OleBerg

Q, wtp?

Partner is going to be declarer! B)

Thank you all fpr your replies. I held the hand in a speedball tournament (4 boards in 13 minuttes), so I didn't consider it for a long time at the table. I struck gold: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak1082hq10743d6ck4&s=s753ha52dkqj4ca75]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] (Hearts came down for one loser, ♦A onside and spades couldn't be solved for zero losers.) Afterwards it seemed to me, that the trick would be to play in the suit, where partner is likely to control the third round, i.e. hold some low honours. (All this assuming you are willing to discard the 6-5 hands.) It also seemed, that partner would have to have a decent amount of HCP/Playing strength in the major-suits. I am not so strong in probabilety, but isn't it more likely that partner will have these low honours in hearts, rather than in spades, as he cannot have the ♥A? :genuinely bewildered: (Maybe the difference is insignificant?)

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s753ha52dkqj4ca75]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Uncontested bidding: 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - 4♥ ? 1NT was 12-14. Partner had a checkback option, so 4♥ is absolutely non-slammish. (And naturally promises at least 5-5.) I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit. Is the reasoning sound?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj72hq106d74ckqj3]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Unopposed bidding: 1♣ - 1♥ ? Hiddin continuation:

I respectfully do not understand how 10 HCP could be considered too few to advance with 1N in this auction. How light do you bid 1♠ with a five-card suit? (in a fairly balanced hand) I do not consider pass outrageous. My partners freely overcall on 9 HCP and a semi decent suit, so the opponents might hold the balance. Still they might also do that when I reply 1NT on 6 HCP, and my partner holds 11. So I would definately bid 1NT. Remove the jacks and intermidiates, and pass would be a LA. When partner bids 2♠, I fully concur with 3♦, and will respect a signoff in 3♠.

Ok, grand will be out in a serious partnership, and since it is from the premier league, that should be assured. I have no problem however, imagining players of slightly less merit bidding 4♠ with: ♠ Qxx ♥ xx ♦ AQxx ♣ Axxx with the reason: If all partner needs is two aces and the ♠Q, he will get them when he Blackwoods.

Result stands. The hesitation might as well have been caused by a consideration to bid 3NT. And even if it didn't, I wouldn't consider pass a LA. Grand might easily be laydown.

Distort? And the reason isn't to stop lower in clubs although that is nice too, it's to not miss hearts when LHO bids 2♠ or 3♠. Amen to this! In fact not doubling may be masterminding the hand. Well, still under the assumption that 2♦ is not forcing to game, but only 10+: If I double and bid 2♦, all my partners would expect me to hold less than 10 points, but very often 6 diamonds. But of course standards may vary from place to place. So if X followed by ♦ shows this hand, it will of course have more merit. Furthermore, I will have no qualms about doubling a 2♠-raise. (And if I start with a double, and it is followed by a 2♠ raise passed to me, both pass and 3♦ will be quite uncomfortable.) If LHO bids 3♠ and partner cannot double it is quite seldom that we miss 4♥. It might happen, but by not showing our potential for 3NT, we will miss that much more often. And we can throw in the diamond-partials and (the few) diamond games, that we will also miss. In fact, even if partner is strong, the diamond suit might be unmentioned, when 6♦ is laydown.

2♦, assuming it is not forcing to game. I will not distort my hand with a double, only for the sake of being able to stop in 2♣ instead of 3♣.

Just for those who haven't done the math: If you consider it 100% that the other table (IMP's) have bid and made 6nt, the needed odds are: NV: appr. 55% V: appr. 58% At MP's I'll leave it for yourself to figure out.

It is unfortunate if the slow pass had some of the same benefits of raising without the risk but I agree with the others that there should be no adjustment, The polling shows there is a demonstrable bridge reason for considering whether to pass or bid 3♠ so the requirements of 73F cannot be met. But what about 73D?

Constructed example, based on a real hand. Please treat all information as fact all participants have agreed on. At all white, MP's, the bidding goes. North East South West Pass - 2♠ - Pass - Pass* Pass * Significant huddle, at least 15 seconds. 2♠ showed 7-11, five spades. South held the mandatory 10 second break after two spades, and West huddled for another 15 seconds. North calls the director, and claims to have been mislead by the pause. He would have doubled, which would have yielded a better result. North has a hand that would fit a rough double. Upon inquiry east reveals he considered bidding 3♠ (competitive, non-invitational). When the hand is polled among a group of the same class of players as West, answers are split betweem two groups of equal size. One group would have passed, the other bid 3♠. (Under the same agreements.) Does Law 73F Apply: F. Violation of properties. When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. If not, how about law 73D1: D. Variations in tempo and manner. 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Adjustment?

3♠ seems to be the book-bid, but it wouldn't take much of a read on my opponents, to make it 4♠.

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -9.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

The description [for all conventions] that you need to provide the opponents includes: a. promised length [distinct from the range he is capable of] b. promised strength [distinct from the range he is capable of] c. specific cards promised [not applicable here?] d. interrogations/ responses to interrogations [not applicable here?] e. Instructions [takeout] On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading. The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding. I strongly object to that! A hand for the sequence might be: ♠ J109x ♥ x ♦ Q109xx ♣ 109x Now it might be stupid to want to make a take-out double with that hand, but calling it take-out is certainly not misleading. It would not be employed very often (a quick guess; 1 in a thousand boards for an overbidder like me), but the times I need a penalty double are even rarer. In my 20+ years of bridge I have never needed it, and seen it used less than 5 times. So that would be my reason for changing it. I definitely feel that T/O would have more merit than penalty. However, the advantages might diminish if the opponents considered the new possibilities that would become available. Hence, my worry about disclosure. I also feel however, that there are many things, akin to this, that you don't pre-disclose, and I am quite certain most people wouldn't even think of pre-disclosing such an agreement. Wouldn't be a problem. At low levels we only play two kinds of doubles of a natural bid suit; T/O or penalty. If you want to discuss this, it'll have to be in another thread, as it will involve some principal discussions.

Good advice, I'll do that if we change it. Maybe. (See reply below.)

This post, and hopefully thread, is somewhat theoretical. I play in an environment where double is this sequence (and sequences like it): 1♣ - (1♥) - Pass - 2♥ Pass - (Pass) - X is considered and expected to be penalty. Now, assume my partner and I decide to change it to T/O. Should we pre-disclose? Obviously a bluff by overcaller becomes less risky, as a raise cannot be doubled for penalty by next hand. And you have a way better chance of bluff-raising your way out of a penalty double. The mandatory system declarations do not have a specific entry for this, just an entry for doubles in general. But maybe that's not important, as I am looking for a principal discussion. (Just so that you know: If it actually happened at the table here in Denmark, I am quite certain nobody would complain. Neither players nor even a picky TD.)

I try to imagine how the hand will play in either suit, if partner is two cards longer in the shortest of my two suits. If the long suit plays better, I take preference myself.

That may well be a playable method. Do those of us who prefer to play something different still "belong in the B/I forum"? No definetely not. The argument: "Most of the world plays" belongs in the B/I forum.

Why is that simpler than to play first double values, second double penalties, third double penalties? I didn't write that, but if I had, my reply would have been: It is agood and simple agreement to have, that whenever you make a double that purely shows values, the scond double is T/O and the third double is penalty. Having already the second double being penalty is actually simpler, but not as good. If you generally have high requirements for value-showing doubles, the second method will have more merit.

Sorry for the slow reply, busy weekend. The point I was trying to make was, that the double should not set up a force, and that subsequent doubles should be takeout. I believe the double should show values (at least sligthly invitational), and invite partner into the partscore battle, via take-out doubles. So do we need take-out doubles, both via an initial pass and double? I believe we do. You need to be able to describe hands that has perfect distribution for pressuring the opponents, but also hands with so much strength, that you believe that it is your hand. On these last hands, you need to be able to compete correctly. I believe there is. You also have to consider the hands that are not suited for either T/O or penalty (or a bid). If you pass these hands under both agreements, pass will have a broader meaning than double would have under the other agreement. You are right however, when a forcing pass is set-up in a fit-auction, where pass really isn't penalty, but rather a warning not to bid any higher. I know theorists have tinkered with a reverse forcing pass (Double = suggests bidding on, pass = warning), but I haven't tried it, and know very little about it.

3♠ When 3NT is the right contract, partner will bid so often that I don't worry. And that will rightside it too.

There's been a lot of talk about swinging. In my opinion, there is one good way to do this, if you play in a field, where you feel you are at a disadvantage: Play something different. Not silly or dramatic or wild, just different. If the standard is 2♦ = weak, play multi. If it is multi, play weak. If people play 15-17 NT's, play 12-14 NT's. If they play Stayman and Jacoby, play Two-way Stayman. If they play standard signals, play reverse. And so on. If you assume the methods have equal merit, you increase the variance without costing yourself equity. The best way to try and win, when you are outgunned. A side benefit, which really has nothing to do with the conventions as such, is that people will generally be less well prepared against uncommon methods. Edit: And finally regarding MP's: The "Who makes which mistakes when, and against whom" - factor, already makes almost all tournaments random enough to give you a chance, if you simply aim to make as few mistakes as possible. On some days you will be the lucky one, against whom they all make their mistakes, and there is no reason to reduce your expected score against "the best pair in the room."

Not really. Lets say your expected score against this pair is 45%. Now when you make an offbeat action, the pair will highly likely be able to handle it. So you simply reduce your expected score to, say, 35%. What you do is to make it more likely that the board is a swing board. So it increases the likelyhood that you will get a top this way, but it increases the risk of a bottom even more. So you swing the board, but your downside gets bigger.