If I keep doubling does it eventually become penalty?

[broze]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq932hj872d9ca754&w=st87ht643d873c982&n=s65hq5dkj65ckqj63&e=sakj4hak9daqt42ct&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1cd1hp1nd2cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Do you agree with all the doubles? Is West's final pass justifiable?

 

IMPs if it matters

[dwar0123]

The first two yes.

 

I think west has to bid, not sure what given the way east is bidding, probably 2♦. However that doesn't absolve east of 110% of the blame, no reason not to bid 2♦ over 2♣. Doesn't take up any room, leaves no room for confusion and perfectly describes the hand. There is no reason to suspect east might want to convert the 3rd take out double to penalty, he could have doubled immediately if that were the case. There is nothing to be gained by doubling the 3rd time but giving partner the chance to go very wrong. Not to mention east seems intent on wrong siding the contract.

[barmar]

Someone once taught me that the third double is generally penalty. But usually that involves pushing the opponents to at least the 3 level, so it may not apply here.

 

East should be careful here. The auction marks his partner with close to a Yarborough, so how is he going to get to dummy to take all the finesses he needs?

[broze]

The first two yes.

 

I think west has to bid, not sure what given the way east is bidding, probably 2♦. However that doesn't absolve east of 110% of the blame, no reason not to bid 2♦ over 2♣. Doesn't take up any room, leaves no room for confusion and perfectly describes the hand. There is no reason to suspect east might want to convert the 3rd take out double to penalty, he could have doubled immediately if that were the case. There is nothing to be gained by doubling the 3rd time but giving partner the chance to go very wrong.

 

Huh, nice edit. If you would bid 2♦ on East's 3rd attempt what would you do with the same high cards but 4=4=4=1 shape (♠AKJ4 ♥AK92 ♦AQT4 ♣10)? I assume you would just pass from the sure manner in which you condemn the third double (the hands are barely different) but I would be impressed if you did with 21 HCP. If you pass you sell out to 2♣ making when your pship have over half the deck.

 

 

Someone once taught me that the third double is generally penalty. But usually that involves pushing the opponents to at least the 3 level, so it may not apply here.

 

East should be careful here. The auction marks his partner with close to a Yarborough, so how is he going to get to dummy to take all the finesses he needs?

 

If his partner had QT87 xxx xxx xxx then even game might make, let alone a two-level contract. Would all partnerships free bid ♠ in response to the first two doubles with this hand? Possibly the second one, but I would pass over 1♥ for sure/

[FM75]

RHO opened. You have 21 hcp. LHO made a free bid, call it 8. If RHO opened some rule of 20 ten count, (1♣) and rebid 1NT, you can count up 39 points. So which Jack do you want to know about? Bid 2♦ after original X, showing the BIG double, and diamonds. If p has a long major, he can chime in.

 

Where does it convert to penalty double? For sure at 7N. You can walk your way down from there. But eventually you reach partnership agreement land.

[barmar]

To quote Bob Hamman: "Don't play me for perfect cards, I won't have them". The Yarb is far more likely than that in this auction.

 

Having all the high cards in the hand short in the opponent's suit is not great, because the opponents are going to force you to ruff with them and you can lose control.

 

Does 2♦ make on that hand? I haven't analyzed it much, but it seems like good defense should set it. Although that's better than letting them make 2♣X.

[aguahombre]

I don't know about whether we would call the third double penalty or what, but it would sound like a 4X3 20+ count. This is possible, since only responder has shown as many as 4 clubs.

 

2D on the third round would seem about right rather than the third double...having not bid the suit on the previous round eliminates a big 1-suiter.

[Vampyr]

Where does it convert to penalty double?

 

A leopard doesn't change its spots; partner has a takeout double -- there is no "conversion". But the higher-level subsequent doubles promise more in hCP, so advancer may choose to convert the double to penalties.

[aguahombre]

A double can in fact morph from round to round. In this case it went from routine t/o to "I have a mountain, and it is o.k. to defend 1NT", and then to DSIP. Unfortunately, the hand didn't match the meanings, so partner couldn't do something intelligent. He could do something sucessful (2D), but that works only because the third double was wrong.

 

In other words, subsequent doubles make the set of hands shown by the first double smaller; but they don't really become penalty unless partner sits.

[dwar0123]

Huh, nice edit. If you would bid 2♦ on East's 3rd attempt what would you do with the same high cards but 4=4=4=1 shape (♠AKJ4 ♥AK92 ♦AQT4 ♣10)? I assume you would just pass from the sure manner in which you condemn the third double (the hands are barely different) but I would be impressed if you did with 21 HCP. If you pass you sell out to 2♣ making when your pship have over half the deck.

 

The only substantive edit was to modify my west bid from an easy 2♦ to probably 2♦. Never did i suggest east should pass instead of bidding 2♦. Esst has a very easy call here, I would also bid ♦ with the 4441 dist. None of this makes the failure of bidding 2♦ with easts 4351 hand any less absurd.

[Codo]

Huh, nice edit. If you would bid 2♦ on East's 3rd attempt what would you do with the same high cards but 4=4=4=1 shape (♠AKJ4 ♥AK92 ♦AQT4 ♣10)? I assume you would just pass from the sure manner in which you condemn the third double (the hands are barely different) but I would be impressed if you did with 21 HCP. If you pass you sell out to 2♣ making when your pship have over half the deck.

 

 

 

 

If his partner had QT87 xxx xxx xxx then even game might make, let alone a two-level contract. Would all partnerships free bid ♠ in response to the first two doubles with this hand? Possibly the second one, but I would pass over 1♥ for sure/

 

The second X showed that the first double was no typical take out but a hand too strong to overcall in NT. So the third double was not a sure take out of clubs at all.

So with your actual hand 2 ♦ stands out, with your example with 4441 I would not double a third time without a clear agreement. I have one: It is still take out. But I would not try it with pick up partners- I would simply pass 2 ♣ then.

[twoshy]

Why would we double again with a balanced 20-22 with 3+♣? Partner's supposed to be alive and well over there and it would be insipid for him to pass two doubles with a shortage in clubs unless he was flat out broke, in which case we can take our chances against 2♣. The same argument applies for those thinking we could have a penalty double of clubs. I also think it's seriously anti-percentage to play this double as showing a nuts 23-24+ hand with some clubs. It also bewilders me that some people would bid 2♦ over 1NT. Feel free to miss game and juicy penalties all you like, I guess. I can understand that sometimes doubles change in meaning when it is clear you can no longer have a certain handtype through your failure to act in a certain way. That doesn't at all exist for this situation. Partner could double 2♣ for penalties (presumably?) but I see no reason why he should do that on a yarb. So we double again with extras and expect partner to play us for a takeout double. Yes, partner will often pass with 3334 and x4x4 but passing on 3433 feels wrong.

 

I would probably bid 2♦ (EDIT: instead of the third double) because it may be difficult to defend 2♣X as we are only able to lead one trump and 2♦ describes the hand well and avoids the problem of advancer choosing the wrong suit.

[broze]

A double can in fact morph from round to round. In this case it went from routine t/o to "I have a mountain, and it is o.k. to defend 1NT", and then to DSIP. Unfortunately, the hand didn't match the meanings, so partner couldn't do something intelligent. He could do something sucessful (2D), but that works only because the third double was wrong.

 

I agree with this "morphing" concept. Each double seems to me to represent a particular hand but may include other hands which will be clarified later on. As you say first x: t/o; second x "mountain" but I should say usually the 18-19 balanced type - agree? The third double could to my mind be expected to be a 4=4=4=1 20+ count OR perhaps reasonably a flat 20+ count. Which, I wonder is more useful? If the former is to be expected then the double above was about as close as you can get without actually being the perfect hand.

 

 

The second X showed that the first double was no typical take out but a hand too strong to overcall in NT. So the third double was not a sure take out of clubs at all.

So with your actual hand 2 ♦ stands out, with your example with 4441 I would not double a third time without a clear agreement. I have one: It is still take out. But I would not try it with pick up partners- I would simply pass 2 ♣ then.

 

In which case how would you bid a balanced 22 count? Or are these just too rare to be worth worrying about? I shouldn't think they're all that rarer than a 4=4=4=1 21 count.

 

 

I might ask also what kinds of hands would double and then cuebid 2♣ and whether this would be natural. Perhaps that is too much for one thread?

[barmar]

With a balanced 22 count, you normally plan to double and then bid 2NT over whatever partner bids. But you have to change that plan if LHO bids instead of partner. When you know partner is broke, it's not necessarily your hand, and you don't want to force him to bid his suit on the 3 level.

 

Yes, there's a chance that both opponents are bidding on minimums and partner might have the magic cards you need to make something. But what's the chance of that?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I you keep doubling, one might confuse you with a Robot .

 

" Once a BOT starts doubling, you can't get it to stop. "

[mikl_plkcc]

The second double is penalty:

"Any double over a natural NT bid is a penalty double."

 

The third double is penalty:

"Any double after making a penalty double is a penalty double."

[Vampyr]

The second double is penalty:

"Any double over a natural NT bid is a penalty double."

 

The third double is penalty:

"Any double after making a penalty double is a penalty double."

 

Whom are you quoting?

[MrAce]

I agree with all 3 doubles.

[mikeh]

RHO opened. You have 21 hcp. LHO made a free bid, call it 8. If RHO opened some rule of 20 ten count, (1♣) and rebid 1NT, you can count up 39 points. So which Jack do you want to know about? Bid 2♦ after original X, showing the BIG double, and diamonds. If p has a long major, he can chime in.

 

Where does it convert to penalty double? For sure at 7N. You can walk your way down from there. But eventually you reach partnership agreement land.

You have an unusual notion of what the 1♥ call promises! 'call it 8'????? Personally, if I hold xxx K10xxx Jxxx x, and we have this auction, I bid 1♥, just as I would were rho not to double, and I suspect that the gresat majority of posters would agree with me, or at least be closer to my approach than to yours. The 'free bid promises values' hasn't been mainstream in this sequence for well over 30 years, tho it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it is still taught to many beginners.

 

As for the hand, the first two doubles are routine, to the point that I don't think any decent player would even think there were any alternatives, in any method resembling standard.

 

I think the 3rd double is debatable, tho it gets my vote since I want to keep spades, or even hearts, in the picture.

 

The point is that to that point, only the first double was 'takeout' of clubs, but included infrequent power holdings such as a powerful one-suiter or a hand too strong to bid 1N.

 

The second double didn't resolve that ambiguity....we'd double 1N with any of a BIG takeout of clubs or a power one-suiter or a hand too big to overcall 1N.

 

Therefore, if we bid 2♦ at our 3rd turn, logic suggests that this should show the power one-suiter, and I'd expect partner to pass with Qxxx in spades rather than introduce them.

 

Admittedly, the 3rd double 'could' still be either the uber-strong 1N or the huge takeout double and I don't think it possible to eliminate all ambiguity. However, I suspect that the flat 19 count with a club stopper should and would pass here. So I think the 3rd double should be viewed as takeout.

 

All of this leads inescapably, imo, to the realization that advancer must pull, and should confidently bid 2♦...not because he expects to find a 5 card suit but because he has nowhere else to go.

 

S may have psyched the 1♥ response, but otherwise it seems impossible for partner to hold 4 hearts, and the repeated doubles suggest 4=3=4=2 or 4=3=5=1. Even if you put 5=3=4=1 into the mix, partner's hand is so good that he'll be able to bid 2♠over your 2♦.

[barmar]

RHO opened. You have 21 hcp. LHO made a free bid, call it 8. If RHO opened some rule of 20 ten count, (1♣) and rebid 1NT, you can count up 39 points.

If RHO had a rule of 20 10-count, why is he rebidding 1NT? The premise is that he has a very unbalanced hand.

[VM1973]

West has to bid something - from his point of view his opponents most likely have a 9-card fit. That means his side has an 8-card fit and it's his job to go looking for it. I cannot seriously think that you want to defend 2♣ doubled with 17 trumps on the deal, even if you don't believe in the LoTT. He should bid 2♥. I think East should have bid diamonds instead of the 3rd double, but it's a style issue.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the 2nd double is penalty, and this makes the 3rd one penalty too.

The 2nd is usually based on a strong NT.

 

Bid 2D instead of the 3rd double.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

West has to bid something - from his point of view his opponents most likely have a 9-card fit. That means his side has an 8-card fit and it's his job to go looking for it. I cannot seriously think that you want to defend 2♣ doubled with 17 trumps on the deal, even if you don't believe in the LoTT. He should bid 2♥. I think East should have bid diamonds instead of the 3rd double, but it's a style issue.

 

A holding for partner of 4=3=4=2 in entirely consistent with the auction to this point, so it is not true to assert that EW is assured of an 8 card fit.

 

In addition, unless responder has psyched, partner almost certainly has only 2 or (more likely) 3 hearts. West's weakness argues against RHO having psyehed a 1 response, and opener rebid 1N. Even for those who routinely rebid 1N after 1♣ [P] 1♥ [P] with 3=1=4=5, some would choose not to do so after the takeout double, not to mention that a significant number of players open 1♦ with most hands of that shape. So the odds are very high indeed that opener holds 2 hearts.

 

Moreover, if RHO holds 4 decent hearts and a max, he may start doubling if we run to his suit....he's listened to the auction as well as we have...indeed, if we bid 2♥, I'd suggest he's paid more attention to the auction than we have.

 

I do agree that we have to run but I think 2♦ is the obvious choice.

[VM1973]

A holding for partner of 4=3=4=2 in entirely consistent with the auction to this point, so it is not true to assert that EW is assured of an 8 card fit.

 

In addition, unless responder has psyched, partner almost certainly has only 2 or (more likely) 3 hearts. West's weakness argues against RHO having psyehed a 1 response, and opener rebid 1N. Even for those who routinely rebid 1N after 1♣ [P] 1♥ [P] with 3=1=4=5, some would choose not to do so after the takeout double, not to mention that a significant number of players open 1♦ with most hands of that shape. So the odds are very high indeed that opener holds 2 hearts.

 

Moreover, if RHO holds 4 decent hearts and a max, he may start doubling if we run to his suit....he's listened to the auction as well as we have...indeed, if we bid 2♥, I'd suggest he's paid more attention to the auction than we have.

 

I do agree that we have to run but I think 2♦ is the obvious choice.

Well I must misunderstand your post. Assuming that your partner is shaped 4-3-4-2 then the opponents ARE guaranteed an 8-card fit. Did you mean a 9-card fit?

[the hog]

I agree with all the doubles. West should bid over 2CX. 100% of the blame to West!