaning of the a double after 3H, but agreed, that with 65 partner
should not have made a neg. double in the first place.

With kind regards
Marlowe