Any blame?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq2h962dqj94c85&w=s987643hadaktckq4&n=sjt5hq843d76caj32&e=shkjt75d8532ct976&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1d1sdp1n2sppdp3cppp]399|300[/hv]

[bill1157]

100% to south. south should be pleased to pass out 2♠

[wyman]

I would have sat for 2S as south. I don't understand why north pulled the X (unless NS explicitly play this as t/o, but I don't really think they should assume this without discussion, since south has ostensibly shown spades), since he has J10x trumps and an ace; he could definitely have less. And I don't understand how south can sit for 3C when he at least has a known 7-card fit in hearts.

 

Blame all 'round the table on this one.

[HeartA]

100% to south. south should be pleased to pass out 2♠

90% to North. North's double already showed ♣ and ♥. He doesn't have extra length/strength to bid ♣.

South's 1NT and double showed good ♠, North should be happy to pass.

[aguahombre]

The neg double did not show both hearts and clubs; it showed hearts.

 

South's double of 2S would only be takeout for the "every double is takeout" crowd, so he/she gets blame if she knew her partner was one of those. Otherwise, the double is merely greedy.

 

North apparently fits into the crowd mentioned above. And if North is also in the minority group which believes he/she already showed hearts and clubs, then pulling the double to show the same thing again is worse yet.

[the hog]

South's double is aggressive, but North's pull says he does not want to play with South anymore. Trust your partner.

[655321]

Otherwise, the double is merely greedy.

 

South's double is aggressive

 

South has 3 tricks in defence, if North, who wasn't strong enough to bid over 2♠, also has 3 defensive tricks then 2♠ will be one down.

The double is not greedy or aggressive, it is truly insane.

[MrAce]

South has 3 tricks in defence, if North, who wasn't strong enough to bid over 2♠, also has 3 defensive tricks then 2♠ will be one down.

The double is not greedy or aggressive, it is truly insane.

 

This !

[Yu18772]

South has 3 tricks in defence, if North, who wasn't strong enough to bid over 2♠, also has 3 defensive tricks then 2♠ will be one down.

The double is not greedy or aggressive, it is truly insane.

 

Ditto

 

There is not enough blame to give both north and south what they deserve....

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

[SteveMoe]

South's doubl is poorly judged for reasons mentioned above. However I do not think North should pull. Discipline here means if South wanted to play 3♣ they would have bid it instead of doubling. Full breakdown shared by both partners.

[jillybean]

Yikes, I'm south here and trying fix to my "I don't double enough at MP" problem. I knew my double was aggressive but I didn't consider it insane.

[neilkaz]

Bad X at IMPs..poor risk/reward ratio. Quite pushy at MPs as it is quite conceivable that the can make it if N doesn't have his ♠ holding.

 

North has a trivially easy pass. You bid NT showing stop(s)..he has JTx in their suit. Your side has at least half the deck in high cards. You passed up two chances to bid ♣ after his negX. Simply awful to not pass and N should envision that the opps may be on a 6-0 split.

[Codo]

You bid 1 NT then X. This is never a take out, so north should gladly accept the nice score.

 

But even if you did not double enough, here you doubled too much. To call it insane is an overbid, but a small one.

[ahydra]

The X is very tempting holding AKQx in spades :), but you've got no source of tricks. You can't even force declarer productively unless North shows up with something like AKxxx in diamonds. So they'll probably make 2S, just losing a couple of side suit tricks and your three top spades. (If anyone is insane, it's West bidding 2S on six cards to the 9. What's wrong with a double of 1NT?)

 

Anyway, I'm blaming North for pulling a penalty X for no reason.

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Is it really fanciful for pard to have xxx, xxxx, Ax, Axxx and for you to be taking 2 diamonds, a club, diamond ruff, club ruff and 3 more trumps, hell ♠Jxx you even get another one ?

 

I think if the X is pens, then N must pass, if it isn't then S can't make the call.

[phil_20686]

I think double from south should be t/o on this auction. It just seems implausible to me that south can have enough defence to warrant a penalty double opposite a 1 level negative double. North has only shown a seven count or so and south is under the bidder.

 

On the other hand, a hand like xx Kxx AQxx Axxx seems like it might want to compete. For me 1N only shows a balanced 12-14, I do not worry too much about stops in this position, so it seems plausible that I might want to compete to the three level when the opps have not even made an invitation to game.

 

Further, it seems clear that north needs a t/o double, what else would you want to do with a 1435 shape and a decent hand? Playing a pen x opposite a t/o double seems wrong.

 

PS: wests 2S bid is absurd.

 

PPS: To answer the OP, this seems like more of a misunderstanding than an ATB. North clearly thought south made a t/o dble. South clearly thought this was penalties. I am in the t/o camp, but appreciate that if I was playing with an `old school' player this would be penalties.

[gszes]

with a 3c bid available there is no reason the

s hand cannot x 2s for penalty. Is this the

right hand for it?? hmmm you have 3 tricks and

you are expecting your p to also take 3 tricks

when they could not take any action over 2s. This

does not compute. This hand you are lucky and can

set 2s but just imagine e hand with the club A vs

the totally uselss KJ hearts. 2s rolls. This is

a game of % so the penalty x really need to show

a hand worth 4 defensive tricks to be reasonable.

 

AKQx xx Axxx xxx is a much more reasonable penalty x

that has little chance of going wrong (that means

sometimes they will make). Think about the bidding and

you will realize a penalty x here is a poor % plan

better saved for a hand where you need a top to win

an event---even then you better be sure you need it.

[Codo]

I think double from south should be t/o on this auction. It just seems implausible to me that south can have enough defence to warrant a penalty double opposite a 1 level negative double. North has only shown a seven count or so and south is under the bidder.

 

On the other hand, a hand like xx Kxx AQxx Axxx seems like it might want to compete. For me 1N only shows a balanced 12-14, I do not worry too much about stops in this position, so it seems plausible that I might want to compete to the three level when the opps have not even made an invitation to game.

 

Further, it seems clear that north needs a t/o double, what else would you want to do with a 1435 shape and a decent hand? Playing a pen x opposite a t/o double seems wrong.

 

PS: wests 2S bid is absurd.

 

PPS: To answer the OP, this seems like more of a misunderstanding than an ATB. North clearly thought south made a t/o dble. South clearly thought this was penalties. I am in the t/o camp, but appreciate that if I was playing with an `old school' player this would be penalties.

 

But why do you need a take out over a weak take out from partner? If he promised both suits, you may simply bid one of them. if he promised just hearts, why do you want to look for a 3 level contract with no secured fit and red on white? This double is always a very rare bird and I doubt that I have met it at the table very often- did you? But the reasons for a take out are not more convincing as the reasons for a penalty.

[phil_20686]

why do you want to look for a 3 level contract with no secured fit and red on white? But the reasons for a take out are not more convincing as the reasons for a penalty.

 

The argument you are making against a t/o double is the same argument against a penalty double. We are agreed 100% that partner needs a t/o double, so when you are making your pen x, you presumably have 4 good spades, so it is extremely likely that partner passed with 0-2 spades, in which case he didnt have the 8-9 HCP he needs for a t/o double. Making a pen x at the two level when you are not known to have a the balance, and in fact may have considerably less, does not seem sensible.

 

Moreover, if you play a penalty double here, then you leave partner with no way to make a penalty double, as his dble is t/o, and if he has a penalty pass you cannot have a pen x. Further, partner has already expressed some tolerance for playing at the 3 level, as he must have been prepared to play there if east had raised to two spades over the double.

 

I tend to think that you should dble two spades for t/o with any hand that would dble after 2s p p, which is pretty much any opening hand with two spades. Here you have almost identical information - partner must have some values, rho does not have a good fit or a good hand.

 

Why do you think this auction should be different from 1c (2s) p p, for example, when you are likely to be happy to make a t/o double with some 2(443).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Codo]

The argument you are making against a t/o double is the same argument against a penalty double. We are agreed 100% that partner needs a t/o double, so when you are making your pen x, you presumably have 4 good spades, so it is extremely likely that partner passed with 0-2 spades, in which case he didnt have the 8-9 HCP he needs for a t/o double. Making a pen x at the two level when you are not known to have a the balance, and in fact may have considerably less, does not seem sensible.

 

Partner hears our bids, he knows that we hold a weak NT with at most 4 spades, so he need not to sit for 2 Spade X with just 5 or 6 HCPS and no spades. Why should he?

 

 

I tend to think that you should dble two spades for t/o with any hand that would dble after 2s p p, which is pretty much any opening hand with two spades. Here you have almost identical information - partner must have some values, rho does not have a good fit or a good hand.

 

Why do you think this auction should be different from 1c (2s) p p, for example, when you are likely to be happy to make a t/o double with some 2(443).

 

Because my 1 NT rebid limited the hand in several ways.

 

With your example hand: xx Kxx AQxx Axxx. I have no reason to compete with 2443 12-14 opposite a say 3424 with 8 HCPS... And why should partner have fewer spades, given the bidding so far?

After the given bidding, partner rates to hold around 3 spades- with around 20 HCPS and 9 spades, they will outbid you anyway.

[han]

Why is it that the penalty double advocates always come up with such terrible arguments?

 

Partner hears our bids, he knows that we hold a weak NT with at most 4 spades, so he need not to sit for 2 Spade X with just 5 or 6 HCPS and no spades. Why should he?

 

So double is penalty if partner can bring 2 defensive tricks, and if not we run to our non-fit and hope they don't double us? Sounds great! :unsure:

 

With your example hand: xx Kxx AQxx Axxx. I have no reason to compete with 2443 12-14 opposite a say 3424 with 8 HCPS...

 

You make it sound like Phil will double on any 2443 12-14 count but of course he won't. However you play the double, tyou won't often use it. I think we should only make a takeout double with a nice maximum with a small doubleton spade.

 

Besides, why would we not compete? We have (at least) half the deck, they have a spade fit and we have a fit somewhere, with sufficient room to find it.

 

And why should partner have fewer spades, given the bidding so far?

 

There is no reason why he should, but he might. Certainly if partner has 2 spades we would like to compete. And he might also have 4 good spades and pass with those spades behind the 2S bidder. Now that sounds like a good opportunity to play for penalties: us with the 14-count and partner with the strong spades behind overcaller!

 

After the given bidding, partner rates to hold around 3 spades- with around 20 HCPS and 9 spades, they will outbid you anyway.

 

This is the worst of your arguments. If we frequently drive them to 3S, that's very good for us, no?

 

I do not play this double as takeout, but I think that the arguments put forward by Phil are quite convincing. It is almost impossible for us to have a penalty double, but we can still have a hand with which we would like to make a takeout double.

[cherdano]

Yikes, I'm south here and trying fix to my "I don't double enough at MP" problem. I knew my double was aggressive but I didn't consider it insane.

S.th. you should always ask yourself before doubling is "Do I have a bad surprise for the opponents?" The opponents "know" they are missing AKQ of trumps, so that's not a bad surprise. The only mild surprise is that you have 4 trumps, but with not suit to develop and LHO having 6 trumps there is no future in a forcing defense.

 

If you had ♠QJT9 instead (with your AK somewhere else), you are making an unexpected trump trick, and double may be more reasonable. QJT9 xx AKxx QJx would be a much much better double.

[Codo]

Why is it that the penalty double advocates always come up with such terrible arguments?

 

So double is penalty if partner can bring 2 defensive tricks, and if not we run to our non-fit and hope they don't double us? Sounds great! :unsure:

 

 

He can have both? No defensive tricks and no fit? Sounds like a great double.

 

 

You make it sound like Phil will double on any 2443 12-14 count but of course he won't. However you play the double, tyou won't often use it. I think we should only make a takeout double with a nice maximum with a small doubleton spade.

 

Actually, I copied his statement and did not comment which hands a suitable for a double and which are not. Maybe you are reading between the lines and not what I wrote?

 

 

 

Besides, why would we not compete? We have (at least) half the deck, they have a spade fit and we have a fit somewhere, with sufficient room to find it.

 

 

They have a fit? Where exactly? In the given hand they do not have a fit- at least not in spades...And even if- it is not sure that two semibalanced hands with half the deck in a 4-4 fit will produce a good score at 3 in a minor- espacially not at this vul. You do not even need to believe in the Lott to know this.

 

 

 

is the worst of your arguments. If we frequently drive them to 3S, that's very good for us, no?

 

 

If we do drive them to 3 Spades this may be a winner- unless they do not punish us too often in 3 of our suit of course. Overcallers partner has no big fit so far but seems to have some points- why shouldn't he try for the occasional 500 out of nothing if this is right? We already gave him a road map to our hands, why should he choose 3 spade if this is bad instead of passing/doubling?

 

 

I do not play this double as takeout, but I think that the arguments put forward by Phil are quite convincing. It is almost impossible for us to have a penalty double, but we can still have a hand with which we would like to make a takeout double.

 

I do not play often enough with opponents like the west guy, so I agree that this double is a rare bird- oh wait, I said so before. But do you mind to show me hands where you bid this way in reality and had a take out double after the given start? I cannot remember this had ever happened at a table I played.

[cherdano]

I do not play often enough with opponents like the west guy, so I agree that this double is a rare bird- oh wait, I said so before. But do you mind to show me hands where you bid this way in reality and had a take out double after the given start? I cannot remember this had ever happened at a table I played.

 

What do you rebid over 1D (1S) X (P) with 2=3=4=4 and two small spades? This is not a rhetorical question.

I would rebid 1N and be happy to reopen with a takeout double. Maybe you would bid 2♥ or 2♣?

[han]

They have a fit? Where exactly? In the given hand they do not have a fit- at least not in spades...And even if- it is not sure that two semibalanced hands with half the deck in a 4-4 fit will produce a good score at 3 in a minor- espacially not at this vul. You do not even need to believe in the Lott to know this.

 

The current bridgebase forums does not keep all the quoted posts so it is easy to lose track of what is being discussed. You are reacting here to a piece I wrote about doubling with a 2-3-4-4 shape where partner is 3-4-2-4. In that case, the opponents have 8 spades.