Defence bidding (1)

[adhoc3]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=satxxxh9daqxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1NT--2♣*--2♠--?

 

*DONT -- Club and higher suit[/hv]

 

Your PD is a real expert. Now, what do you bid? What do you expect?

 

Full hand hidden below.

 

 

. North: void, AQTxx,T5,Axxxxx

 

 

West: KQJ,KJx,Jxxx,KQx, East: 97654,xxxx,K97,T

 

 

. South: AT832,9,AQxx,J9x

 

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

We are red vs. green, he will have 5-4 more likely

5-5, but who cares.

 

Marlowe

[Free]

I'd say p has a stiff ♠, so he must have extra length in his suits. Since I have a great hand and I'm not really interested in his second suit, I'll just bid 3♣. Even a 4-3 fit might be very playable, but I suspect p has some decent cards.

[joker_gib]

What's your style of DONT ? Does it promise an opening ?

 

If yes than I double cause I don't know where they will go.

 

Btw, I hate DONT !

 

Alain

[Chamaco]

It's IMPS, I pass.

 

Much depends on the requirements of a DONT overcall at unfavourable, of course, but doubling for panalty to set them by one trick and challenge the stress level of the partnership during the defence is much to ask.

 

Also, bidding 3C is a bit too much to my tastes: The Q of diamonds is suspect and the heart shortnes is likely to face pard's second suit...

[MickyB]

It's IMPS, I pass.

It's bridge, I pass...

[han]

With 5 spades I'm happy to defend, pass. I think that I will lead a club.

[HeartA]

double.

[Chamaco]

It's IMPS, I pass.

 

It's bridge, I pass...

I meant that at MP, a double has much more appeal.

 

At IMPS the risk/reward does not justify doubling in my opinion.

[inquiry]

What's your style of DONT ? Does it promise an opening ?

 

If yes than I double cause I don't know where they will go.

 

Btw, I hate DONT !

 

Alain

Vulnerable versus Non-Vul at imps, don't you think partner DONT can't be weak, I don't think it can. That is, this has to be a serious overcall, regardless of the usual trend of using DONT, don't we agree. I don't have any doubts about partners DONT values.

[MickyB]

Ok, fair enough, I thought you were considering 3♣ as an alternative.

 

Should double really be pens here?

[Chamaco]

Ok, fair enough, I thought you were considering 3♣ as an alternative.

 

Should double really be pens here?

I think double should be penalty:

 

we have available:

2NT = inv+ hand, asks second suit,

3C = competitive

3D = pass/correct in a red suit

 

IMO we do not need the double offer a place to play in a red suit, we already have 2NT and 3D to do that.

[inquiry]

Ok, fair enough, I thought you were considering 3♣ as an alternative.

 

Should double really be pens here?

I think double should be penalty:

 

we have available:

2NT = inv+ hand, asks second suit,

3C = competitive

3D = pass/correct in a red suit

 

IMO we do not need the double offer a place to play in a red suit, we already have 2NT and 3D to do that.

I am not so sure this is standard DONT. I think Doubles in these auctions are auction specific... for instance...

 

(1NT)-2H-(bid)-DBL is penalty, since you know partner has ♥ and ♠

 

(1NT)-2D-(2M)-DBL is penalty, since you "assume" to know parnter has the unbid major and the diamonds.

 

(1NT)-2C-(2M)-DBL, I thought was defined as TAKEOUT... if partners second suit is the Major they just bid, he can pass the takout. This also allows advancer to bid on this auction 3♦ not as PASS CORRECt, but rather, as "hey, this is my suit, and I wnat to play it here", or even (1NT)-2C-(2H)-2S to say, I want to play in my suit which is spades.

 

Maybe someone who has a textbook version of the convention (isn't this a Marty thing) can look this up. But while I think !N-2D-2M-x is penalty, I think 1N-2C-2M-X is not...

[Chamaco]

Ok, fair enough, I thought you were considering 3♣ as an alternative.

 

Should double really be pens here?

I think double should be penalty:

 

we have available:

2NT = inv+ hand, asks second suit,

3C = competitive

3D = pass/correct in a red suit

 

IMO we do not need the double offer a place to play in a red suit, we already have 2NT and 3D to do that.

I am not so sure this is standard DONT. I think Doubles in these auctions are auction specific... for instance...

 

(1NT)-2H-(bid)-DBL is penalty, since you know partner has ♥ and ♠

 

(1NT)-2D-(2M)-DBL is penalty, since you "assume" to know parnter has the unbid major and the diamonds.

 

(1NT)-2C-(2M)-DBL, I thought was defined as TAKEOUT... if partners second suit is the Major they just bid, he can pass the takout. This also allows advancer to bid on this auction 3♦ not as PASS CORRECt, but rather, as "hey, this is my suit, and I wnat to play it here", or even (1NT)-2C-(2H)-2S to say, I want to play in my suit which is spades.

 

Maybe someone who has a textbook version of the convention (isn't this a Marty thing) can look this up. But while I think !N-2D-2M-x is penalty, I think 1N-2C-2M-X is not...

Ben,

one question here on logic besides the "standard" way to play DONT

 

The issue here is what to do with misfits hands, if it is more profitable to:

 

a. be allowed to offer a to play in the 4th suit (3D here), and use neg. double as 2nd suit ask;

 

or

 

b. use 3D as pass/correct and X = penalty.

 

Now, since advancer's bid would be a free bid, it seems to me that the cost of losing the natural 3D bid to play is low, because how many times do I want to offer to play at the 3 level in misfit ?

 

It seems to me that most times I have a good misfit hand, a double or pass can do the job ?

 

All in all, i think in clear misfit hand, the use of penaty X has a sure value (misfit hands are by definition defensive hands, no? :rolleyes: ), whereas introducing a new suit at the 3 level has quite some danger involved...

[han]

(1NT)-2D-(2M)-DBL is penalty, since you "assume" to know parnter has the unbid major and the diamonds.

I'm sure that this is standard, but I like to play the double here too as pass or correct. This allows you to compete with hands like A10xx xx xxx AQxx. Over (1NT)-2D-(2H) it seems dangerous to assume that partner has spades, but I would really like to compete if she does. If partner has hearts then we can defend (is this safe? maybe).

[mikeh]

It has been at least ten years (probably longer, but memory is the first thing to go once you reach my age) since I doubled a partscore into game and they made it. It is far more common for me to score up +200 or even +250 :rolleyes:

 

However, I double here, for penalties. If not now, when? My expectation is that the ♠ are 5521, and if so, my ♣ lead will start a tap: either immediately or when I win a pointed Ace.

 

For me the bigger question is which ♣ to lead. I expect partner to hold 55 (or better)in the rounded suits due to the vulnerability, so I think that there is a strong case for the J, even tho leading the J from this holding is usually anathema.

 

I hope the hand is something like[hv=n=skxhkqxxdkjxxckxx&w=sa10xxxhxdaqxxcjxx&e=sxhajxxxdxxcaqxxx&s=sqj9xxhxxxdxxxcxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

Of course, I shall be sad if it is [hv=n=skxhkqxxdkjxxckxx&w=sa10xxxhxdaqxxcjxx&e=sxhajxxxdxxcaqxxx&s=sqj9xxhxxxdxxxcxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

 

I just looked at the real hand: I still double, but I lead a ♥ :P

Maybe I am being braver on paper than I would be at the table :P

[inquiry]

Ben,

one question here on logic besides the "standard" way to play DONT

 

The issue here is what to do with misfits hands, if it is more profitable to:

 

a. be allowed to offer a to play in the 4th suit (3D here), and use neg. double as 2nd suit ask;

 

or

 

b. use 3D as pass/correct and X = penalty.

 

Now, since advancer's bid would be a free bid, it seems to me that the cost of losing the natural 3D bid to play is low, because how many times do I want to offer to play at the 3 level in misfit ?

 

It seems to me that most times I have a good misfit hand, a double or pass can do the job ?

 

All in all, i think in clear misfit hand, the use of penaty X has a sure value (misfit hands are by definition defensive hands, no? :rolleyes: ), whereas introducing a new suit at the 3 level has quite some danger involved...

But the assumption you are making is that you HAVE a misfit. In fact, you don't know if that is true or not. Let's make a slight change by rotating the three non club suits... making the hand...

 

x

AQxx

ATxxx

Jxx

 

Same bidding. Over 2♠ what do you do? If partner has 4+♥ you probably have great chance for game. If he has 4+♦, the hand belongs to your side. But what if he has 4+♠s? If you bid 3♦ pass/correct what is he to do? You see the problem.

 

Now I agree on the given problem, when you hold

ATxxx

x

AQxx

Jxx

 

You can be virtually certain that partner second suit is not ♦ (given they haven't found their huge heart fit), but then you need double more to unravel the mysteries of the unknown second suit than get the penalty here. As an added bonus, playing negative double allows you to bid 3♦ when you hold this hand...

 

x

xx

KQJTxxx

xxx

[Al_U_Card]

I like my hand but I hate my cards........only the C J fits pard, my D Q is likely toast and I have 2 tricks and a ruff to add to our effort. RHO heard the bid and offered 2S anyway. Do I like the 3 level? Do I believe that pard has 3 tricks on defense? Pass and double are options but I would favor pass (I hate it when they wrap the double around....)

[Guest Jlall]

I wouldn't X even if I were sure it was penalty. I'm not sure I'm going to beat them. Yes I've seen some bad DONT bids :ph34r:

[Kalvan14]

I would not double 2♠: while I am fully confident that pard has his values for the overcall red vs. green, I do feel that I might be shooting for 1 down here (pard's values are mostly distributional, I am sure).

3♣ for me (I'm quite confident that this contract can be made, and if the oppos get to 3♠ double is ready)

Let's say that 3♣ is a mild insurance (at MP, I'd double 2♠)

 

In terms of defining the double: right or wrong, I do play it for penalty. DONT is - as a rule - a disruptive overcall, not a constructive one. You need to keep always ready the option of penalising oppos, rather than the option to look for a better partial contract.

[Gerben42]

Great, good to know that partner has ♦ or ♥. Oh I don't know? Too bad, love DONT *g

 

What would 2NT here be? Pick a minor, i.e. bid ♦ if you have them and ♣ if not? Confusion abound!

[Kalvan14]

Great, good to know that partner has ♦ or ♥. Oh I don't know? Too bad, love DONT *g

 

What would 2NT here be? Pick a minor, i.e. bid ♦ if you have them and ♣ if not? Confusion abound!

But you know, gerben: pard has 0 or 1 spade, and has promised a 2nd suit (ok, if there are 18 spades in the deck, the hand will be dealt again :( ).

3♦ would be certainly to play a red suit; 2NT depends on your pair agreements. Mine are for the minors, as you guess.

 

Must be DONT bashing week :)

I wonder why I never had the sort of troubles you guys appear to have had

[ArcLight]

>It has been at least ten years (probably longer, but memory is the first thing to go once you reach my age) since I doubled a partscore into game and they made it. It is far more common for me to score up +200 or even +250

 

Mike, I think I read somewhere (Mike Lawrence?) that if you never get burned by making a penalty double (you double them into game), then you aren't doubling enough.

 

In securities trading (on Wall Street) one of the adages is if you haven't taken any losses, you aren't taking enough risk.

 

Might there not be more benefit in making more doubles, if you gain more points, even at the expense of an occasion bad result (doubling the opps into game)?

Provided you come out ahead. And you can always tailor the bid to the situation.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

I think that Goren said that if the other pair does not make about one in six of their doubled contracts against you, you are not doubling often enough.

 

That seems about right for MPs. At IMPS I try and avoid doubling them for a one trick set(which might go wrong and be a disaster) Two tricks set for IMPs is closer to the standard.

 

If you can defeat vulnerable part scores at MPs five times out of six, you should do very well indeed.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Winstonm]

>It has been at least ten years (probably longer, but memory is the first thing to go once you reach my age) since I doubled a partscore into game and they made it. It is far more common for me to score up +200 or even +250

 

Mike, I think I read somewhere (Mike Lawrence?) that if you never get burned by making a penalty double (you double them into game), then you aren't doubling enough.

 

In securities trading (on Wall Street) one of the adages is if you haven't taken any losses, you aren't taking enough risk.

 

Might there not be more benefit in making more doubles, if you gain more points, even at the expense of an occasion bad result (doubling the opps into game)?

Provided you come out ahead.  And you can always tailor the bid to the situation.

An interesting, though usually undiscussed aspect of this debate is length of match.

 

In a short Swiss match, a single board can easily win or lose the match - and if you double the opponents into game you lose 11.

 

In a longer match, such as a 26 board K.O., there is more time to recover.

 

In the big matches, where 90+ boards are played, there is more time still.

 

And imp pairs is a whole story in itself - kind of a mix of MPs and imps.

 

But it all comes down to risk/reward at team imps.

 

If you double 3H vul and it makes, you lose 11.

If it goes down 1, you gain an additional 2 imps: 3 verses 5.

Break even point is close to 6 good doubles to 1 bad. As the object of the game is to go plus, breaking even like this isn't the answer. For me, I think I'd like to get this up to more like a complete game swing: about 11 good to 1 bad. I would gain 22 on the good and lose 11 on the bad for an overall pickup of 11. Add to this the chances of down two and the reward increases while risk decreases.

 

So, at team imps I'd want to be about 91% certain of a 1 trick set with realistic prospects of a 2-trick set before I'd pull the trigger - and even then I'd be nervous.

 

Winston