Offensive or defensive double ?

[Flame]

On a previous thread Ken asked about this sequence

1♠-P-1NT!-2♥

2♠-P-P-3♥

X?

 

Most of the good players said its show an offensive hand, something like i want to bid 3♠ unless you insist of doubling them.

I wonder if you can give some rules/guidlines to when this type of double apply.

Could it happend above our 3 in our suit ?

There was a discussion about this sequence in another forum

1♣-1♠-2♥-p

2NT- 3♠- D?

Does the double here show nice diffence or could it be an offensive hand that just not sure what the contrct is and want partner to pass the double only with very diffensive hand ?

I know there is no consensus but Im intrested in this new (to me) offensive aproach.

[pclayton]

I don't think this means "I want to bid 3♠, but I'm doubling them in case you want to".

 

I've only seen this meaning applied to one auction:

 

3♣ - (3♠) - 4♣ - (4♠)

Double

 

which means: I have extra shape for my 3♣ opening and I want to sac. But I'm doubling just in case you are setting a trap with 4♣.

 

In the actual hand, double would imply a max 2♠ call with a fragment in hearts and invites penalizing them: AQJxxx, Kxx, Axx, x, but can tolerate a 3♠ rebid.

 

Pard would pass with: x, Qx, Kxxxx, Kxxxx but would pull with: xx, x, Kxxxx, Kxxxx.

[kenrexford]

After much thought on this issue, I am more and more convinced that the consensus interpretation should be re-thought here.

 

An apologetic, with a referenced authority:

 

The auction in discussion, to refresh, was:

 

1♠-P-1NT!-2♥-

2♠-P-P-3♥-

X

 

Other than the repeated heart intrusions, this auction very much parallels the following:

 

1♠-P-1NT!-P-

2♠-P-P-3♥-

X

 

This very specific latter auction is described in Partnership Bidding at Bridge, The Contested Auction, 1993, Robson and Segal, as one where the Opening side has located a known "fit." Although spades may not actually provide a "fit" in the classic sense, we have already allowed for spades as trumps. The lesser the actual fit, the better the defensive double.

 

In such a context, Robson-Segal describes this auction as one where a double of 3♥ by Opener would clearly be penalty, at P. 217.

 

The difference between this classic Robson-Segal auction and the actual auction seems to me to tilt the reasoning more toward penalty. For, unlike the initially uncontested auction, Opener had the option of doubling 2♥ instead of bidding 2♠. This suggests that X...X is the approach to repeat takeout, whereas 2♠...X is more suitable to the penalty approach.

 

So, notwithstanding the reasoning offered so far, I am suggesting a re-think here. I expect that Robson-Segal's book is well-read here and much applied.

 

In contrast, the opposing auction was 1♥-P-P-3♣-3♥-X. This auction seems more in line with a Robson-Segal takeout, as the doubling side has not agreed any fit, such that this auction seems more like a high offense-to-defense doubling stuation. My re-read of Robson-Segal's section on competitive auction doubles is confirming my belief here. This does not seem to be akin to the preempt by partner situation, as 3♣ is not preemptive, but a very strong bid.

[kenrexford]

This may be of interest to some:

 

Hi Ken,

 

Please see below. Excellent scenarios to discuss

 

Eric

 

-----Original Message-----

From: kenneth rexford [mailto:kenrexford@hotmail.com]

Sent: April 26, 2007 11:59 AM

To: kokish-kraft@rogers.com

Subject: late doubles

 

Two recently-botched hands from the Gatlinburg Regional have resulted in a

 

great amount of debate on the Bridge Base Forum. As a strong believer in

 

the writings of Robson and Segal, I believe that my interpretation of two

 

doubles is right, but the strong majority opinion of professional players is

 

opposite. I'm curious as to your interpretation.

 

First case:

 

1S-P-1NT(forcing)-2H

 

2S-P-P-3H

 

X

 

Partner felt that his double showed a high offense-to-defense ration hand,

 

something like 6133 with extra stuff. I felt that a 6133 should be started

 

with a double of 2H, and that therefore the late double was penalty (maybe

 

6331/6313?). Robson-Segal describe 1S-P-1NT-P-2S-P-P-3H-X as penalty. The

 

actual auction seems parallel to the Robson-Segal auction, if not more so

 

(opting 2S over pass or double the first time).

 

This one is very interesting because both interpretations make sense, regardless of the availability of a takeout double of 2H. Something to consider in the equation is that there are hands with modest six-card spade suits that could go either way (double or 2S) and depending on your perspective the choice may not be the same. You could argue that if not strong enough to convert 3m to 3S you might prefer 2S to emphasize the most likely strain for game, or you might base such a decision on suit quality. Thus, depending on your mind set, the second double could still be takeout, the Rob/Seg argument n/w/stndg. Also, a serious difference in the two sequences is that in theirs the 3H bid was a reopening gamble while in yours the bidder volunteered the suit a second time in a situation that would not be treated as purely balancing, i.e. 3H would normally suggest a good hand and invite a raise, the failure to reopen with a double (see, this stuff works for both sides!) n/w/stndg. On a frequency basis there’s not enough evidence to make a determination, but responder’s pass of 2S hints at a S misfit and makes penalty somewhat more attractive. Really, it’s a partnership thing and worth the pain of getting it wrong in order to clear it up. If you are both followers of Rob/Seg and have gone through their book as a partnership, your view would be the more logical one, but how much can you count on that influence in your partnership?

 

Second Case:

 

1H-P-P-3C(strong, natural)-

 

3H-X?

 

Here, partner took the double as penalty. This time, I meant the double as

 

high offense-to-defense. Values without direction. My reading of

 

Robson-Segal was inconclusive, as this type of situation was not described.

 

However, interpretation of this double as values without direction, high

 

offense-to-defense, seems more in line to me with Robson-Segal's general

 

theory.

 

Another interesting case. This one is different because with high offense to defense facing a strong hand with a good long suit you should be thinking about declaring. Yes, you could in this SPECIFIC case use 3S by advancer to angle for 3NT w/o a H guard, leaving double for (perhaps) a partial H stopper or pure penalty. That’s worth discussing, but if you change their suit to spades you’d lack the lovely “free” 3S bid to sort out specific stopper-lets in their colour: therefore your double could be more “offense” than defense, whatever that means – typically a BAL or quasi-BAL hand without much in the opps’ suit – or the other way around, and we’d like to have some clear rules about these things (mine is: if it could be useful as non-PENALTY, that’s our treatment)