more double trouble

[jillybean]

West North East South

 

 1♠    Pass  2♦    Pass

 3♠    Pass  Pass  Dbl

   

 

And please explain why.

[Finch]

And please explain why.

Penalty, because I can't have a hand that wants to make a take-out double at the 3-level but could not act over 2D.

[Codo]

The opps must play a pretty weird system.

A jump after a 2/1 was non forcing?

 

If I double now, this is penalty.

But I will never ever double.

 

The sound of the bidding was gameforcing+, so why should I belive in beating 3 Spade?

 

Or was the bidding

1 ♠ pass pass 2 ♦

3 ♠ pass pass?

 

This is MUCH trickier. It would be kind of action double to me, but I have no idea what is standard.

[jillybean]

Hi,

 

Strange but true! The auction posted is the auction we had at the table.

1♠:2♦ 3♠

[P_Marlowe]

Penalty.

 

What else?

 

They told you, they own more than half of the pot,

so, if you go wandering around on the 4 level, they

will be happy to kill you.

They said to themself, that 140 was the best to hope

for on their own, but if you play on the 4level, you

offer them a chance to get 300 or more.

.........................................................................

Of course the auction does not exist, 3S created a

game force, and the 2D bidder passed, did he make

a psych bid, ... most likely but this does not change

the meaning of the X.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

I feel obliged to point out that in really old-fashioned Acol, 3S was not forcing.

[mtvesuvius]

Penalty. This is completely absurd however, because 3♠ created a GF, except in old fashioned ACOL, as Frances said. If I am going to double 3♠ is it not to give the opponents a chance to kill us on the 4 level. I cannot seem to think of any hands where X is correct, but whatever.

[jillybean]

Ignore the first part of this thread...

 

Dealer: West Vul: None Scoring: IMP ♠ KJ86 ♥ K3 ♦ AQT94 ♣ K3

 

West North East South

 

 1♠    Pass  2♦    Pass

 3♠    Pass  Pass  ?  

 

 

Your bid? This is the auction, absurd as it may be. You cant ask the opponents about their bids, they dont know or cant/wont answer.

[mtvesuvius]

I pass. This is certainly not a X, and I don't want to give the opponents a chance to bid again!

[ASkolnick]

The probable explanation of this is:

 

RHO psyched 2♦.

LHO has a big hand so he bid 3♠.

RHO got off the train.

 

But it is possible he just didn't realize it was forcing.

 

I don't think you have a game anywhere since LHO with all the points is behind you.

You are probably better off just to go plus.

[kenrexford]

I have never discussed what a dopuble means when opener makes a game-forcing jump after a 2/1 response that is passed to me in balancing seat, with our side passing throughout.

 

I have no idea what the general principles would be here.

[skjaeran]

I have never discussed what a dopuble means when opener makes a game-forcing jump after a 2/1 response that is passed to me in balancing seat, with our side passing throughout.

 

I have no idea what the general principles would be here.

General principles would be to pass.... :P

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s2hqt872d872cj985&w=saqt7543haj5dcqt2&e=s9h964dkj653ca764&s=skj86hk3daqt94ck3]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 1♠    Pass  2♦    Pass

 3♠    Pass  Pass  Dbl

 Pass  4♥    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Here's the full hand. I dont know what 3♠ is, East didnt have his bid and bailed, I doubled and partner bid the ♥'s - comment "we play negative doubles through 3♠ and take out 4♥'s" Sigh

[paulg]

It looks like you were playing an Acol pair where 2♦, 3♠ and pass might be considered normal. I certainly know pairs at my club who would bid like this.

 

Paul

[jtfanclub]

Huh. Start with a diamond lead, to the 9 and ruffed, small spade to the 9 and jack...

 

Can EW make 3♠X?

[mtvesuvius]

I like -140 or +50 at IMPs, don't you? Why ruin it?

[brianshark]

My first impression of a hand that would want to act now but couldn't on the round before is a 0454 type hand with plenty of high cards. (ie. take-out of spades)

 

BTW, the term negative is pretty meaningless these days. It originally was a type of take-out double which had a fairly specific meaning and applied to a fairly specific set of auctions. But now everyone plays different flavours, and some people (like your partner) don't even understand what auctions "negative" doubles apply to.

[Mbodell]

Huh. Start with a diamond lead, to the 9 and ruffed, small spade to the 9 and jack...

 

Can EW make 3♠X?

It is certainly close, which is no surprise, which is why at IMPs especially this is a terrible double. If EW can get transportation they only lose 1♣, 1♥, and 2♠. Now their only entry to dummy is the A♣, but south is going to be endplayed nearly all the time. On the diamond ruff, spade to the J, south is stuck. West can also play A♥ low ♥ to stick S in again and force another ♠ or ♦ or ♣ lead losing a trick in the suit led.

 

I imagine that this will go down more often than not at the table, but it is close, and the IMP EV is not great, and especially not great if partner will not read this as penalty (which it clearly should be IMO).

[vang]

I feel obliged to point out that in really old-fashioned Acol, 3S was not forcing.

I was under the impression that any bid was non-forcing in the old acol ;-)

[P_Marlowe]

I feel obliged to point out that in really old-fashioned Acol, 3S was not forcing.

That surprises me.

 

I would have bet money, that this would have been one of the few

auction which is forcing, but assuming

 

2D starting from 9/10, and 3S starting from 15, you may be right.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

I feel obliged to point out that in really old-fashioned Acol, 3S was not forcing.

That surprises me.

 

I would have bet money, that this would have been one of the few

auction which is forcing, but assuming

 

2D starting from 9/10, and 3S starting from 15, you may be right.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I have Blackwood's book on bridge somewhere around here and I recall him mentioning that his son had learned acol while in England. His assessment was that the bidding system certainly emphasized the importance of good declarer play.

 

If 3S is passed out, I imagine the opening lead is a heart spot to the King. If this is taken with the ace I see little hope for 3S. If declarer is inspired to duck the first heart, take the second, and then lead a small spade to the 9 maybe he can pull this off. I think the defense can still prevail but it gets tough.

 

When the opponents have a notably weird auction that I feel is unlikely to be repeated at the other table(s) I regard pass as the leading contender for a call. Possibly they have stumbled into the right contract and double will be a disaster. Possibly they are in a stupid contract and you will regret any action that may change it. Passing is not automatic in such situations but it's often the right choice.

 

I imagine I would pass a double with the N hand and hope partner knows what (s)he is doing. Looking at my hand, as N, I would find it hard to believe that 4H would be a winner.

[mikeh]

jb, the actual hand is a good example of a rule that I strongly recommend, especially playing in a B/I game (which most BBO games are, no matter how the players describe their skill level) or in a non-detailed partnership.

 

With the big hand, that faced the weird auction, it is tempting to bid. Leave aside the fact that this hand is not in fact as strong defensively as you seem to think. The point is that you thought that double as penalty was logical.. and whether you acknowldege it or not, that thinking was almost certainly influenced (maybe just strengthened rather than determined by) the hand that you held.

 

So you doubled. And maybe partner SHOULD have read it, but he didn't, and that should NOT have surprised you. When you confront a player, especially a player who is less than true expert or a player who doesn't trust your own expertise, with a weird auction, you create opportunity for error.

 

And why double? How rich did you expect to get? Assume LHO has anything resembling his bid.. that it is rho who screwed up... and you don't rate to get rich. Meanwhile, by offering partner an opportunity to go wrong, in a very weird auction, you are taking a huge gamble.

 

I strongly recommend that in this and analagous situations, you avoid the calls that 'bridge logic says must mean this' and, after the hand, say to partner: how would you have taken 'insert call', had I made it?

 

If you know that your call, if misinterpreted, could turn a decent result into a horrible one, and if you know that there is an appreciable risk of misinterpretation, then choose some other action (here, that would be Pass.. as it often is)

[awm]

Elianna and I have the following nice agreement:

 

(1) When opponents bid a suit at the two-level or below, doubles are always takeout unless specifically defined otherwise.

 

(2) When opponents bid a suit at the three-level or above, doubles are always penalty unless specifically defined otherwise.

 

Of course, there are many specific rules about specific doubles (for example if opponents open a three-level preempt our double is takeout, if we open a weak two and opponents overcall at the two-level double is penalty, etc) and these overrule the general agreements.

 

But anytime opponents have an auction where we certainly haven't discussed anything about the meaning of double, we have an agreement. :)

[jdonn]

Elianna and I have the following nice agreement:

 

(1) When opponents bid a suit at the two-level or below, doubles are always takeout unless specifically defined otherwise.

 

(2) When opponents bid a suit at the three-level or above, doubles are always penalty unless specifically defined otherwise.

You don't mean "we have the following nice agreement." You mean "it's nice that we have an agreement, and it happens to be the following."

[Winstonm]

I have never discussed what a dopuble means when opener makes a game-forcing jump after a 2/1 response that is passed to me in balancing seat, with our side passing throughout.

 

I have no idea what the general principles would be here.

Page 47,692 of Partnership understandings, line 83, footnote 17, listed under "other".