louisg Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sqjxhakt8xxdctxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass 1♥ 2♦ Pass2♠ Pass Pass DblPass ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Partner has a penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠. I have a diamond void, a trump trick and two likely side-suit winners. Pass seems clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Partner has a penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠. I have a diamond void, a trump trick and two likely side-suit winners. Pass seems clear. I would wager we are making 2♠ on defense. Pass is totally obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Glad nobody complained about the one-heart opening. Save the weak two or some other blast for on-line with other than regular partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I WOULD RISK A PASS CALL IN THIS SITUATION!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcurt Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 This is a lead problem right? I'll be a farmer and play a high heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisg Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was: ♠xx♥QJ♦AJxxxxx♣Kx Any suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Any suggestions? Well it certainly isn't a double. A useful rule is you need Hxx in the 2nd suit after a penalty pass. 2N and 3N are possible. So is a probe of 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was: ♠xx♥QJ♦AJxxxxx♣Kx Any suggestions? Just one suggestion...pd's 2nd double is poor and is looking for a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcurt Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was: ♠xx♥QJ♦AJxxxxx♣Kx Any suggestions? This hand is an awful dummy for either black suit. The ♦A is either facing a void or getting ruffed off, and the ♥QJ aren't worth anything on defense. That leaves you with about two half tricks against spades, one of which replicates a value in partner's hand if it is in fact a full trick, definitely nowhere close to double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 It was partner's double that buried you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades. The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers. Seems like a good place to have an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades. The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers. Seems like a good place to have an agreement. I don't see the point of this, since sometimes we have them nutted in spades, and with values and long ♦ and short ♠, we have plenty of bids available to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades. The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers. Seems like a good place to have an agreement. I don't see the point of this, since sometimes we have them nutted in spades, and with values and long ♦ and short ♠, we have plenty of bids available to us.Then check out the actual hand. It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Then check out the actual hand. It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist.My mistake, I didn't realize that having two clubs was ideal for a takeout double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcD Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Good problem . I do not have the agreement that partner's dbl shows at least Hxx in the second suit so for me , on general principals, the double is more of the take out / Do Somtehing Intelligent type (penalty dbl of diamonds , no natureal bid, points). I think it is a close call but I would pull to 3♣ . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Then check out the actual hand. It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist.My mistake, I didn't realize that having two clubs was ideal for a takeout double.Np. This forum is for advanced players too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisg Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I've seen a lot of criticism of the double, but no real discussions of the alternatives. Do we pass and miss an easy vul game opposite something like xxx AKTxxx x AQx (ducking the DK lead at trick one in 4H)? Not to mention the fact that partner may have spades well held and was unable to act last round. Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)? Who knows how partner would take a 3D bid? Yes, I realize that this may not be the textbook holding for a double ("penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠", as stated by gnasher), but when compared with the alternatives I don't think it looks all that bad. Additional comments welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcurt Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would have bid 3H not x for the playing strength reasons I mentioned earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)? I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)? I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no?Ax or Kx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)? I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no?Ax or Kx? That too, my point is if he has two small he has to do something, and since double seems ruled out what else is there? I don't think 3♦ is right, and 3♥ rules out 2NT as a contract although it's a possible choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm not so convinced as some others that double shows more than xx of spades. Do people have agreements about that or are most of you just making that up because 2SX made? I am asking in honestly, I have never discussed this with anybody. I don't think holding Hxx is more frequent than a doubleton after you have made a penalty pass of 2D. And doubling with xx could easily lead to a juicy penalty when partner is sitting behind the 2S bidder with 4 good spades and we have diamonds locked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm not so convinced as some others that double shows more than xx of spades. Do people have agreements about that or are most of you just making that up because 2SX made? I am asking in honestly, I have never discussed this with anybody. I don't think holding Hxx is more frequent than a doubleton after you have made a penalty pass of 2D. And doubling with xx could easily lead to a juicy penalty when partner is sitting behind the 2S bidder with 4 good spades and we have diamonds locked up. I was also thinking that double doesn't show more than xx of trumps - with opponent's misfit, even xx opposite KJx might lead to a good penalty. However, the hand in question has more warning signs than that - superlong diamonds, no diamond spots, and only half a defensive trick outside of diamonds. Would we really be surprised to take no defensive trick with this hand? Would we really be surprised if we can't prevent diamonds from being set up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Arend, I talked with coach. Apparently double does show Hxx. :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.