suokko Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Why would you bid 1NT with balanced hand? You can bid 1NT with unbalanced ♣ hand. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. transfers in competition of course. But of course without transfers you could bid with this balanced 8-10 hand the 1NT to steal the contract there. So why do you think I prefaced my comments with "Assuming standard methods over the double"? If you play transfers, of course it's a different question.Sorry, all my posts on this string were based on Transfers/1MX. For some unknown reason, I assumed wide-spread use of that ---my bad. Now I understand why my logic was rejected by several. Good for you! But I would still pass many defensive hands which don't look like enough for redouble. The 2nd round double to suggest defending but letting partner pull with unbalanced hands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONEferBRID Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 MP pairs, unfavorable, you hold: Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP ♠ 654 ♥ A9873 ♦ A2 ♣ KJ6 The auction: West North East South - - - 1♥ Dbl Pass 2♦ Pass Pass Dbl Pass ?? - What does partner's double mean?- What do you do? RikAccording to Richard Pavlicek's rules, it is a Cooperative DBL ( not a Competitive DBL)... and is a "penalty suggestion". " Doubler typically holds 3 or more cards in the suit doubled, all-around values, and no fit for partner’s suit. Cooperative doubles apply in the following situations thru 3 . (Higher doubles are penalty.) " Except for the suits involved, the 1st example given is identical to this one: 1S - X - p - 2C p - p - X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Regardless of it being take out or penalty, my hand sucks on offense, so I'm going to pass... lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Playing this as penalty is very 90s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted December 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Playing this as penalty is very 90sGiven that bridge is almost a century old and that the 90s were 10 years ago, I would think this means that you consider the penalty double to be modern. However, knowing your age, I could imagine that you take the 90s as horribly old fashioned. Which of the two did you mean? (In my opinion, playing this as penalty is very Retro. :) ) Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Textbooks in use now often refer to 1960-theory as modern bidding theory, so 1990 bidding theory should probably be labeled as "futuristic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Playing this as penalty is very 90sGiven that bridge is almost a century old and that the 90s were 10 years ago, I would think this means that you consider the penalty double to be modern. However, knowing your age, I could imagine that you take the 90s as horribly old fashioned. Which of the two did you mean? (In my opinion, playing this as penalty is very Retro. :D ) Rik Luckily bidding has changed/evolved/grown since the 90s and the best bidders now would crush the best bidders then. 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.