[vedran]

i think its easy double, i have the perfect distibution.

[luke warm]

Double !, on May 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

It's not clear to me without prior discussion that Dbl shows 4 hearts as opposed to just a good hand.

it doesn't necessarily show 4 hearts... it does show short diamonds and a willingness to play wherever partner wants (even in 2♦ x'd)... iow, it gives partner a say

having said that, 2♥ is certainly possible, as i'm sure the panel will point out... or maybe they'll all bid 2♥ and say double is possible... who knows?

[inquiry]

luke warm, on May 16 2005, 09:43 PM, said:

or maybe they'll all bid 2♥ and say double is possible... who knows?

I know....

[luke warm]

hahahahahahaha... i came *this* close to saying that!!

[Double !]

I suspect that Mr. Benniest plans to torment us all by telling us that he knows the panel's answers and isn't going to tell anyone until the last possible moment!

Golf, anyone?

[inquiry]

Double !, on May 16 2005, 10:09 PM, said:

I suspect that Mr. Benniest plans to torment us all by telling us that he knows the panel's answers and isn't going to tell anyone until the last possible moment!

Golf, anyone?

Yes, i have the panel votes (and no, i didn't come close to a perfect score myself). As last time in a little while i will post the panel's answers to the questions, one question at a time, roughly (or is it ruff-ly) two a day when I start posting. Maybe a little slower because the panel disagrees a good bit as well on these. The first one i will post is 002A, so be sure to express your views on that one if you haven't so far...

Ben

[Double !]

I expressed my views on 002-A and my wife tried to wash my mouth out with soap and water!!!

[pclayton]

2♥. Would prefer weaker hearts (or only 3) for a TO X.

Have honestly never discussed the nuances of 2♥ vs dbl with my pard.

[jillybean]

luke warm, on May 16 2005, 12:24 PM, said:

jillybean2, on May 16 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

2♥, it describes my hand. I don’t want my partner to come back with ♣ if I double.

i have a feeling you will get a lot of support, kat... but this *is* imps... what if partner is 2236 or something? 3♣ might not be a bad spot

heh when I learn the difference in bidding imps vs. mp, I may change my bid!

[joker_gib]

2♥

[flytoox]

Walddk, on May 16 2005, 11:46 PM, said:

I subscribe to the following rule that has served me well during my long career:

Double of low level contracts are for take-out, unless preceded by redouble, or if it's obvious that the opponents have a misfit.

Accordingly, double of 2♦ is for take-out, because nothing of the above is clear (no redouble earlier, and not obvious that they have a misfit). But that doesn't necessarily mean that I think double is best.

You will see when Ben posts the panel's view.

Roland

Hehe, Roland, perhaps you can ask Lawrence another question, is dbl here t/o or penalty. I guess he would say penalty.


You are stting behind. They didnt show an obvious fit. If you play it as t/o and pd convert it to penalty, you wont get rich. On the other hand, if you have a penalty hand, simply pass and pd will balance with a dbl.

My vote here is 2H, concentrated strength. I would bid 2H without interference. So why should I change my bid if it didnt cause any inconvinence?

[Pipo]

2♥

I don't like DBL, because it may lead to 3♣ in a 4-3 fit, when 2♥ in a 4-3 fit or 2♠ in a 5-2 fit may be better.

Maybe DBL should show 5=3=1=4.

[Gerben42]

2♥. Showing my values rather than doubling.

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

I show were I live.


Double would be penalty
in the classical sense, partner made a
positive noice, also I am sitting above
the guy.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[HeartA]

2H. H was too good to be ignored.

[Rebound]

Although I somehow managed to neglect to submit my answers, I did record them before the contest closed. I now have mixed feelings. In a way I can't wait to see the panelists' answers Edit: As I was posting this Ben was posting some of the answers and I read the threads out of order :-) because, with the exception of this hand, where I voted for 2♥ (which at least has the virtue of many votes, judging by the responses in this thread), I seem to be off on the other hands in this set so I'm hoping I got this one right lol. (OT - Ben - any way to get my overall rank in round 1 just for curiosity's sake?)
<snip>
<snip>
Anyway, about double - I don't like it because I have no strength in the club suit. I tend to avoid doubling for takout if all my strength is concentrated in my two longest suits. Seems to me that argues in favor of just naturally bidding the two suits you'd like to play in. If partner still wants to bid clubs you have no worry you'll end up playing with xxx opposite jxxxx in clubs when you'd be better off in a 7-card major suit fit. The way my brain has been working lately I may be off in left field with this post (if so, apologies for wasting your time), but it's the way I see it now anyway :-)

This post has been edited by Rebound: 2005-May-18, 06:00

[luke warm]

jillybean2, on May 17 2005, 12:06 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 16 2005, 12:24 PM, said:

jillybean2, on May 16 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

2♥, it describes my hand. I don’t want my partner to come back with ♣ if I double.

i have a feeling you will get a lot of support, kat... but this *is* imps... what if partner is 2236 or something? 3♣ might not be a bad spot

heh when I learn the difference in bidding imps vs. mp, I may change my bid!

you aren't alone (i put myself in that group that could use a little strategy session)... as i'm sure most will agree, there's a huge difference between successful matchpoint play and successful imp play... at matchpoints one tends to bid (and play) in ways that might make one gag at imps

[beatrix45]

Thx for the problem. I still play the old fashioned way, so I am an outsider in this debate, except I am about to convert to the new style. Were I playing the new style, I'm afraid I would still bid 2♥ because it feels so right. Analytically, the case against 2♥ is that we miss a possible penalty pass of 2♦ doubled, and that in a 4-3 2♥ contract we will take the tap in the long hand. This only matters on hands where the spade suit is a source of tricks.

I do have several questions about playing the new style.

1) Is a 5-3-1-4 pattern OK for a double?

2) Does the partner of the doubler play her pass out seat double as card showing? As in the auction:

1♠ - P - 1NT - 2♦
P - P - dbl

3) As an alternative to the pattern showing double, is there any merit to playing the double as card showing as in:

1♠ - P - 1NT - 2♦
dbl??

with a balanced or semi-balanced hand with extras like:

AJ1053
A4
K97
KQ5

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-002E
Thanks to jimmy (luke warm) for this problem
S----------W----------N----------E
1♠............P...........1NT............2♦
? your bid

---

This problem was suggested by Luke warm, who wondered if the panel would bid the obvious 2♥, or if they would use the double as takeout. So this raises a couple issues, would the panel consider double as takeout? The answer for the most part seems to be “yes”, but some worried that it might be takeout (as you will see in the replies below). But even if double is takeout, the majority of the panel went for the obvious 2♥. There was an intersting discussion that double should show four clubs and 3 hearts, and with four hearts (like this hand) ust bid them.

Two hearts will work out poorly on a horrible misfit where your partner has the minors and the opponent stepped in inappropriately with a risky 2♦ bid. Reisig wanted a change to make them pay if that was the case, while keeping 2♥ in play as a contract, so he picked “Double which = good hand and take-out (usually short in their suit). Partner may have other ideas.”

Gabor agreed with double, saying (Ng) “ Takeout Dbl. Which compared to 2♥, gives partner more choices. Second advantage: if partner has hearts, would be better to play from her side because of East’s opening lead. If partner has clubs, there will be no problem also. If partner will pass, she knows why, I have a good opening lead:) ”

Wayne speaks from experience, when he says the double here is best used as takeout. (Cascade “ Dbl Takeout. Maybe in some partnerships this is penalties - I have played that way in the past. In that case I would bid 2♥. A takeout double though here is the most flexible preserving all denominations.”

Walddk: ”2H. What's the problem, I think many will say. I had a 2H rebid with no interference, and the 2D overcall hasn't changed anything. Play natural bridge if at all possible. 2H doesn't even promise extras as I play it, but even if it does, I have plenty. I expect a unanimous vote on this one.” Well, another prediction bites the dust. And interestingly in an earlier post in this thread, Roland admits that 2♥ double would be for takeout (4 out of 4 panelist so far think double is takeout).

Luis: “2H: I'm trying hard to find an option but can't find one. Is this a problem? Not to everyone.

Phicro: “2♥ : even if the double is for take-out (which is probably standard now) it's better, in my opinion, to bid naturally with 4 hearts, and to reserve X for unbiddable hands (f.i. S AQ10xx, H AJx, D xx, C Axx). A point to emphasize: we don't open 1NT, in France, with 5 cards majors...”. I guess Phillipe emphasized this, because we do open 1NT with five card majors in many other parts of the world.

Jlall: “2H: I like to play X as takeout here. Will my expert partner take it that way without an agreement? Who knows. My hearts are much better than my clubs anyways, so there is no need to risk an accident when I can make a natural descriptive bid. 2♥ does not show anything extra even though it's a free-bid.” Justin prefers double to be takeout but makes the pragmatic bid. But let’s call him a fifth panelist who likes double as takeout.

Ritong bid 2 hearts, explaining that for him double would be takeout, but that he “doubles with 5314.

Fluffy “2♥, we surely play double here as take out, but anyway 2♥ is the proper bid.

awm, “2♥. I'd love to make a takeout double here, and wouldn't be surprised to see it receive some votes from the panel. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that in standard bidding a double would be penalty, and I'm assuming we should select bids based on what we think is standard and not based on our preferred agreements with regular partners. Might be something worth a vote.”

So counting awm, eight of the panelist preferred or thought double was takeout. Two were worried that their partner might not understand the double. Fred who didn't comment, so we don't know how he plays the double. But at least we have the majority of the panel thinking double WOULD be or SHOULD be takeout. So I think we need to make this clear in the BBO=Advanced notes here that this kind of double is takeout in this position. The expert panelist consensus here is that double would be takeout, but feel free to share your views on this issue.

VOTES  Panel  Score
2♥        8      100
dbl       3       50
Pass       0      0

[hrothgar]

Please explain a scoring system in which 3NT is rated higher that double...