What is double in this sequence

[Cthulhu D]

All red, you deal yourself some balanced 3-4-3-3 12 count with Axx of spades playing a 14-16 NT and 2/1 GF. Systematically this is a clear 1C. Unfortunately this then goes off the rails pretty much immediately:

 

1C - (1S) - 1NT - (2S)

 

P - (P) - X - (P)

 

??

 

I tanked for a long time and pulled, thereby missing an awesome +1100. Should double be always penalties here when we tend to have two flat hands facing each other?

[mgoetze]

I tanked for a long time and pulled, thereby missing an awesome +1100. Should double be always penalties here when we tend to have two flat hands facing each other?

 

No. But partner's double of a suit in which he has already promised a stopper should almost always be for penalties.

[Cthulhu D]

No. But partner's double of a suit in which he has already promised a stopper should almost always be for penalties.

 

Okay that makes sense.

[aguahombre]

Yes, this should be an easy one. Partner is saying they are wrong. The alternative is silly--that he meant to make a negative double last time, and is trying to backpeddle.

[ggwhiz]

Not too many do but I pass 12 counts with this shape.

 

If opening this is your style you have to pass the double on this sequence and if it blows up on you, you immediately have a valuable partnership discussion that avoids it in the future at the cost of only one hand.

 

When you pull, even (especially) if it works you are guessing partnership wise well into the future.

[Antrax]

Partner's 1NT promises 7-10 HCP and hopefully a stopper, right? I have a minimum opener, so we have 19-22 HCP. Holding 3 spades, I know partner can't have too many - the overcaller has five, and his partner has three or more for the raise.

So how can partner tell we can set them? (1100 is -4 doubled, if I remember correctly)

[squealydan]

Partner's 1NT promises 7-10 HCP and hopefully a stopper, right? I have a minimum opener, so we have 19-22 HCP. Holding 3 spades, I know partner can't have too many - the overcaller has five, and his partner has three or more for the raise.

So how can partner tell we can set them? (1100 is -4 doubled, if I remember correctly)

 

I agree, while I think double must be penalties as I can't see any other sensible use for it in light of partner's previous bid of 1NT, I would be very surprised to pick up 1100 here when the opponents have around half the honours in the deck and a 7-card fit at worst. I'd be hoping for a decent 200 at matchpoints, and I have my doubts whether partner should ever double at imp-scoring.

[mgoetze]

Partner's 1NT promises 7-10 HCP and hopefully a stopper, right?

 

Given the overcall partner's range can be a bit higher - say 8-12 HCP.

[gordontd]

Given the overcall partner's range can be a bit higher - say 8-12 HCP.

I can't imagine bidding it with many 11-counts, and certainly not with a 12-count.

[Cthulhu D]

It was going for 1100 because they'd psyched and pard had 5 spades to the KJ. I spent several minutes in the tank trying to work out what to do. Was frustrating when dummy came down and the psyche was revealed. However even if they had the spades they were supposed to have it wasn't pretty.

[MrAce]

Given the overcall partner's range can be a bit higher - say 8-12 HCP.

 

NO

 

Overcall changes the normal 6-10 hcp in theory (5-10 in practice) to 8-10 in theory (7-10 in practice). As Gordon said maybe you can downgrade a bad 11 but definetely not a 12 hcp.

[Antrax]

So sorry, I'm lost. Assuming I play in an environment where people do have their bids, should I still always pass this X with a balanced hand?

[aguahombre]

So sorry, I'm lost. Assuming I play in an environment where people do have their bids, should I still always pass this X with a balanced hand?

I am lost, too. I play in an environment where the one person I trust to have her bids is partner, regardless of the quality or reliability of the opponents normally.

 

And in the given scenario, partner's double after having bid 1NT is a very strong suggestion that she is the one who has her bids --- not a suggestion that she really has a different hand than she thought she had when she bid 1NT, but rather that she has the nuts and they have made a mistake. If the opponents do have their bids, partner will have a pass.

[mikeh]

The agua man has it right: it is always best to trust your partner, unless you have good reason not to do so.

 

I have never seen and never expect to see a partner psych firstly a 1N bid in competition after we open a minor, and then double, which is a strong suggestion that we defend.

 

While admittedly I have rarely seen a psychic overcall, and think that psyching 1♠ here is profoundly misguided, when the auction tells you that someone has lost their mind, always trust partner.

 

As a beginner, and especially in a pickup game, you are going to be disappointed from time to time if you adopt this approach. However, in the long run, by adopting this approach you will become viewed as a steady, reliable partner, and the flakes will either be dropped by you or will learn that they need to be honest.

 

There is a role for psyching, and I think that anyone hoping to progress beyond novice status needs to understand the concept and the basics of psychic bidding. The player who overcalled 1♠ doesn't have such an understanding....or they just didn't care.

 

Actually, if I were the opener, I might have reasoned that maybe LHO chose to make a dubious 4 card overcall, because 1♠ robs us of most of the 1-level, and that RHO made a silly 2 card raise because he has some hcp and didn't want to let us have an easy 1N contract....so I wouldn't be sure that they had outright psyched, as opposed to both making bad bridge decisions.

 

But no matter which way we slice it, this is an easy pass. If they make, then partner needs to learn what his double means.

 

That is not to say that we can never pull. Had we opened on, say, a 1=3=3=6 with 11-12 hcp, we definitely need to bid 3♣ here, rather than sit for the double.

 

Probably the toughest thing for a novice to learn is that bad results are part of the game, and that it is incorrect to reason that 'if we got a bad result, we did something wrong'. Far too many bad players reason this way, and it often leads to silly criticisms of partner or the opps, or needless worrying about one's own decisions. This can lead to doing something wrong next time, because doing the right thing last time didn't work out.

 

On the other hand, most bad results that arise at non-expert level probably have been caused by error, and often multiple errors. This forum, and the I/A forum, at a higher level, can play a useful role by giving an (usually) objective analysis of the issues, tho one has to learn to recognize those who are being objective :P

[HighLow21]

The double in this case is absolutely for penalty, barring special partnership agreement. Partner has something like ♠KQJT ♥T3 ♦T974 ♣KT3. They aren't making 2 spades. Remember, Partner bid 1NT voluntarily. He will not be minimum with a single stopper. Spades is his best suit and he should have at least 8 HCP.

[P_Marlowe]

X is whatever you agreed it to be, we play X as T/O.

 

1NT showed a stopper, but in the given seq. the stopper

will be more often Kx than AKQ.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

It was going for 1100 because they'd psyched and pard had 5 spades to the KJ. I spent several minutes in the tank trying to work out what to do. Was frustrating when dummy came down and the psyche was revealed. However even if they had the spades they were supposed to have it wasn't pretty.

Partner could have passed, awaiting the reopening bid.

 

And if they did not make the psych bid, than partner does not have KJxxx,

and 2S may well make.

 

And finally - psychs work sometimes.

 

As it is, the psych would have backfired had responder passed, responder

could have hit 2S, if 2S comes back to him, what seems likely.

 

The real lesson to take from this hand is, to learn how negative doubles

work, how to make them pay, when playing neg. X after overcalls.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mgoetze]

X is whatever you agreed it to be, we play X as T/O.

 

OK, but please save your non-standard agreements for the non-beginner forums.

[P_Marlowe]

OK, but please save your non-standard agreements for the non-beginner forums.

 

Actually the question is what X by opener in the seq.

 

1C - (1S) - 1NT - (2S)

 

X - ...

 

means.

 

My guess is, that T/O is the more standard aproach, but what ever.

If X is T/O, than opener will have to pass with a certain length,

and since there are only 13 cards in the deck, most of the time

2S will be passed out, if we face this scenario.

 

It may well be that this is not something to discuss in the

beginner forum, but than my statement would be the whole thread

is not suitable for the beginner section.

The topic - how to make a penalty double, when opponents found a

fit on the 2 level, and we have barely more than half of the deck

is not a topic for beginner and novices.

 

And hopefully you will in future screen those threads as well,

requesting, that those threads get moved to the more advanced section

of the forum.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Of course I should have outlined my thoughs more explicit, why

penalty double may not as clear cut as it seems.

And the short comment "means what ever you have agreed it to be"

is not suitable for this section, but ...

Below the flawed statement followed a statement, that outlined some of the

reasons, why I believe, what I believe.

[mgoetze]

And the short comment "means what ever you have agreed it to be"

is not suitable for this section, but ...

Below the flawed statement followed a statement, that outlined some of the

reasons, why I believe, what I believe.

So you decided to answer a totally different question than was asked without telling anyone and it's OK because you gave some reasons for your answer?

 

It may well be that this is not something to discuss in the

beginner forum, but than my statement would be the whole thread

is not suitable for the beginner section.

The topic - how to make a penalty double, when opponents found a

fit on the 2 level, and we have barely more than half of the deck

is not a topic for beginner and novices.

 

And hopefully you will in future screen those threads as well,

requesting, that those threads get moved to the more advanced section

of the forum.

If a beginner chooses to ask their question here they should get an answer here, and it should be an answer suitable for beginners. (I suspect Cthulhu D is more an intermediate than a beginner but I still think he can post here if he prefers.) It is up to the advanced and expert players to be careful with how they answer. In my opinion, at least.

[HighLow21]

Actually the question is what X by opener in the seq.

 

1C - (1S) - 1NT - (2S)

 

X - ...

 

means.

My answer above gives the full explanation. *Absent a partnership agreement*, the double is for blood. End of discussion.

[Charlie Yu]

My answer above gives the full explanation. *Absent a partnership agreement*, the double is for blood. End of discussion.

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

[aguahombre]

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

This is true; but the double is still penalty...for those times when they don't have an eight-card fit or have otherwise made a mistake.

 

I realize someone declared the discussion ended, but oh well. And someone else will jump on the reference to the total trick concept in this forum, so both of us are being bad.

[P_Marlowe]

So you decided to answer a totally different question than was asked without telling anyone and it's OK because you gave some reasons for your answer?

<snip>

 

No, I answered the original question, the answer was, what does the double mean,

but I answered in an inapprobriate way.

 

I would not have reacted as harsh as I did, if the shortcuted answer was pointed

out as flawed, due to its shortness ..., something I conceded on my own

on reflection.

No, it was claimed, that the agreement in question was claimed to be non standard,

which is always a claim made, if one has nothing to add., and only wants to make

some noise.

 

Sry, I nearly regreted my harsh response, but this reply showes, that I dont need

to regret is, since you did not really bother to read my post.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mgoetze]

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

Regardless of whether the LOTT is right or wrong, it seems you have only heard half of it.

 

The LOTT as I know it says something like: the total number of tricks available to both sides in their respectively best denomination is equal to the sum of both sides' largest fits.

 

In this situation it is not unlikely that their best fit is 8 cards (spades) and ours is 7. The LOTT postulates then that it is possible that they can make 2♠= and we can make, say, 1NT=. But it is also possible that they have 2♠-1 and we have 1NT+1. The LOTT makes no claim as to which of these is more likely. Partner's double is saying he believes it is the latter rather than the former.