Fighting the partscore

[han]

1) Do you think double here is better as takeout or penalty?

 

I think that it is better as takeout, and I play it as penalty in my regular partnerships. Does that make sense? Yes I think so, we have meta-agreements for doubles that may not be perfect in all situations but at least we (almost) always know what our agreements are (and we think that the meta-agreements are usually good too).

 

2) If double is takeout, what do you bid?

 

Very difficult, I think that I would double. It depends a bit on your agreements about 2S. If it shows about 8-11 points then I would double, if it show about 5-9 points then I would pass.

 

3) If double is penalty, what do you bid?

 

Well, pass obviously!

[mike777]

But what if the 2♠ bidder has a stiff club and wants to compete? He needs double to be takeout, and the double should mean the same from both sides.

Double for penalties is perfectly playable. Same thing for double for takeout. It's a matter of agreement, really.

If you have a detailed agreement none of this is an issue. The point is most of the time even Hamman or Zia do not have an agreement with most of their partners because most of the hands they play are not with long term partners. I would guess 99.99% of the hands they have played in their lifetime were not with Soloway, Wolff or Rosenberg. Has even 5% of your lifetime bridge been covered with detailed agreements such as this?

[whereagles]

mike, we're discussing agreements, not judgement over a non-agreed situation.

[Chamaco]

mike, we're discussing agreements, not judgement over a non-agreed situation.

This time I agree with Mike:

it is true that virtually anything can be played "upside down" by agreement, but in some situation there exist "bridge logic" that indicates one choice is better than the other...

 

For example, If pard opens a weak 2 and opps overcall, what's the meaning of double ?

You may say that it's a matter of agreements, but indeed most players play it as penalty.

 

From what I read it seems to me that this thread is trying to sort out the best approach, and I do not think that choosing penalty or takeout is only a matter of agreement, in this situation there is a high likelyhood that one will fare better than the other.

[whereagles]

Hum.. isn't that discussing agreements?

 

Oh, and incidently, if you're playing 5-cards weak 2s, there's a case for playing dbl as take-out :)

[Chamaco]

Hum.. isn't that discussing agreements?

If you want, that means discussing "the effectiveness of agreements", which one you prefer and why...

so it's too easy to just say "it's a matter of agreements, any agreement will work as long as you have one", but I think that if you want to make a meaningful discussion rather you should explain which one is more efficient and why :)

 

It's way too easy to respond "matter of agreement " LOL, that could be said for almost any topic :)

One should discuss further the details :-)

[whereagles]

Hum.. yeah.. well, isn't "discussing agreements" a short-hand for "discussing effectiveness of agreements" anyway? :)