testing your take-out double limits against weak twos

[gedikk]

A hand from an IMPs tournament, N-S are non-regular partnership playing 2/1. Lebensohl use has not been discussed in advance.

[hv=pc=n&s=shj864dat753ca876&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p2s]133|200[/hv]

You might offer your approach as South having favorable distribution and vulnerability opposite lighter count.

All hands incl. bidding will be posted in a few days.

[mikeh]

I suspect we will learn from the OP that doubling worked here. However, good bridge requires some level of discipline, lest the game be reduced to guesswork in terms of partner's ability to know what is going on. This hand is below my threshold for action and learning that, on this hand, doubling led to a good result won't change that view at all. Bad bridge actions often lead to good results, especially against non-expert opps, which is a good thing, since otherwise the game would be too tough to enjoy. IMO, doubling here has some potential to work well, but it is bad bridge.

[Mbodell]

I don't double here with partner as a passed hand. With partner as an unpassed hand, I would be much more tempted, but even then I'm not sure.

[gedikk]

I suspect we will learn from the OP that doubling worked here. However, good bridge requires some level of discipline, lest the game be reduced to guesswork in terms of partner's ability to know what is going on. This hand is below my threshold for action and learning that, on this hand, doubling led to a good result won't change that view at all. Bad bridge actions often lead to good results, especially against non-expert opps, which is a good thing, since otherwise the game would be too tough to enjoy. IMO, doubling here has some potential to work well, but it is bad bridge.

Well, I won't say the actual result might change our way of thinking. A bit out-of-the-box bid can help as well as mislead both pard and opponents. Bridge is so attractive due to opportunities and risks associated with non-conventional /non-recommended moves aimed at finding better offensive or defensive odds. In applying this sort of judgement you estimate various factors - vuln, players' level, etc.

Re good and bad bridge: are we all pleased with the bust openings at 3-level NV vs VUL so commonly seen during high-level competitions today? They often end up in unpleasant outcome, still that does not affect their use.

[mike777]

pass

 

no problem yet.

 

partner is allowed to balance even as a passed hand.

 

I expect to defend 2 or 4s.

[ArtK78]

Partner will expect that a double in direct seat over a preempt will be better than this hand. He is likely to have some spades, so he might pass for penalties or double a raise. Our two aces will offer some defense, but partner is probably looking for more.

 

Alternatively, he will expect more power for offensive purposes and drive us too high.

 

I would pass, knowing that double might work out on this hand but preserving partnership discipline. If I start making doubles on hands like this, partner will have doubts when I make a double with full values.

 

 

 

[ahydra]

Partner will expect that a double in direct seat over a preempt will be better than this hand. He is likely to have some spades, so he might pass for penalties or double a raise. Our two aces will offer some defense, but partner is probably looking for more.

 

Alternatively, he will expect more power for offensive purposes and drive us too high.

 

I would pass, knowing that double might work out on this hand but preserving partnership discipline. If I start making doubles on hands like this, partner will have doubts when I make a double with full values.

 

My thoughts exactly. This hand isn't enough for a TOX despite the nice shape.

 

ahydra

[mikeh]

Well, I won't say the actual result might change our way of thinking. A bit out-of-the-box bid can help as well as mislead both pard and opponents. Bridge is so attractive due to opportunities and risks associated with non-conventional /non-recommended moves aimed at finding better offensive or defensive odds. In applying this sort of judgement you estimate various factors - vuln, players' level, etc.

Re good and bad bridge: are we all pleased with the bust openings at 3-level NV vs VUL so commonly seen during high-level competitions today? They often end up in unpleasant outcome, still that does not affect their use.

Bridge at the higher levels is a partnership game. It ought to be so at all levels, but the urge to be superman holds back a lot of otherwise promising players. As for the very light preempts some, but far from all, top players use, the point is that such is part of their partnership, not solo, style and partner isn't misled. Making 'unconventional' calls, as in very wide-ranging, idiosyncratic actions, is a good way to ensure that good players won't want to play with you.

[Jinksy]

I'm Passercus!

[apollo1201]

I am tempted, thinking I was junior not so long ago, but will refrain. I really need more stuff,sorry. Especially playing against spades where you'll end up at the 3 level. Even holding 2 aces, I am not sure of wanting to defend 2 or 3SX.

[MrAce]

I'd definitely DBL 2♠.

 

I don't even think it is aggressive dbl tbh. I don't even understand why everyone thinks we have a weak hand. Double of 2♠ does not promise a very good hand as advertised by others. All it requires is a perfect T/O shape if made by min opening values. Now, you may not open this hand if you were dealer, I do not either. But this hand improved after RHO opened 2 ♠. Improved much more when they open it red vs white. Improves even a little more if it is opened by people who thinks S has a weak hand.

 

• I don't even think misleading a pd who is coming from pass is that important but I do not believe I am misleading him at all.
• I have 2 defensive tricks,
• I have a reasonable hand to play if we find a fit, considering the colors.
• I have a very good shot at finding a 5 level contract vs their vulnerable 4♠
• I don't think at all that this is a solo action. I am actually giving a perfect description of my hand to pd, early in the auction, in the safest colors one can possibly have. When they bid 4♠ or 3♠ or whatever they do, my pd will know much better when to pass, when to dbl when to bid. If he chooses to dbl I am definitely not shy of my defensive aspects.

I am not saying you should DBL, but seeing this a clear pass is overstatement imo. Saying that this is a solo action deserves a pd who is calling you the same thing for this passivism when both sides are making game, one side is making and other one just going only down 1-2. It's still a lot of imps. People bid %35 -45 games to get game bonus and 11-13 imps and take the risk of going minus for the %65-55 time. I don't think the risk of doubling is anywhere close to this.

 

In fact, conservative bidders should worry more about passing. After all they are the ones with so many strict rules for opening preempts. They are the ones who may have a pd coming from pass with 6 or 7 cards of a suit just because they have a side 4 card other major, or void or 2 aces or bad suit quality or 1st seat. You name it, they have it, some people are obsessed with this kind of things. Who may have a pd that did not open with 12 hcp balanced, 11 hcp balanced with AAK. Perhaps it should be me who can pass much more comfy than they do. But regardless this is not a clear pass imo.

 

@OP: This is a good hand and well chosen to test the limits of players, styles or approach or whatever you want to call it. Ty for bringing this up, although I know I may be the only one who thinks this is not clear. as it shows it this way so far.

[helene_t]

I have two aces and a void in their suit. What more do you want? Then again, it is imps and p is a passed hand so pass is understandable. As it is I think it is close. If p had not been a passed hand I would not have hesitated.

[gszes]

DBL

 

P cannot assume we have more than 2 defensive tricks for our x so if they decide to penalize the opps our 2 aces should be more than sufficient to set the opps. If we pass now how can we ever reasonably expect to find a sac if we have one?? Bridge is not just about making games it is making educated guesses if/when to intentionally overbid. P as a passed hand means game our way looks hugely unlikely but surely we want to lay the groundwork for a sacrifice. TBH I am even more sure we should x here than I would be if p were unpassed*. I do not want our side to have to make its first foray into the bidding at the 5 level with nothing but a prayer we find something substantial.

 

Deciding to pass here gives up this hand to the opps when they bid game and that is a dangerous prospect at these colors. the distribution is too perfect and we have the right amount of defense. The general worst case scenario is to hear p bid 3n which we would leave alone if no x probably going down 3. Hardly a blip on the IMP radar so there is not much risk to x and possibly quite a bit of reward sound like action is called for.

 

Make the hand similar to void **Kxxx KQxxx Qxxx and with maybe zero defense pass is much closer to being correct than x even opposite a passed hand*

because the lack of defense means it is only good for sacrificing. That does not mean it is wrong to x just far les flexible. With the original hand I would rate x = 9 pass = 5 with the ** example above pass = 8 x = 6.

[Phil]

I would pass, but I will double 3♠ if it comes back to me.

[gedikk]

As promised, here is the complete deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=shj864dat753ca876&w=sq63hakt52d9ck432&n=skt87h3dkq842cjt9&e=saj9542hq97dj6cq5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p2sd3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

Played double-dummy, the best spot for N-S is easily seen.

However, the adequate bidding by West posed pressure back to opponents and was ultimately rewarded.

All posts so far showed that the eagerness to foresee likely further action, level of aggressiveness, or strict system discipline are amongst incentives which mainly drive each of us.

[helene_t]

It is an unusual agreement that north's dbl is penalty but ok if not playing penalty dbls he has a problem. Could get to 3nt but undoubled that's ok and doubled s will run. Phil's plan to pass and then double would work but is this what a delayed dbl shows? Against predictable opps I suppose dbl could be this hand OR penalty. Opps can exploit that by making a single raise with an 11 card fit but that shouldn't happen too often.

[MrAce]

It is an unusual agreement that north's dbl is penalty but ok if not playing penalty dbls he has a problem. Could get to 3nt but undoubled that's ok and doubled s will run. Phil's plan to pass and then double would work but is this what a delayed dbl shows? Against predictable opps I suppose dbl could be this hand OR penalty. Opps can exploit that by making a single raise with an 11 card fit but that shouldn't happen too often.

 

N made a penalty double. Which means the same N would pass Phil's delayed double, or it would have never came back to Phil.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=shj864dat753ca876&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p2s]133|200|

A hand from an IMPs tournament, N-S are non-regular partnership playing 2/1. Lebensohl use has not been discussed in advance.

You might offer your approach as South having favorable distribution and vulnerability opposite lighter count.

All hands incl. bidding will be posted in a few days. [/hv]

IMO Double = 10, Pass = 9. Although this hand has few points, Mr Ace points out that it has 2 defensive tricks and can support three suits :) Unfortunately, however, a void in opponent's suit is not an asset, when partner decides to play for penalties :(

 

Over pre-empts, I used to advocate sound immediate actions but BBO experts have gradually persuaded me that a hand short in opponent's suit should strain to act.

 

Jury is out on the attractive flexible new strategy: Winsome, Lissome.