What went wrong ?

[benlessard]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxh9xxxdaxxcakxx&s=skqjxhxdkqjxxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

1D---(1H)-----X!----(P)

2C!---(3H)----X-----all pass

 

1D show at least 4D and is unbalanced

X is relay showing 6 pts+

2C = 5D+4S 12-22

[han]

By having the first double show nothing you sure make it hard for yourself. So I blame system.

[Cascade]

Maybe you don't like the system i bet though if you explore deeper it really does show something e.g. it might deny four spades and a diamond fit so then it pretty much has to show clubs etc.

 

I hate the second double especially if it is unilaterally penalties as it seems to be by the pass.

[Apollo81]

The methods seem poor.

[pclayton]

Remind me to preempt against this when I play against it. An ambiguous double and an ambiguous 2♣ call.

 

System = 80%, North = 20% for not guessing to bid 4♦.

[helene_t]

Not sure if the methods are so poor. Depends what additional info we have on top of the 6+ points. If it really just shows 6+ points, obviously the methods are poor, but I can't believe that to be the case.

 

Need to discuss what the second double means. If it's penalties, N must bid 3♦ instead of double. If it's competitive, S needs to bid 3♦.

[han]

If there was additional info then we should have been told so, how else can we sensibly judge?

[mikeh]

Agree that the system is to blame, at least based on the disclosure to date. Agree also with those who suggest that in truth we know far more than was disclosed. I cannot believe that all other calls over the 1♥ deny 6 points, for example B)

 

So there will be calls that promise some strength and afford shape information, in which case the double (I assume) excludes those hands.

 

Ben, posts without FULL disclosure of relevant info make replies futile.

[Fluffy]

Was it so bad to play 3♥ doubled?, given vulnerability and our cards I wouldn't say it is so bad contract.

[Cascade]

Remind me to preempt against this when I play against it. An ambiguous double and an ambiguous 2♣ call.

 

System = 80%, North = 20% for not guessing to bid 4♦.

What is ambiguous about "2C = 5D+4S 12-22 "?

[inquiry]

Remind me to preempt against this when I play against it. An ambiguous double and an ambiguous 2♣ call.

 

System = 80%, North = 20% for not guessing to bid 4♦.

What is ambiguous about "2C = 5D+4S 12-22 "?

The 11 hcp range for the rebid....

 

Seriously, 6+ could by anything from 6 to 20, 2C could be 11 to 22...

 

This partnership is looking at 17 to 42 (ok, ok 40). How can they both have made bids, landed in 2♣ which is NOT their suit and bid constructively from here. The whole auction is lost if you ask me.

[Cascade]

Remind me to preempt against this when I play against it. An ambiguous double and an ambiguous 2♣ call.

 

System = 80%, North = 20% for not guessing to bid 4♦.

What is ambiguous about "2C = 5D+4S 12-22 "?

The 11 hcp range for the rebid....

That is only slightly wider than a forcing 1♠ response on auctions like:

 

1♣ 1♥

1♠

 

and people don't describe that as ambiguous.

[P_Marlowe]

Remind me to preempt against this when I play against it. An ambiguous double and an ambiguous 2♣ call.

 

System = 80%, North = 20% for not guessing to bid 4♦.

What is ambiguous about "2C = 5D+4S 12-22 "?

The 11 hcp range for the rebid....

That is only slightly wider than a forcing 1♠ response on auctions like:

 

1♣ 1♥

1♠

 

and people don't describe that as ambiguous.

But at least 3 real suits have been bid.

Add to this, that opener denied heart support,

and that opener may not hold a 5-4 shape with

+19, and certain bal. hands with 20/21-22HCP

are also out of the equation.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

Can someone please clarify what the first Dbl really showed? As an opponent OR partner I wouldn't accept an explanation "6+HCP". That's just impossible.

[skjaeran]

Looks like they play 1♠=4+ and x=those hands that can't bid 1NT (lack of stopper) and hasn't got the values for 2♣ nor fit for 2♦. I regularly play the same, except we switch the meanings; x=4+♠, 1♠ denies 4c. Basically, the X (1♠ for me) promise 4+♣s.

 

The actual hand is close to, or just at the border to, a 2♣ bid - depending on methods.

 

The 2♣ rebid is strange to me, wonder what a 1♠ rebid would show.

 

The main problem in the sequence is the last double. If that's pure penalty (or close to that), I don't fancy it. If it's just showing a maximum it's probably OK. Then south's pass is wrong. I guess the problem here is lack of agreement regarding the meaning of the last double.

[Cascade]

Can someone please clarify what the first Dbl really showed? As an opponent OR partner I wouldn't accept an explanation "6+HCP". That's just impossible.

Double is explained as "relay".

 

Its possible it is some sort of GF relay or nebulous hand with competitive values to be clarified on the next round.

 

That might explain the artificial 2♣ response.

[benlessard]

instead of X partner could have showned club and a limit raise 1Nt followed by 2D (but id expect real C suit) or he could have showned a limit raise immediatly (2H). Relay = i think ill be better place to make a decision (limit or GF in this case) if i know more about your hand.

 

The relay will permit us to find almost any slam (if they dont raise the bidding) and to make a limit and stop in 2D if opener has D+C.(not really pertinent in this case)

 

IMO from responder point of view it make sense to ask for description instead of describing his hand because whatever he will do its not perfect. But at the same time no matter what responder show D+C, C+D,D+S,6D or longer, its not clear the hand is strong enough to force to game.

 

(what would you do playing natural ? show a limit raise ? we are not playing sound openings but we dont open light)

 

Those who think X as relay is worse then X showing 4S dont understand the power of relays. IMO if you can afford relays there is no comparaison between 1D---1H (relays) and playing 1D---1H (showing 4). So its the same thing after 1D---(1H)---X except that you have to take competitive factor into account. With 4 trumps W/R responder is not that much worried about competitive imo, and slam is a possibility so relaying is certainly an interesting option.

 

As for the 2C showing S its because over 1D---1H----1S show both minors. The switch is because when its D+S its 5-4 or 64 but when its both m its 55-54-45-64 so more space is needed for both minors

[gnasher]

Those who think X as relay is worse then X showing 4S dont understand the power of relays.

Equally, one could say that those who think X as a relay is better than X showing 4S don't understand the power of preemption.

 

In answer to your original question, two things went wrong:

- You agreed to play methods which work best if the opponents don't preempt, and then they did preempt.

- You hadn't discussed the double of 3S, or North made an unwise penalty double, or South unwisely left in a non-penalty double without enough defensive strength.

[inquiry]

Let's examine the power of the relay stuff on this hand, shall we...

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxh9xxxdaxxcakxx&s=skqjxhxdkqjxxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: MP

 

1D---(1H)-----X!----(P)

 

At this point, i don't know how many diamonds south has promised. But it seems north has denied spades and shown at least six points. That is about it. I use this double also to deny spades but show enough to compete with many parrtners. So I don't fault the theory of the double, but 6+ is too wide a range....

 

next comes...

 

2C!---(3H)----X

 

2[cj] showed spades so that 1♠ could show clubs. Interesting justiposition, lets a weak X take simple preference at two level on a minor fit, still... here we go again. West bids 3♥ and north double... let'ts see if south can make an intellegent decision....

[/hv]

 

What does opener know? North has 6+ points (first double) and less than 4♠. Over 3H x, what extra has he learned? What did north learn about south's hand to make him certain double is right. Could south not have, AKxx x KQJTxxx Qx where 6♦ is on ice. I don't think this was a very compelling arguement. There simply wsn't enough descripitive info shared to allow a reasonable decision to be made.

 

Lets assume for a minute that the double showed NEGATIVE double values (not enough to force to game) and lack of 4 spades. A reasonable auction with their jump to 3H might be...

 

1D- (1H)- dbl - pass

2D - (3H) -dbl

 

Now the doulbe is descriptive. Opener knows that partner is not well heeled in hearts (no 1NT), has some minor suit values (double) and is making a cooperative double. South will clearly pull and 5D should be reached. On the auction given, north could have anything becasue "he was asking not showing". So south has no idea how to read the double. Now maybe if it was a REAL SLOW DOUBLE, south would pull, and if it was lightening fast, south would pass. But people don't do this do they?

[benlessard]

On this hand X has denying 4S turn out better because opener will show 6D instead of 5-4 but i doubt its the best treatment (I much prefer if it guaranteed 5 in the other minor) and im sure that it doesnt compare to relays . I really think north second X is penalty and was a gamble at mp and a mistake if in imps.

 

IMHO by default once opener bid 2 natural suit the doubles become strongly penalty oriented (ill only pull with extreme shapes)

 

1D---(1H)----X-----(P)

1S---(2H)----X

 

1D---(1H)----X-----(P)

2C---(2H)----X

 

1C---(1D)----1H----(P)

1S---(2D)---X

 

I play all these X as penalty oriented and i assume its standard.

 

Also the first responder X deny shortness in the opps suit and 1S instead of X tend to show 5 or 4 with a stiff in opps suits.

 

In a weak field nobody reached 5D and i think that in a strong field there will be few pairs there.

 

Equally, one could say that those who think X as a relay is better than X showing 4S don't understand the power of preemption.

When we have shape we bid we dont relay from north point of view preemption wasnt a big threat for sure.

[gnasher]

IMHO by default once opener bid 2 natural suit the doubles become strongly penalty oriented (ill only pull with extreme shapes)

If I were playing these methods, I'd want the double to show extra values and a balanced hand.

 

But much more important, if I were playing these methods I'd have discussed it with my partner. It's most unwise to play relay methods without discussing how to deal with intervention.

[dake50]

DA +CAK is way more than 'where to go' 6+hcp. What is the big controls and D-fit follow after initial double, use that.

[Finch]

I don't have a problem with the methods.

I do have a problem with North's second double, which (unless you have agreed otherwise) should be penalties. North doesn't have a penalty double, he has a nice hand with a diamond fit. Why not raise partner's suit?

[sathyab]

I tend to agree with posts that blame the methods less than the judgement involved in making the second double. As for agreement, I guess when you are playing systems which are somewhat less informative compared to standard methods it's more imperative to have some. Had the auction gone 1d-(1h)-X-(p)-2c-(3h)-X with North holding 9xxx 9xxx Axx AK, and South showing Diamonds and Clubs, nobody could complain much about the methods and yet the double is probably almost as disastrous. With partner showing at least 5 Diamonds and possibly six, isn't there a chance of our defensive tricks collasping as a result of Diamond fit that partner doesn't know about ?

 

Here's a similar one from a recent IMP pairs event: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=saqxh9xdaqt8xctxx&w=st85hakqjxdxcqxxx&e=sjxht8xxxdjxxcakj&s=sk97xxhxdkxxxc8xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

And the bidding goes p-1h-2d-3d-3s-p-4s-p-p

 

The 3d is limit raise in hearts. As a passed hand, South bid 3s as he was prepared to play in Diamonds had he found no spade fit.

 

When it came around to West, I don't think there's any reason to double at all. So much of your strength is in hearts and except for the Queen of clubs, you have precious little by way of defense. It shouldn't be surprising if your side scored only 1 heart trick if you could imagine even a nine-card fit with a 4-1 break in the suit. And yet of course it was doubled and as happens often misdefended too. After an opening heart lead and the Ten of hearts by partner, playing UDCA, a club shift seems mandatory. But he thought he'd switch after cashing the second heart ! Horrified to see it being ruffed, now he's preparing his arguments to win the post-mortem. May be this is a bad example: if West does switch to a club and the fourth round of clubs ruffed with the Jack, the contract could even go down 2 ! Good double pd, wish you could defend a li'l better :)