jillybean Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sq2ha983daq62cj92&w=sakt97hqt4dcaq843&n=s64h5dkjt9754ckt7&e=sj853hkj762d83c65&d=e&v=n&b=18&a=p1n(12-14)d(14%2B)3d(inv)3hdp4dpp4hppdrppp]399|300[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 3♦ over the double of 1NT was invitational? Are you sure about that? Why would you play an invitational bid over a penalty double? Seems to me that playing in 1NTx would be a good idea. I am looking at the hand. It sure doesn't look invitational. I suppose if North has an invitational hand then South has a double of 4♥, although the opps must have some distribution to make up for the lack of HCP. There is a rule that I have heard from a few good players that applies to this hand. If you double the opponents and partner pulls, and then the opponents bid a level higher than the contract you previously doubled, if you double it again YOU HAD BETTER BEAT IT! North pulled the double of 3♥. The opps bid 4♥. South had better reevaluate his ability to defeat 4♥. Something does not add up. I would sooner bid 5♦ than double 4♥. Turns out that the vul sac is the winning action, but I wouldn't recommend it. But double 4♥? Not a chance. The opps gave you another chance to pull by redoubling. Maybe you should have listened to them. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovera Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Hallo, i use 1NT 16-18 ( but think it's the same for weak NT): in Stayman 1 NT is doubled in two ways 1) X=balanced with pair force 2) 2♣= idem with unbalanced hand (here it could be). So standing things probably you don't have considered void (and with two Ace and more three cards in trump..). Althoug a defence with this good hand and fit could be found, bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles123 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I kind of blame both, North doesn't have an invitational bid, but south making a penalty x when 6 of his/her points are a likely waste of time and North has warned South that s/he has a min by bidding 4d over 3hx seems wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Responder pulled the dbl of 3♥. If opener proceeds doubling 4♥, it will be at his own risk :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I think the x of 1NT on such a shapely hand is absurd. Don't you have a 2 suited bid? 3D is invitational? Hardly. Why did Sth x 3H rather than raise Ds? The xx is a beginner's bid as is he failure to bid 5D as a" thank you" bid. The whole auction is a joke. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I suppose if North has an invitational hand then South has a double of 4♥, although the opps must have some distribution to make up for the lack of HCP.South has one defensive trick, two if ♦A is cashing. While this might be enough to beat 4♥, it is relatively poor defence for a balanced 12-14. I don't know what South should do at her first turn. Probably 3NT shows a heart stopper plus some diamond fit, but possibly raising diamonds is more practical. Double surely doesn't show this great diamond support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Yes, we play 3♦ here as invitational. And yes, never bidding ♦'s was boneheaded, bidding before thinking. (I'm South) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 at least we can all agree with the 1NT opener. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesleyC Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Yes, we play 3♦ here as invitational. You should consider changing this agreement because invitational jumps through a penalty double don't make sense. If you want to invite 3NT, you can start by trying to play 1NTx (or 1NTxx) and see where the auction develops from there. A much better use for jump bids is "preemptive" (but with appropriate playing strength relative to the vulnerability). This style puts maximum pressure on the opponents in a spot where they know absolutely nothing about each other's hand shape and is a big upside of playing weak NT. Based on this hand it looks like North is already playing this style because 3D is a textbook preempt, but a poor choice if 'invitational'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 at least we can all agree with the 1NT opener. Agreed. The 1NT opening was impeccable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 The opponents double was 14+, this can't be strictly penalty over a 12-14 nt. My partner may also have a 12-14 hand, I'm not sure that I want to give up on the invitational bid and give the opponents a free round of bidding. What do you do after 1n (X) P (2♠) with an invitational 1 suiter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Well I still play transfers after the X. I really don't understand why you don't play tfs after a wnt. It gives you so much more flexibilty in the bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesleyC Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 The opponents double was 14+, this can't be strictly penalty over a 12-14 nt. My partner may also have a 12-14 hand, I'm not sure that I want to give up on the invitational bid and give the opponents a free round of bidding. What do you do after 1n (X) P (2♠) with an invitational 1 suiter? Yep you're right, 'values' is a more accurate definition than 'penalties'. The benefits of preemptive jumps is that they come up more often and can be more destructive when they do come up. In the sequence above, if I had an invitational single suiter, I would start by passing (personally I play xx as to play, bids and natural and pass as scramble so I would xx), and then bid my suit at the 3 level to suggest a hand with some interest in game. FWIW on the actual hand, after North's bids 3D (preempt) and East competes with 3H, South should definitely bid 3NT to suggest that as a final contract in case north has extras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 (...) I really don't understand why you don't play tfs after a wnt. It gives you so much more flexibilty in the bidding. I often wonder the same thing myself. "Receiving the lead" issues are faaaaaaar too overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I often wonder the same thing myself. "Receiving the lead" issues are faaaaaaar too overrated. But even so, after a double it is very unusual to still play transfers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 It makes some sense that pass followed by 3♦ is invitational. It may be a narrow target, but "to play" is also a narrow target because most hands that just wanted to play a diamond partscore would have bid immediately. If you are confident about 7 tricks and you have a one-suited hand, you almost certainly have some interest in 9 tricks. If you are not confident about 7 tricks in notrump, you wouldn't pass initially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 But even so, after a double it is very unusual to still play transfers. Well, I know a couple of run-out methods that use transfers. One is Helveg: pass = forces XX, after which bids are 44 in DONT.XX = 5+ clubs2♣+ = 5+ transfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Well, I know a couple of run-out methods that use transfers. One is Helveg: pass = forces XX, after which bids are 44 in DONT.XX = 5+ clubs2♣+ = 5+ transfer While this scheme is pretty good, I would not recommend it to the OP or anyone since It loses the ability to play 1NTx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 IMO it's uniquely awful among NT runouts, even before the introduction of forcing pass. It gives the opps, who already know they probably own the contract, 3 free calls with which to penalise, compete successfully or set up a constructive auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 But even so, after a double it is very unusual to still play transfers. Certainly not amongst strong players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Certainly not amongst strong players. Over all 1NT ranges? I am not convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Yes over all. I am convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 South holds AQxx support for partner's suit and never mentioned it? Hard to expect a good result from that. I would bid 4♦ over 3♥. Having done so, I can double 4♥ and respect partner's decision, which would surely be to pull. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Yes over all. I am convinced. OK; please share your evidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts