jillybean Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sk72ht743d5cakj74&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2d?]133|200[/hv] Pairs Opposite a precision pair, 2♦ explained as 12-16 hcp, 6♦ or ♦ and a M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sk72ht743d5cakj74&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2d?]133|200[/hv] Pairs Opposite a precision pair, 2♦ explained as 12-16 hcp, 6♦ or ♦ and a MX 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Double. Could lead to disaster but then so could getting out of bed in the morning. We have an opening hand, albeit a minimum, and short diamonds. It therefore behooves us to act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Double. Could lead to disaster but then so could getting out of bed in the morning. We have an opening hand, albeit a minimum, and short diamonds. It therefore behooves us to actAgree with X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 4/4 so far! I like you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Looking at just the hand and the bidding, before the explanation, assuming a weak 2, I was about to exclaim, "Are you crazy?" (knowing half (well maybe a third) of the forum would also be crazy :P ) Opposite 12-16, I double without thinking nonvulnerable at MPs. I might think about it a bit vulnerable or at IMPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Looking at just the hand and the bidding, before the explanation, assuming a weak 2, I was about to exclaim, "Are you crazy?" (knowing half (well maybe a third) of the forum would also be crazy :P ) Opposite 12-16, I double without thinking nonvulnerable at MPs. I might think about it a bit vulnerable or at IMPs.Interesting. Does it matter if it is weak or intermediate? I would balance a bit more aggressively against a weak two, maybe. And I might, by agreement, play WJO against an intermediate two. Maybe overcall lighter, especially if p is a passed hand. But should a direct seat t/o double be different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasetb Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Double, whether it be Weak or Intermediate. If it were a Weak 2M opening however and I had a similar shape, then I would pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Interesting. Does it matter if it is weak or intermediate? I would balance a bit more aggressively against a weak two, maybe. And I might, by agreement, play WJO against an intermediate two. Maybe overcall lighter, especially if p is a passed hand. But should a direct seat t/o double be different? Yes - I firmly believe that direct seat actions, and especially doubles, against weak openings should be somewhat sounder, because partner needs to be able to make judgements about whether to invite or whether to bid a game (particularly if 3rd seat acts) more frequently and therefore needs a more precise idea of your strength. Also, balancing seat can act with a weaker hand opposite a weak 2, so you can pass slightly stronger hands knowing that partner will balance appropriately. This is less important for overcalls because game in that case is likely to depend more on shape and less on strength. Also, if your criteria for a double are the same against weak as against intermediate 2's, you'll be doubling a much larger percentage of the time against a weak 2, and that seems wrong on general principles of bidding system economy. It's similar to the principle that direct seat overcalls against a mini or weak NT should be sound (no matter what defense you're using), whereas interventions against a strong NT are much weaker. Of course this is only useful when you've actually explicitly agreed to this principle (of sound direct seat actions against weak bids) with your partner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sqj53hk82dakjt4c3&w=sk72ht743d5cakj74&n=st6hj96d982cq9862&e=sa984haq5dq763ct5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2ddp4spppp]399|300[/hv](I've rotated the hand to the actual layout) -100, next hand please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 If it's a regular partner, you need to sit down and discuss this one. Either you agree that (a) West doesn't have a takeout double, or you agree that (b) East is only worth 3♠ invitational (keeping in mind that the Q♦ is worthless). I think (a) is better against intermediate 2's and (b) is better against weak 2's, but any agreement is better than no agreement. EDIT: Aargh - can't keep track of what I'm typing - see correction below - not correcting here since it would be confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 If it's a regular partner, you need to sit down and discuss this one. Either you agree that (a) West doesn't have a takeout double, or you agree that (b) East is only worth 3♠ invitational (keeping in mind that the Q♦ is worthless). I think (a) is better against intermediate 2's and (b) is better against weak 2's, but any agreement is better than no agreement. I'm confused, your earlier post said you would double here without thinking about it but now you appear to be saying you think it is better to have an agreement not to double with this hand. Or I've misunderstood your post. I will be discussing this with my partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Deleted: misread previous post(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 I'm confused, your earlier post said you would double here without thinking about it but now you appear to be saying you think it is better to have an agreement not to double with this hand. Or I've misunderstood your post. I will be discussing this with my partner. Sorry - I typed the wrong thing. I think you should agree that East is only worth 3♠ when opponents are playing an intermediate 2. I think you should agree that West is not worth a takeout double when opponents are playing a weak 2. I won't correct my earlier post since that would be even more confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Thank you :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 You might try "Lebensohl after a weak 2", in which case pard can bid 3♠ (forcing). What doubler would bid then is another story lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted December 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 You might try "Lebensohl after a weak 2", in which case pard can bid 3♠ (forcing). What doubler would bid then is another story lol.This isn't a weak 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 I mean use the same convention you'd use if 2♦ were weak. Not that it would solve you this particular problem, lol. It might get you off the moysian though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 your partner's 4 spade bid is pretty bad. he only has 4 spades. one would think he might find some room between 2d and 4s to explore some other contracts, but it's unrealistic to except him to stop out of game (the Q of D is in no way 'wasted') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Good t/o dble, passing may even lead to a lost major game. Responders hand needs to consider if they can stand to play 4S on a 4/3 fit. If responder wants to treat the hand as a GF (I would not have the confidence in that) they cue bid and will land in 4S. If you treat the hand as invite, 2N followed up with 3S shows a 4 card invite that will be quickly passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasetb Posted December 25, 2014 Report Share Posted December 25, 2014 Not to repeat what everyone else said, but North WAY overbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts