bidding issue

[sceptic]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sk98752hj953dac94&w=s3hkq82d92caq7652&e=saqj64htdkqjt74ck&s=stha764d8653cjt83]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     1♦    Pass

 2♣    2♠    Dbl   Pass

 4♥    Pass  5♣    Pass

 Pass  Pass  

 

in a tourney I bid 2 clubs, then 4 hearts. was this unreasonable and was it worth [negative] comments from my pick up p?

Edited March 17, 2005 by inquiry

[Guest Jlall]

X is penalty when a forcing pass is available (imo)

[whereagles]

Facing a pick up pard, I'd also be weary of what double means. I'd probably pass, but not without trepidation.

 

As to bidding 2C instead of 1H, that is textbook lore: with a game-forcing hand, you bid the longest suit. Below that, you bid majors first. No doubt MAFIA people will complain about this, though :lol:

[tysen2k]

Double should also be penalty when 3 suits have been bid...

 

2♣ is fine, 4♥ is crazy. I see either passing or pulling to 3♣ as reasonable.

[Walddk]

Was this unreasonable and was it worth [negative] comments from my pick up p?

Nothing justifies rude behaviour! It doesn't matter how stupid you think a bid is. Double of 2♠ is penalty for me, but this can easily happen in a pick-up game. No need to say anything, and if you insist, it could be put like this:

 

"I meant my double of 2♠ as penalty. Maybe we should get an agreement for the future".

 

Roland

[inquiry]

There are three schools of thought here for this double

1-penalty

2-takeout

3-optional or (do something smart partner)

 

What ever it means to you, it may not mean to your partner. If you make this double in a blind situation like this (with no specific agreement), you shouldn't get mad when your partner takes it to mean something other than what you intended.

 

I think the optional double here is the least useful, others think it is the most useful. The theory of the optional double is, I don't know exactly what to do, but I am willing to defend if you are. PArtner passes with spades and no fit for diamonds. Playing the double as optional, WEST would bid 3♥ over 2♠X to explore best contract. IF opener passed (playing optional doubles), WEST would reopen with a double. Here, east knows what to do when 2♠X comes back to him.

 

The second option is to play this double as takeout, showing short spades, four hearts, longer clubs. Playing the double of 2♠ as "takeout', once again EAST has to pass two spades. When the bidding gets to WEST (being short in spades and with four hearts), he will reopen with a takeout double. Once again EAST will know what to do over this reopening double. The problem with passing with this hand (if you play takeout doubles here) is partner might bid 3♣ or 3♦ even being short in spades... and here they are vulnerable, so you really want to play 2♠X.

 

The first option, is in a forcing pass situation like this, a double is penalty. Here no accident can occur with your partner lettig them off the hook by not reopening with a double. You double and collect the money. Playing penatly double here, this is the perfect hand for it.

 

Which you choose is a matter of partnership style. You will much less frequently have hands like this where you want to munch them in 2♠ compared to hands where you want to highlight some other feature of your hand with a takeout double. IF you play takeout doubles, you will have to pass 2♠ with this kind of hand. Most of the time you will still get them in 2♠X, but occassionally your partner will pull. But weight that against hand where you do make a takeout double in second seat and your partner can make a surprise penalty pass.

 

While any of these methods are playable, I like the takeout double option (the bidding would have been 2S=P=P=DBL=all pass on this one playing that way).

[luke warm]

i would play this double as penalty

[helene_t]

I prefer to play this as optional. I realize that penalty is more common, though.

[the hog]

The double is penalties. I guess partner's comments should be related to what you have on your profile. If you have Adv onwards, then pd is right to feel cheated by the bidding.

 

As a matter of interest, even if you are not sure whether this is penalties or not, why on earth bid 4H? Why not 3?

[whereagles]

I prefer double as take-out because it's more inline with the principle "double is take-out until a fit is found".

 

One can play this double as penalties, but then it's difficult to find a simple set of rules to distinguish all situations.

[sceptic]

As a matter of interest, even if you are not sure whether this is penalties or not, why on earth bid 4H? Why not 3?

 

why did I bid 4 hearts and not 3 hearts, may be inexperience, I find competitive bidding quite hard and it is probably not helped by me getting some good results by being aggresive

 

(That is not to say I dont get some terrible ones, as I am sure you have seen some of my previous disasters posted here before)

 

a clear misunderstanding was 2 spades x, I thought it was T/O showing 4 hearts with my hand I am happy to risk a game at imps, as it turns out listening to some of your logic, it is quite clear 2 spade x was for penalties (my screw up) I can live with them, I just like to think I can learn form them.

 

 

may be my biggest flaw is poor judgement or may be understanding of some basic principles that I am missing , anyway I will probably bid some more like that before I ever get to be advanced as a player.

 

I guess partner's comments should be related to what you have on your profile. If you have Adv onwards, then pd is right to feel cheated by the bidding.

 

I only ever advertise myself as intermediate as sceptic, which is what I use 95+% of the time (why do I use another ID, on occasions beacuse I feel like throwing sceptic in the bin on a bad day and think I will never understand the dam game, possibly an ego boost for when I have a real bad day, the are getting slightly less frequent BUT they still keep cropping up on too regular a basis)

[Chamaco]

My understanding is that, in a pickup partnership, the meaning of the double in this specific sequence is much more likely to be taken as penalty (3 suits bid, forcing pass available).

 

Having said that (and having stated that there will be some people playing it as "optional"), I agree with the other posters who think that even the worse mistake does not justify rude behaviour. :)

[hotShot]

Of cause it is a matter of agreement, what dbl means in this context.

Possible agreement for this situation are:

1) the minor opend is a 5card suit

2) 4 hearts with a minimum hand

3) 2/3 card support for the 5/4 card suit partner bid (only a 7 card fit)

4) shows/asks stopper in opps suit, targeting a NT contract

5) penatly

I would consider none of these as "common sence", but 5) has the best chance to be a nominee.

If you agreed to play negative dbl up to 2♠, it is 2) here by agreement.

If you agreed on support dbl, it is 3).

1) and 4) only make sence, if you agreed about them.

So with nothing agreed it is 5).

[TimG]

I prefer double as take-out because it's more inline with the principle "double is take-out until a fit is found".

Trouble is, you more often want to defend when there is no fit. Wouldn't it be better to define doubles as cooperative when a fit has been established a penalty when there is no fit?

[Chamaco]

Of cause it is a matter of agreement, what dbl means in this context.

Possible agreement for this situation are:

......

Some - if not most - of these options can be lumped into a forcing pass.

[TimG]

Of cause it is a matter of agreement, what dbl means in this context.

Possible agreement for this situation are:

1) the minor opend is a 5card suit

2) 4 hearts with a minimum hand

 

If you agreed to play negative dbl up to 2♠, it is 2) here by agreement.

This is not a "negative" doubel situation. Only repsonder makes a negative double, and only after 2nd hand makes the overcall.

[whereagles]

Trouble is, you more often want to defend when there is no fit. Wouldn't it be better to define doubles as cooperative when a fit has been established a penalty when there is no fit?

"Penalty" doesn't mean you have KQJT on the opps' suit. Actually, that never happens after you found a fit. So logically all penalty doubles after your side has a fit are in practice cooperative doubles. As for using double for penalties BEFORE you found a fit, years have shown that's a bad strategy.

 

Also, double is penalty after you found a fit, OR when it is clear there is no better fit than the one already known.

 

Example:

 

1D pass 1S pass

2C pass 2D 2H

dbl

 

This is penalties. Responder gave a preference, so diamonds is clearly the best fit available for our side.

[TimG]

As for using double for penalties BEFORE you found a fit, years have shown that's a bad strategy.

I'm not convinced. I'm convinced that players are more comfortable with extra fit finding tools, but I'm not convinced that beyond the comfort factor they are better strategy.

Also, double is penalty after you found a fit, OR when it is clear there is no better fit than the one already known.

Few play: 1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥)-DBL for penalties. My regular partner and I have an agreement that doubles are not penalty when either side has found a fit at the two-level or both sides have found a fit at the three-level. This is sort of a law of total tricks thing.

 

Tim

[whereagles]

As for using double for penalties BEFORE you found a fit, years have shown that's a bad strategy.

I'm not convinced. I'm convinced that players are more comfortable with extra fit finding tools, but I'm not convinced that beyond the comfort factor they are better strategy.

Double is the only bid that doesn't raise the level of bidding. And it coveys a lot of information at the same time. The only other bid I could imagine acheiving similar objectives is the next step, as in

 

1C 2S 2NT = take-out double of spades.

1C 2S dbl = misfit, penalties.

 

Isn't it simpler to double for take-out an bid 2NT as natural? Not to mention the 'next step as take-out' has *a lot* of technical problems.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to advocate using double always as take-out. Many have done that before me, and in much better ways. If you you aren't convinced by now, it's not going to be me who will convince you.. lol. I play it that way and feel comfortable about it.

[TimG]

As for using double for penalties BEFORE you found a fit, years have shown that's a bad strategy.

I'm not convinced. I'm convinced that players are more comfortable with extra fit finding tools, but I'm not convinced that beyond the comfort factor they are better strategy.

Double is the only bid that doesn't raise the level of bidding. And it coveys a lot of information at the same time. The only other bid I could imagine acheiving similar objectives is the next step, as in

 

1C 2S 2NT = take-out double of spades.

1C 2S dbl = misfit, penalties.

 

Isn't it simpler to double for take-out an bid 2NT as natural? Not to mention the 'next step as take-out' has *a lot* of technical problems.

Negative doubles are likely a necessary component of five-card major systems. Not so clear in many four-card major systems.

 

But, support doubles are not. Or, how about this classic responsive double auction: (1♥)-DBL-(2♥)-DBL? Do you really need this takeout double?

[luke warm]

Few play: 1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥)-DBL for penalties.  My regular partner and I have an agreement that doubles are not penalty when either side has found a fit at the two-level or both sides have found a fit at the three-level.  This is sort of a law of total tricks thing.

 

Tim

at mps i'd consider the double of 3H to be cooperative, penalty oriented... it means "i have extra for my 1S opening, but i do not have a distributional or other reason to bid 3S"

 

(1♥)-DBL-(2♥)-DBL? Do you really need this takeout double?

i think so... to me it shows a likely 3=2=4=4 hand

[whereagles]

> Not so clear in many four-card major systems.

I think take-out doubles apply to any system, except perhaps goulash systems. But maybe that's just me.

 

> But, support doubles are not.

That is indeed correct. Support doubles are not vital, although they help in some circumstances, like 5-card majors strong NT systems (sayc, 2/1, french std).

 

> Or, how about this classic responsive double auction:

> (1♥)-DBL-(2♥)-DBL?  Do you really need this takeout double?

YES you need it a lot. It is for the minors. One could NOT use 2NT as a replacement because 2NT is needed for a bunch of things, like for instance to distinguish between a competitive 3m bid from a stronger one (e.g. Lebenshol). Even if you skip Lebenshol, you might want to use 2NT as natural instead of for the minors.

 

There is of course some arbitrarity in dbl and 2NT (e.g. 2NT could be for the minors and double Lebenshol) but you cannot do away with double without lessening the effectiveness of your competitive bidding.

[TimG]

> Not so clear in many four-card major systems.

I think take-out doubles apply to any system, except perhaps goulash systems. But maybe that's just me.

Negative doubels are a form of takeout doubles and are what I was referring to when I said it was not clear that they are vital in many four-card major systems. I stand by that.

[whereagles]

Well, I think you're wrong :)

 

I could ask you to disclose your reasons for the claim and try and refute them. But, as I said above, I'm not going to start an argument on this now :)