Partner didn't bid before

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk932h86da4cakt43]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

You deal and open 1♣ (can be doubleton, 1NT would be 11-14). RHO overcalls 1♦, partner PASSES. This is raised to 3♦, and partner doubles after 2 passes:

 

1♣ 1♦ Pass 3♦

Pass Pass Dbl

 

Now what?

[paulg]

If I were void in diamonds then I'd pass, as this is traditionally a penalty double. However this looks impossible here (1♦ is an unusual psych), so I assume partner is very weak with both majors and just competing for the partscore, so 3♠ looks clear.

[helene_t]

This is a penalty double. As cardshparp says it isn't consistent with opps' bidding, but my duty is to trust p, not to trust opps. I've been at the three-level in preemptive auctions in a 4-2 fit myself so it could happen to opps as well. Or maybe one of the opps missorted his hand, or psyched, or thought they were playing transfer overcalls. What do I know. Fortunately it doesn't matter.

[Codo]

What did pds pass show?

 

1. A trap pass against 1 Diamond with AQJxxx?

2. A hand with up to 5 HCPs without a club fit

 

If he has just hand one or two, his double now must show the weak take out.

 

I wonder about the voting so far. Cardshape and me voted for 3 Spae, but just one vote for this bid was shown.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3S, I have no clue what the X shows,

in theory it hast to be a penalty doouble,

which would mean partner intended to pass

a reopening double, but this would mean

he has to hold 4-5 cards in diamonds,

which is not really possible, unless they

psyched.

 

I bid 3S, maybe next time I will trust

partner more.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[vang]

if in theory it's a penalty double, i see no reason to trust opps instead of part. pass.

[Finch]

This is one of the clearest penalty doubles around. Trust partner.

[skjaeran]

This is an absolutely clear penalty double.

I don't care much why opps bid like they did, whether someone missorted the hand, psyched or pulled the wrong bidding card.

 

I'm going to trust partner and pass here.

[Free]

This is an absolutely clear penalty double.

I don't care much why opps bid like they did, whether someone missorted the hand, psyched or pulled the wrong bidding card.

 

I'm going to trust partner and pass here.

Yeah, what he said...

[whereagles]

Well, eventhough this probably should be penalties, I can hardly belive this is the case, so I'm taking it out to 3♠... wouldn't be surprised game makes, should pard have, say

 

QJxxx

xxxxx

xx

x

[pclayton]

I don't agree with Eagle's reconstruction - I think this is a clear 1♠ call.

 

I can't construct a penalty double that makes sense looking at my hand, yet nothing else makes sense either. Perhaps LHO overcalled 1♦ on a 4 bagger and RHO made a jump raise with 3 trump and a void. Neither of these seem impossible.

 

I'll trust pard and pass.

[mikeh]

Yes, this is all about trusting partner.

 

While I cannot construct a hand, consistent with the auction, that makes any sense, why assume that it is partner who screwed up?

 

I am SURE that this auction did not involve strong opps, btw :) In that case, maybe LHO overcalled on KJxx and rho got 'cute' with xxx.

 

Put another way: if we were given this auction without any hands being shown, the vote would be 99% (100% amongst real experts) that this was penalty. We'd then be astounded to see Ax in our hands, but that is besides the point. Partner, when doubling, has to understand that the double is penalty: what if the opps had a 6 card overcall and a 5 card raise, and we were looking at 4=4=1=4, as an example? We'd never 'work out' that the penalty double was takeout... so no competent partner would take the chance that we held so many diamonds that we'd work out what he meant.

 

If partner meant it as takeout... well, next time, he won't.

[whereagles]

I don't agree with Eagle's reconstruction - I think this is a clear 1♠ call.

Yes, it's a clear 1♠... to us. But maybe not to pard; that's the point B)

[jtfanclub]

Somebody's too cute.

Better not be my partner.

I pass, what's the prob?

[ArtK78]

I pass. Partner's double is for penalties.

 

I have gone -470 (-570? -670?) before. And I still trust my partner.

[mr1303]

I had a similar auction holding a flat 16 count. I passed and wrote down -1090 or something equally horrific, when partner had a take-out double but decided he was too weak to bid the first time around.

 

I held Kx of their suit that time.

[Halo]

3S

 

Just not the clear auction for me as it is for the majority.

[Gerben42]

Well, eventhough this probably should be penalties, I can hardly belive this is the case, so I'm taking it out to 3♠... wouldn't be surprised game makes, should pard have, say

 

QJxxx

xxxxx

xx

x

 

This was about the hand partner had. I passed for a zero, and I suggested that this hand might rather overbid a Dbl first time around rather than enter on the 3-level.

[Codo]

I still don´t get the reasoning for the penalty X.

 

Mike construct a hand where overcaller has KJxx and his pd xxx.

That leaves AQxx for partner.

This is no trap pass of 1 Diamond, this is a NT bid.

 

So you need this double as penalty just in case one of your opponents psyched 1 Diamond and/or 3 Diamond. Seems unlikely. Too say it midly.

Okay you not always hold xx in their suit, but f.e you have just one.

In mikes example this gives pd still just a AQxxx, still no trap pass- and still silly bids from the opponents.

[helene_t]

I still don´t get the reasoning for the penalty X.

 

Mike construct a hand where overcaller has KJxx and his pd xxx.

That leaves AQxx for partner.

This is no trap pass of 1 Diamond, this is a NT bid.

 

So you need this double as penalty just in case one of your opponents psyched 1 Diamond and/or 3 Diamond. Seems unlikely. Too say it midly.

In this situation, opener will typically have a void when responder doubles 3♦. At the 2-level, opener could have a singleton but will more often have a void. But the double does not necesarilly say that responder would have been euforic about defending 1♦ doubled. I think he could have

K

xxxx

QT9xx

xxx

 

Does this mean that the meaning of responder's double changes depending on the number of diamonds declarer holds? You can play that, this will allow you to play penalty doubles and t/o doubles at the same time. The downside of this is that you get occasional ridicolous results

- when opps are in a 11-card fit and you pass partner's t/o double because you can see in your own hand that it must be penalties

- when opps are in a 6- or 7-card fit and you take out partner's penalty double for the same reason.

 

Obviously the merrits of such a two-way double depends on opps' style as well as the form of scoring and partner's sense of humor. If you claim to have long-term succes with such an agreement, I believe you.

 

It's not standard, though. Standard is, as Frances puts it: This is one of the clearest penalty doubles around.

[bhall]

The doubler cannot know that opener has length in ♦. Therefore, he cannot expect opener to reason that the double "can't be" penalty. If he gets away with this abuse of partnership trust here, he is likely to repeat it in many forms later on. So, hang the result on this board, PASS!

 

And no, that is not simply partner-punishment. The principle is too important to be ignored.

[Guest Jlall]

Trust partner? Come on guys lol. Sometimes partner makes a mistake. Sometimes we're lucky enough to realize that and we can save him. This is one of those times, I'd be really surprised if you guys actually passed at the table because I know you know deep down inside what ha happened.

[TimG]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk932h86da4cakt43]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

You deal and open 1♣ (can be doubleton, 1NT would be 11-14). RHO overcalls 1♦, partner PASSES.

Was this in the southern hemisphere?

[P_Marlowe]

I still don´t get the reasoning for the penalty X.

 

Mike construct a hand where overcaller has KJxx and his pd xxx.

That leaves AQxx for partner.

This is no trap pass of 1 Diamond, this is a NT bid.

 

So you need this double as penalty just in case one of your opponents psyched 1 Diamond and/or 3 Diamond. Seems unlikely. Too say it midly.

Okay you not always hold xx in their suit, but f.e you have just one.

In mikes example this gives pd still just a AQxxx, still no trap pass- and still silly bids from the opponents.

One option is, that 1D could be a 3 carder and

reponder holds 4 card and an additional Single,

3D may not be best, but if responder takes its

chances that partner holds a 4 carder, it can

happen, espesially playing MP.

 

Given our hand, we know, that partner does not

hold such a hand, because it is unusal to psych a

1D overcall and psych a 3D raise, I doubt any

of those psychs make a lot of sense (I dont psych,

but I feel to see the rational).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I still don´t get the reasoning for the penalty X.

 

Mike construct a hand where overcaller has KJxx and his pd xxx.

That leaves AQxx for partner.

This is no trap pass of 1 Diamond, this is a NT bid.

 

So you need this double as penalty just in case one of your opponents psyched 1 Diamond and/or 3 Diamond. Seems unlikely. Too say it midly.

Okay you not always hold xx in their suit, but f.e you have just one.

In mikes example this gives pd still just a AQxxx, still no trap pass- and still silly bids from the opponents.

One option is, that 1D could be a 3 carder and

reponder holds 4 card and an additional Single,

3D may not be best, but if responder takes its

chances that partner holds a 4 carder, it can

happen, espesially playing MP.

 

Given our hand, we know, that partner does not

hold such a hand, because it is unusal to psych a

1D overcall and psych a 3D raise, I doubt any

of those psychs make a lot of sense (I dont psych,

but I feel to see the rational).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I don't think 1♦ could systematically be a 3-card, that would be a BSC. But clearly someone made a mistake on this auction.