TimG Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them. This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties. Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence. Personally, I don't understand why. After a takeout double of 1♥, a subsequent double of 1♠ is a penalty double absent a specific agreement to the contrary. At least, that is the way it has been for about 80 years. Today, double never seems to mean double.It's not often discussed because it is not a common occurrence for intervenor to double and then bid responder's suit. I'm not sure I buy your suggested default agreement. I think lots of people would assume that in a sequence like 1H-X-1S-X the second double was responsive even if they had not specifically agreed to that. I'm not saying that I endorse that agreement, just that I think that is what lots of players would assume. As you say, today double never seems to mean double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Partner forgot to bid 2D??? REPEAT!!!... PARTNER FORGOT TO BID 2♦!!!!!!! Maybe 2♦ is so obvious nobody can see it! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONEferBRID Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Isn't the 1♠ bid a classic psychic bid situation? A double again should expose it.Yes: ( 1H ) - X - ( 1S ) - ??. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X = I got 4 cards Sp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S = I got 5+ cds Sp ... although here, Advancer has neither of those hands. And: ( 1H ) - X - ( 1S ) - p ( p ) - 2S = spades; If I wanted a general force I would have cuebid 2H!. . . . . . . . . ( a 2nd DBL would still have been for T/O ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I heard you, bill1157.. Advancer cudda/shudda bid 2D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Agree with Gonzalo. I don't think double is psych-exposing. 3244 would be typical. FWIW, with some random pick up partner, that is the sort of thing I would expect. Mind you, if the one spade bidder is my brother-in-law we'd better be playing X as "for the money". Nick 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.