awm Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 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." It seems that long ago, doubles were penalty. Over time people have realized that it often pays to play certain doubles as not penalty. As these sorts of doubles started to proliferate, they were each given names and it was defined when they applied. We had things like takeout doubles, negative doubles, responsive doubles, maximal doubles, support doubles. But as these "special doubles" almost all of which said "please bid partner" and indicated support for one or more of the as-yet unbid suits continued to become more common, a funny thing happened. At some point it became the default that low-level doubles were takeout. Now for many good partnerships, it seems that the default meaning of double is "please bid partner" ... yet some doubles are still penalty. The problem is that no one ever went through and enumerated all the penalty double situations. It seems that the higher opponents bid and/or the more defined partner's hand is and/or the more opportunities I previously had to double the same suit for takeout, the more likely it is that my double is penalty. But since there are not any specific rules about these matters double "accidents" seem to come up more often than not. So yes, it is nice that Elianna and I have a general agreement that covers all "undiscussed" doubles. But as these things go I also think our solution is actually a fairly nice one. The alternative would be to define all doubles as takeout, and then start making up names for the penalty ones. We could have the... "you bid too high!" double applying if opponents are at 4♠ or above... the "that's our suit!" double for when opponents bid a suit we previously showed... the "I warned you!" double for after we have made a card-showing double or redouble, the "fool me once..." double for when we previously could've doubled that suit for takeout and didn't... and of course the famous "bones" double based primarily on declarer's identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The problem is that no one ever went through and enumerated all the penalty double situations. It seems that the higher opponents bid and/or the more defined partner's hand is and/or the more opportunities I previously had to double the same suit for takeout, the more likely it is that my double is penalty. But since there are not any specific rules about these matters double "accidents" seem to come up more often than not. I agree with none of that paragraph at all (I agree with the second sentence technically, but not the implication that no one has a clue where any of the cutoffs lie). But least of all, you claim to have an accident with undefined doubles 'more often than not'? So partner is more likely to get it wrong than right if you make an undiscussed double? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I agree with none of that paragraph at all (I agree with the second sentence technically, but not the implication that no one has a clue where any of the cutoffs lie). But least of all, you claim to have an accident with undefined doubles 'more often than not'? So partner is more likely to get it wrong than right if you make an undiscussed double? In most of my regular partnerships, it's impossible for me to make an undiscussed double because of these general agreements. :P In pickup partnerships, I find that undiscussed doubles are a big area for disagreements. I'm not sure that partner gets them wrong more than 50% of the time, but it is at least close to 50-50. Recently I played with Val Gamio, who (as perhaps you are aware) plays more doubles as takeout than virtually anyone else I can think of. We had an auction where opponents opened a weak notrump and I doubled for penalty, then opponents ran to a suit and it came back to me, and I doubled for takeout. I play this double as takeout in all my regular partnerships, and I figured that while it might be a "dangerous undiscussed double" with many players, surely Val of all people would figure it for takeout. Nope. I also think that a lot of players have a weird aversion to discussing doubles. Even on these forums, there is a strong tendency to play double as "blame transfer" (i.e. it shows the hand I have, whatever that might be, and if partner can't figure it out then it's his fault). People spend hours and hours discussing their notrump systems or inverted minor structure, but I see a lot of experienced partnerships who have never discussed simple double auctions like 1♦-P-1NT-2♠-X or 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠-X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 [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 Just about what I expected... a sub-min 2♦ bid and not such a good jump to 3♠. I'd most certainly play double as penalty here since you had two ways to compete earlier on your first turn, double for take out or 2NT. Your partner should realize this ! However, I wouldn't double for penalty here at IMPs since I suspect your PD is broke and since you basically tell declarer the location of every missing high card and certainly cannot expect a 2 trick set after doing so, which is what you should hope for to offset the risk that he makes his doubled contract. Just my opinion .. neilkaz .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thanks all :) This is another reminder that when I pick up a hand that is shouting ♠reverse - I dont have to bid. Sometimes PASS is right choice.I like Mikes comment re creating opportunities for disasters, which I did here. Im trying to play with very minimal agreements, a lot of assumptions and so I have many opportunities to create disasters. Also Mike, you seem to know my game better than I do, I did think my hand was a lot better than it is. Now I can see declarer is short in ♦`s and Im going to have my `winners` ruffed, I may only win 1 or 2 ♠ and my Kx`s are dubious.Heck this game is hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Kathryn "I did think my hand was a lot better than it is. Now I can see declarer is short in ♦`s and Im going to have my `winners` ruffed, I may only win 1 or 2 ♠ and my Kx`s are dubious.Heck this game is hard. " neilkaz ... yes..it is a hard game, but you're experiences help you learn it. This hand is about positional evaluation of your cards. Unless 2♦ was a complete psych, your pd is next to broke so most likely one of your kings is not useful. Opener has a fist full of ♠ (likely 7 or 8 or he's a moron since he's missing two honors since you hold them) and may just ruff away some of your ♦ winners. I think it's Lawrence's Evaluation at Bridge that covers how the evaluation of our hand changes due to the bidding and it's positional aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 If the discussion of the double has run its course I would, mostly for amusement, like to ask whether 3S can or cannot be made on a heart lead. We allow some inspired play by declarer. For example:Heart to king, ducked. Take the next heart,.Spade to 9.If S returns a spade spot, finesse, take the ace of spades, lead another spade. S is in, holding only diamonds and clubs, and seems to be stuck. A diamond is impossible since the heart then goes away. A small club can be won by the Q, after which a club is ducked to the now stiff king. The club king won't work either. Win the ace, run trump coming down to QT of clubs and a heart, then read the position. It's all a bit, or maybe more than a bit, double dummy but is there a defense to 3S after the heart lead if declarer gets the play right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts