Explain this - I can't convince partner

[firmit]

W/NS vul

 

bidding goes:

pass - 1NT - pass - 2♣

2♠! - DBL!

 

What is DBL in this position?

[jtfanclub]

I've always played it as penalty- denies 4 hearts, promises 4 spades.

 

If I don't have 4 spades, I pass. If partner X's, then he had 4 spades, if partner bids something else, then it implies 4 hearts, and I'll bid 3♥ with 4.

[Finch]

I've always played it as penalty- denies 4 hearts, promises 4 spades.

 

If I don't have 4 spades, I pass. If partner X's, then he had 4 spades, if partner bids something else, then it implies 4 hearts, and I'll bid 3♥ with 4.

What he said.

 

(It is possible to agree otherwise as a partnership - in one partnership I play pass as forcing and double as take-out - but that is a matter for specific agreement)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

matter of partnership agreement.

Does 2C promise inv. strenght?

 

If not, than X has to be penalty,

if yes, it makes sense to play it

as t/o.

 

It would be more interesting if the

2S bidder was not a passed hand,

because now you can virtually be certain

that the bid is based on a 5 card suit.

 

Personnally we play Pass by the NT

opener as forcing, but than 2C already

promises at least inv. strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[dburn]

I've always played it as penalty- denies 4 hearts, promises 4 spades.

 

If I don't have 4 spades, I pass.  If partner X's, then he had 4 spades, if partner bids something else, then it implies 4 hearts, and I'll bid 3♥ with 4.

What he said.

 

(It is possible to agree otherwise as a partnership - in one partnership I play pass as forcing and double as take-out - but that is a matter for specific agreement)

Does this agreement extend to positions in which the 2♠ overcaller is not a passed hand? I am aware that modern bidding theory has long ago left me behind, but even in my dotage I am curious to understand why.

 

As to the actual question, I would double with the North cards only if I had a couple of spade tricks (whether or not I had four of them). I would pass otherwise, whether or not I had four spades (it seems silly to have to double just because my spade holding is Q532). I don't think double in this kind of position relates to the number of spades North has.

[jdonn]

Without agreement to the contrary double is four spades, penalty. David's point is well taken that you don't have to double simply because you hold any four, I agree you need at least reasonable hopes of two spade tricks. I don't think I would ever double with three however unless they were extremely good, maybe AQT or better. Heck with three for all you know partner has a singleton and they are about to raise, not to mention you could have a good fit elsewhere detracting from your defense.

[1eyedjack]

in one partnership I play pass as forcing and double as take-out - but that is a matter for specific agreement

Out of interest, how does it gain to play double for takeout if pass is forcing (as opposed to pass for takeout if pass is forcing)

[1eyedjack]

Does 2C promise inv. strenght?

 

If not, than X has to be penalty,

if yes, it makes sense to play it

as t/o.

Out of interest, why does it make sense to play double for takeout if 2C promises inv strength? Presumably Pass in direct seat would then be forcing, which goes back to my question to Frances: if pass is forcing, why is it better for double to be t/o than pen?

[1eyedjack]

It would be more interesting if the

2S bidder was not a passed hand,

because now you can virtually be certain

that the bid is based on a 5 card suit.

It never occurred to me that the 2S bid might be based (by agreement) on less than a 5 card suit by a passed hand. Is this a common agreement?

[P_Marlowe]

It would be more interesting if the

2S bidder was not a passed hand,

because now you can virtually be certain

that the bid is based on a 5 card suit.

It never occurred to me that the 2S bid might be based (by agreement) on less than a 5 card suit by a passed hand. Is this a common agreement?

Hi,

 

the comment was directed at the fact, that I

assumed that the 2S bidder had a weak two

bid in spade available, an opening he did not

use, and now he steps in.

 

Sure he still can hold a 6 card suit, but the

probability has dropped.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[dburn]

Without agreement to the contrary double is four spades, penalty. David's point is well taken that you don't have to double simply because you hold any four, I agree you need at least reasonable hopes of two spade tricks. I don't think I would ever double with three however unless they were extremely good, maybe AQT or better. Heck with three for all you know partner has a singleton and they are about to raise, not to mention you could have a good fit elsewhere detracting from your defense.

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

 

It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

[lexlogan]

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

 

It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

I'm sure you have more expertise in this area than I, but you wouldn't double 2S with AKxx xx Axx Axxx ?

[whereagles]

I play that as take-out. But that's my own convention. Opposite a random pard, I'd probably make it as pen.

[jtfanclub]

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Surely you play that partner has either 4 spades or an 8+ count, yes? I don't know anybody who doesn't. So if you have AQT and your partner has the weak hand with 4 spades, dummy cannot have jack-and-one, he has at most one spade. Furthermore, if you don't have 4 hearts, the odds seem overwhelming to me that there are no 8 card fits anywhere at the table.

 

So, either your partner does not have an invitational hand and they want to play in your best fit, or you and your partner have 23+ hcp on a 14 total trick hand. For the latter, even if you can make 3NT, they're down at least 3. Why not just take the automatic 500?

 

If partner has 4 hearts and 7 diamonds or some other rediculous hand, the double doesn't bar him from bidding. It just gives him more information than he'd have if you passed.

[jdonn]

Surely you play that partner has either 4 spades or an 8+ count, yes?

So you wouldn't bid stayman with xxx Jxxx Txxxx x?

 

Furthermore, if you don't have 4 hearts, the odds seem overwhelming to me that there are no 8 card fits anywhere at the table.

Why exactly can't you have like a 5-3 fit in a minor? Or 5-4? Or 5-5? You are just making statements that don't seem true.

[jtfanclub]

Surely you play that partner has either 4 spades or an 8+ count, yes?

So you wouldn't bid stayman with xxx Jxxx Txxxx x?

 

Furthermore, if you don't have 4 hearts, the odds seem overwhelming to me that there are no 8 card fits anywhere at the table.

Why exactly can't you have like a 5-3 fit in a minor? Or 5-4? Or 5-5? You are just making statements that don't seem true.

For the first, no, I wouldn't...to be honest, I hadn't even considered it a possiblity. Maybe I should.

 

Well, I just threw it into the simulator...100 deals

S=15-17 hcp, 4 spades, 2-5 in all other suits.

N= 4 hearts*, 0-11 hcp

E= 5-6 spades, 0-11 hcp

 

*doing 4 hearts or 4 spades would be more accurate.

 

Spade fit: 2% (yes, that means a void in West), no minor suit fit.

Heart fit: 22%

6 card minor suit in responder's hand: 10%

Minor suit fit, excluding 6+ in responder's hand: 23%

Misfit: 43%

 

So, not as overwhelming as I thought. Changing the sample to exclude 6 card suits in a minor, major suit fits, and guaranteeing that the North had had at least 2 spades didn't help. Odds in the sample seem to be a little under 2-1 that there is a 4-4, 5-4, or 5-5 fit if you exclude hands where you have a heart fit or responder has a 6 card minor.

[whereagles]

You are just making statements that don't seem true.

hum.. impressive moderate speech here :)

[dburn]

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

 

It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

I'm sure you have more expertise in this area than I, but you wouldn't double 2S with AKxx xx Axx Axxx ?

If West, a passed hand, bids 2♠ at his second turn, a likely explanation is that he has six spades and four hearts (else he would have opened 2♠). I might then hope to draw dummy's trumps and wait for partner to take some heart tricks.

 

But all too often, declarer has a habit of turning up with such as ♠QJ109xx and ♥QJ10x. That's seven tricks facing ♥9, even if dummy doesn't turn up with the king of declarer's minor-suit doubleton. In the meantime, we can make 3NT in comfort - and we can often do that even when we beat 2♠.

 

No, I wouldn't double 2♠ with ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣Axx. But if you would, you could easily be right.

[Finch]

in one partnership I play pass as forcing and double as take-out - but that is a matter for specific agreement

Out of interest, how does it gain to play double for takeout if pass is forcing (as opposed to pass for takeout if pass is forcing)

This is possibly getting beyond the BIL forum, but...

 

(side point) I should have mentioned earlier that in the partnership where double is take-out, 2C promises at least invitational values.

 

(main issue)

If pass is forcing, why does it matter whether you play double as take-out or penalties?

 

First, be aware that playing this way round is a minority position; I think it's superior, but this is defniitely not mainstream (although my partnerships are certainly not the sole proponents so it's not only me!).

 

I play double as "take-out"* in all forcing pass/penalty taking auctions (1suit x xx, 1suit 1NT x, 1suit 2NT x etc). If one (or both) of the partnership has a penalty double, it doesn't matter which way round you play it; one person doubles and the other hand passes. The benefit is when neither player has a penalty double; suppose the auction starts

 

1S x xx 2C

P P ?

 

Playing penalty doubles, opener has denied a penalty double. Responder can double for penalties if he wants, but if he can't double for penalties he has to bid. If he has, say, a 2443 with 3 low clubs, what is he supposed to bid? He's going to have to invent a suit or make a dodgy penalty double and hope for the best.

 

Playing take-out doubles, opener has shown either a penalty double or a strong hand; responder can happily make a take-out double which is a perfect description.

 

Similarly with this auction.

 

1NT P 2C 2S

 

If opener has a 2335 (say), and responder has a 2434 (say), then playing double as penalties they are both a bit stuck; opener can bid 3C (but that gives up on a penalty if responder wants to defend); opener can pass but that leaves responder no good bid - he's going to have to cue, or pass out 2S, or bid a 4-card suit. Playing double as take-out opener doubles and responder can distinguish between balanced hands (2NT = 2 places to play) and, say, a 2461.

 

[*"take-out" usually means either a doubleton or three small; sometimes a singleton with good defensive prospects; never a void. The other hand is expected to pass with 'normal' 4-card trump holdings so if you aren't prepared to defend opposite that type of hand, you don't double]

 

p.s. it is assumed within these methods that 1NT opener has four trumps = 1NT opener plans to defend. Odd hands where that isn't the case, such as some of those debated here, have to take some other action (e.g. passing then bidding over the forced double on the assumption that partner can't have a penalty double)

[jtfanclub]

OK, so....the bidding goes:

 

1NT P 2♣ 2♠

-P- P

 

You hold a fairly ordinary

 

AJTx

xx

AKxx

xxx

 

Now what?

 

If you 'X' with this, then how is it takeout? Taking out into what? And if you don't, then this doesn't seem as good as an X which is penalty-oriented. Switch the majors, how about a 2NT bid?

 

If pass is forcing, why does it matter whether you play double as take-out or penalties?

 

Because if the double both shows penalty oriented and a lack of interest in partner's suit, and a pass only shows one of these, then the X conveys more information.

 

1S x xx 2C

P P ?

 

Playing penalty doubles, opener has denied a penalty double. Responder can double for penalties if he wants, but if he can't double for penalties he has to bid. If he has, say, a 2443 with 3 low clubs, what is he supposed to bid? He's going to have to invent a suit or make a dodgy penalty double and hope for the best.

 

Playing take-out doubles, opener has shown either a penalty double or a strong hand

 

What about a balanced piece of crap?

 

AKTxx

xx

Qxx

Axx

 

What is he supposed to do here? X for takeout?! If he passes and his partner now X's, is he supposed to leave it in or bid 2♠? Or maybe 2♦?

 

I don't buy that, playing takeout doubles, a pass shows a strong hand. It could also be a weak hand that doesn't have the shape for the takeout X. If the X can be done even without support for the unbid suits, then I would argue that calling it takeout could be very confusing to the opponents.

[1eyedjack]

If one (or both) of the partnership has a penalty double, it doesn't matter which way round you play it; one person doubles and the other hand passes.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a bit of a problem with the "(or both)" part. If both have a penalty double then neither can make a take-out double which partner can then convert to penalties. That of course is worrying about catching an opponent's psych. But I grant that this is less likely than their having their calls, although if your opponents are adequately familiar with your doubling style it is more of an invitation to psych.

 

Perhaps there is some scope for artificial use of 2NT in these sequences (combined with double being for penalties in a forcing pass auction) - on the grounds that if you have a genuine 2NT bid then you likely have a penalty double so the 2NT becomes redundant in a natural capacity (either in direct seat or in response to a forcing pass). Not quite accurate of course - if you have a short guard and a source of tricks outside you might want to use 2NT as natural despite that double would have been for penalties.

 

As you say - possibly a bit beyond the BIL scope, but on topic in the context of the thread.

[dburn]

OK, so....the bidding goes:

 

1NT P 2♣ 2♠

-P- P

 

You hold a fairly ordinary

 

AJTx

xx

AKxx

xxx

 

Now what?

I think the point Frances was trying to make was that the 1NT bidder, assured of invitational values opposite, would already have doubled 2♠ "for takeout" before the bidding reached this "fairly ordinary" stage.

 

Of course, your example is not "fairly ordinary" at all; it assumes that your side has at least a combined 27 hcp with at least six spades, and that an opponent has enough to wander into the auction with 2♠. This will, I conjecture, not occur more often than one time in a few hundred million. I am an old has-been (as Jlall has pointed out), and your lifetime is likely to be longer than mine, but not that much longer in terms of the expected occurrence of this "fairly ordinary" situation.

 

Having said that, I confess that having played both approaches - [1] if pass is forcing, double is penalty; [2] if pass is forcing, double is takeout - method [1] has met with no bad results, while method [2] has met with nothing but bad results. The claimed "advantage" for method [2] in auctions starting with a double of 1NT turns out to be no advantage at all: the only time both of you combine to double for penalty is when neither of you has any trump tricks, while you have God knows what unexplored fits in other suits.

 

But then, I am that bridge player described to a T by P G Wodehouse when he wrote:

 

Out in the silent Rockies,

Tracking the teddy bears,

There's a man whose brow is furrowed,

Whose hairs are silver hairs.

Folks in that far-off region

Know him as Jaundiced Jim,

And now I'll tell you his story -

How do I know it? I'm him.

[jtfanclub]

OK, so....the bidding goes:

 

1NT P 2♣ 2♠

-P-  P

 

You hold a fairly ordinary

 

AJTx

xx

AKxx

xxx

 

Now what?

I think the point Frances was trying to make was that the 1NT bidder, assured of invitational values opposite, would already have doubled 2♠ "for takeout" before the bidding reached this "fairly ordinary" stage.

OK, forget the HCP. My point was...what is the X for takeout showing exactly? Four hearts? Two or fewer spades? What are you supposed to do with ordinary hands with neither?

 

I don't know what an X should be called that doesn't promise shortness or an alternate suit, but it doesn't feel like takeout is a good description. I'm not sure what the real advantage is of this either.

[MomoTheDog]

This is penalty unless you have some super-specific agreement. It is more useful as a penalty double at this spot.

[lexlogan]

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

 

It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

I'm sure you have more expertise in this area than I, but you wouldn't double 2S with AKxx xx Axx Axxx ?

If West, a passed hand, bids 2♠ at his second turn, a likely explanation is that he has six spades and four hearts (else he would have opened 2♠). I might then hope to draw dummy's trumps and wait for partner to take some heart tricks.

 

But all too often, declarer has a habit of turning up with such as ♠QJ109xx and ♥QJ10x. That's seven tricks facing ♥9, even if dummy doesn't turn up with the king of declarer's minor-suit doubleton. In the meantime, we can make 3NT in comfort - and we can often do that even when we beat 2♠.

 

No, I wouldn't double 2♠ with ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣Axx. But if you would, you could easily be right.

OK, thanks. I can't afford to play in regionals or nationals, while at sectionals or club events players routinely overcall 1NT on 5 card suits. So I think doubling may be more profitable in my experience than yours :).