Really?

[Jlall]

Do you ever preempt when you know it's the opponents hand? Why do you do so? Obviously so they have less room, and thus bid less accurately.

 

The most obvious thing to say is that if we pass, LHO is probably going to raise clubs. He has the option of bidding 2C, or 3C, or cuebidding 2H followed by raising clubs. If we bid 2H LHO can make a competitive 3C bid or pass (or if he has a GF, risk never showing clubs or driving past 3N). His ranges will be wider, his hand will be less defined, it will be harder for them to sort out all relevant issues.

 

LOL @ the "why bid when we have a 9 card fit and they have more points than us??" camp. LOL @ the ZOMG we're gonna buy it in 1H X camp.

[billw55]

... over 1♥x he was going to bid something 100% of the time, which I don't think some of you are understanding ...

I am understanding. I am just not agreeing :)

 

Will he pull it a majority of the time? Certainly. 100%? No way. By his own statement (so it seems from the OP) the second double is penalty.

 

Now, if LHO was you every time, then yes it would get pulled every time. But I have played against plenty who would leave it in; some of which I consider decent players.

 

As for the 2♥ taking away a whole level of bidding. True, it does; but still it's only 2♥. I don't really expect that to stop them getting to a normal game contract. The main thing it does is transfer the opportunity to screw up from lefty to righty.

 

Try looking at it this way. Say I hesitate noticeably and then bid 2♥, and ops end up protesting. Will a panel really rule that pass is not a logical alternative?

[jjbrr]

... over 1♥x he was going to bid something 100% of the time, which I don't think some of you are understanding ...

I am understanding. I am just not agreeing :P

 

Will he pull it a majority of the time? Certainly. 100%? No way. By his own statement (so it seems from the OP) the second double is penalty.

 

Now, if LHO was you every time, then yes it would get pulled every time. But I have played against plenty who would leave it in; some of which I consider decent players.

 

As for the 2♥ taking away a whole level of bidding. True, it does; but still it's only 2♥. I don't really expect that to stop them getting to a normal game contract. The main thing it does is transfer the opportunity to screw up from lefty to righty.

 

Try looking at it this way. Say I hesitate noticeably and then bid 2♥, and ops end up protesting. Will a panel really rule that pass is not a logical alternative?

Don't hesitate noticeably, in my opinion. Then you have nothing to worry about. I would bid 2♥ perfectly in tempo.

 

Yes, 100%. Just because double is penalty does not mean partner is obligated to pass. He will not pass on whatever hand he has. Double of 1♥ merely suggests defending. This is true of all penalty doubles. Some just suggest passing more than others. The only way LHO will pass 1♥x is if partner psyched or if we're playing with cards from two separate decks.

[OleBerg]

Try looking at it this way.  Say I hesitate noticeably and then bid 2♥, and ops end up protesting.  Will a panel really rule that pass is not a logical alternative?

Why would that matter?

[billw55]

Just because double is penalty does not mean partner is obligated to pass.

Of course not! Lefty can pull and should.

 

But I have played enough bridge with enough ops to know perfectly well that some players will pass. Absolutely without question. Is it a mistake? Probably. Is it a mistake some players will make? Now, that is more like a 100% proposition in my book.

 

TBH it sounds like you only ever play with a handful a people, who all play just like you do.

 

edit: enough talk, what was the table result already? :P

[kenrexford]

I find it humorous how passionate people are about what to do at your third opportunity to bid when you made a ridiculous decision at your first opportunity to bid. Seems somewhat academic.

 

That said, what is going on here? Opener reopened with a double after his partner passed. His partner then passed the reopening double, for penalties. Partner pulled to 1♥. Opener hit this, which is defined as "penalty" by the OP.

 

So, the opponents have exchanged some information. Opener has roughly takeout shape and interest in penalizing 1♥ on the basis of his own hand plus the general stuff shown by his partner's pass. His partner thinks he can set 1♦. So, the opponents have shown a lot of defense and a little about shape.

 

What does partner have? I would expect him to have a problem in one of the black suits for not reopening, or length in hearts. But, his hearts cannot be that great. So, I think he probably has a problem, and that problem seems to be in spades, IMO.

 

I have a strong suspicion, therefore, that partner has exactly two spades. Probably 2-5-1-5. If Opener has what I suspect, 4-3-2-4 with AQ in hearts and KJ in spades, Responder's xxxx in spades explains a lot about his decision to seek a penalty on me with his AQJxx in diamonds, and some club card, probably Qxx.

 

So, I'm guessing that Responder's hand looks like xxxx-x-AQJ10x-Qxx and Opener KJxx-AQxx-x-AKJx. If the opponents play spades eventually, a diamond lead, spade to Jack-Queen, diamond ruff, and spade Ace sets 4♠.

 

Because I like my spade holding a lot, and because my diamonds are so unexpectedly lousy, I like giving the opponents room, because I think I set 4♠ a lot. I want them to get there.

 

 

(Devil's advocate. I really just passed without thinking because the 1D overcall distracted me. LOL)

 

[bid_em_up]

I will assume that I misunderstood something (it certainly isn't the first time, nor is it the last), and retract the original post here.

[cherdanno]

bid_em_up, need a drink? Your misuse of "LOL" here is discrediting a very useful tool, btw.

[bid_em_up]

deleted.

 

See above.

[WesleyC]

Looks like an obvious pass to me.

 

On a side note, 1D is pretty ugly :(

[OleBerg]

The table result was asked for, so here it is (some spots may be wrong):

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s872hqj962dqcqj76&w=s1095h5daj1097ck1083&e=skj64ha73d52ca942&s=saq3hk1084dk8643c5]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

(1♣)   -   1♦  -  (Pass) - Pass

( X )   - Pass - (Pass) - 1♥

( X ) -   Pass - (2♣) - Pass

(Pass) - 2♥ -  (Pass) - Pass

(Pass)

 

I stopped kibzing here, but I found the South hand interesting. To me it was obvious to bid, but not to bid 2♥. Maybe I was influenced by seeing all four hands, but my thoughts was, that South might want to go to the 3-level with this hand (nine thrumphs and everything), but with the potential bad breaks for opp. in clubs, he might want to include North in the decision.

 

So my initial thought was a 2♣ bid.

 

Problems with this:

 

- Partner might think it is natural. (He shouldn't).

- Partner might expect a stronger hand with only three-card support, and might go wrong later on. (Not unreasonable.)

- Takes up less space, in an auction where the opp. degree of Club-fit is quite ambiguous.

 

So does a 2♣ bid have any merit?

Anybody for the 3-level in any possible continuations? (Not on the actual layout, but assume for example the opponents confidently comes to rest in 2♠ or 3♣).

 

Edit: Pass changed to double after 1♥, as in original post. Sorry.

[Jlall]

Why wouldn't 2C be natural?

[OleBerg]

Why wouldn't 2C be natural?

My thoughts:

 

To unlikely to have such a hand. Much more useful to have a cuebid available.

[the hog]

Two points.

1) I would think 2C should definitely be natural.

2) I am surprised Nth did not bid 1H over 1D.

[aguahombre]

different auction than the original post. No double of the 1H runout. either way, 2C is a natural suit bid and 2H is the correct call. You really do not need a cuebid after an overcall and a pass by advancer. You do not need a quebid after an overcall and any non-forcing advance.

[gnasher]

To unlikely to have such a hand. Much more useful to have a cuebid available.

The opponents have doubled me in one suit, partner has run, and now they've doubled him in that. How often do you think you're going to need a cue bid in this type of sequence?

 

This is the first time in my life that I've seen a hand where one might possibly want to cue bid in this type of position. To get here we had to grossly misbid on the first round. And the hand isn't worth a cue-bid anyway.

[OleBerg]

To unlikely to have such a hand. Much more useful to have a cuebid available.

The opponents have doubled me in one suit, partner has run, and now they've doubled him in that. How often do you think you're going to need a cue bid in this type of sequence?

More often than I need to be able to play in the openers suit.

This is the first time in my life that I've seen a hand where one might possibly want to cue bid in this type of position.  To get here we had to grossly misbid on the first round.  And the hand isn't worth a cue-bid anyway.

Yeah, but switch spades and clubs, and change the ♦K to the ace. Not likely, but neither is wanting to play 2♣.

[bid_em_up]

I find the description of the double of 1♥ as "penalty" to be misleading.

 

Once partner has made a trap pass of 1D, the double of 1♥ should mean that "I am willing to defend one 1H x'd if you have a suitable hand type, and if you dont, then please bid something".

 

This hand doesn't come close to resembling what I would think of as a "penalty double". It has no extra values, and no trump stack. So how can it be "penalty"?

 

jmoo.

[the hog]

I find the description of the double of 1♥ as "penalty" to be misleading.

 

Once partner has made a trap pass of 1D, the double of 1♥ should mean that "I am willing to defend one 1H x'd if you have a suitable hand type, and if you dont, then please bid something".

 

This hand doesn't come close to resembling what I would think of as a "penalty double". It has no extra values, and no trump stack. So how can it be "penalty"?

 

jmoo.

Yes, I agree; however myabe it was explained as that?

[rhm]

I find the description of the double of 1♥ as "penalty" to be misleading.

 

Once partner has made a trap pass of 1D, the double of 1♥ should mean that "I am willing to defend one 1H x'd if you have a suitable hand type, and if you dont, then please bid something".

 

This hand doesn't come close to resembling what I would think of as a "penalty double".  It has no extra values, and no trump stack.  So how can it be "penalty"?

 

jmoo.

Yes, I agree; however myabe it was explained as that?

Maybe, but why ask people what to bid where the given bidding has no relationship with the actual hands held?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[OleBerg]

I find the description of the double of 1♥ as "penalty" to be misleading.

 

Once partner has made a trap pass of 1D, the double of 1♥ should mean that "I am willing to defend one 1H x'd if you have a suitable hand type, and if you dont, then please bid something".

 

This hand doesn't come close to resembling what I would think of as a "penalty double".  It has no extra values, and no trump stack.  So how can it be "penalty"?

 

jmoo.

Yes, I agree; however myabe it was explained as that?

Maybe, but why ask people what to bid where the given bidding has no relationship with the actual hands held?

 

Rainer Herrmann

I was simply interested in what to do with the South hand in the given circumstances.

 

May I recommend a site for you:

 

www.resultmerchant.com

[aguahombre]

As mentioned above, the term "penalty" is often misused. When partner makes a bid that is penalty oriented, but cooperative, I try to explain it as just that ---or "informative"..then elaborate ---or "card showing"..then elaborate, etc. Not sidetracking, here --the description of "penalty" was used in the post and is germain.

[skjaeran]

Late to this.

 

Agree with LOLing the 1♦ overcall - t/o double is more than obvious.

 

I'd raise 1♥x to 2♥. Can't see the point in NOT taking away opps bidding space her.

 

Strange pass of 1♦ by partner, ridiculous double of 1♥ by RHO.

 

Problems like this one, where most of the calls have little or no relation to the actual hand, really belongs somewhere outside the A/E forum.

[OleBerg]

Problems like this one, where most of the calls have little or no relation to the actual hand, really belongs somewhere outside the A/E forum.

Strange attitude.

 

If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here?

[pooltuna]

Problems like this one, where most of the calls have little or no relation to the actual hand, really belongs somewhere outside the A/E forum.

Strange attitude.

 

If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here?

The problem is that skaeran sees, as do I, the failure to X 1♣ as a clear error and responding as if it was acceptable should not be in the A/E forum.