What does this mean without discussion?

[lmilne]

Not a bidding or play problem this time, but rather a more general question.

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2d(Weak%20two%20in%20either%20major)p3h(Pass%2FCorrect)p3sppdp4dp4h]133|100[/hv]

 

(A) What would you think partner was doing, if you were in a pick-up expert partnership? (what's "standard"?)

 

(B) What would you prefer to play this 4♥ bid as, with your regular partner?

[ahydra]

I'd guess he has hearts and clubs, not strong enough to make a "big hand" takeout X - maybe x AKxxx Qx AQxxx or similar.

 

ahydra

[wank]

Flexible takeout shape. Something like 1534 with values to pot game obv.

[PhilKing]

This is quite a frequent and important auction, and I have quite a few instances of it in my multi files.

 

My answer to this one is that it should not exist. A savvy West can (and sometimes will) make a psychic pass of 3♥. It's not so likely at these colours but is a huge danger when we are at red.

 

To protect ourselves, I think it is necessary to play a two way double over 3♥ showing a takeout double of EITHER major (I also favour 2-way doubles in all the parallel sequences (2D-X-2M-X 2D-X-3M-X and 2X-p-2M-X). Opener now can't screw with us - he has to reveal whether he has hearts or spades. The next double from either side should also be for takeout.

 

Make the auction exactly the same, but with us doubling twice, then I agree it shows a strong flexi hand with exactly five hearts and short spades. And without discussion I would have the same interpretation of the actual auction, but we all know what happens when people don't know what they are doing against a multi. The agreement is pretty simple - two-way double of all pass/correct bids.

[Fluffy]

Without discussion it is clear that this is a flexible double. 2533 or something like.

[Finch]

What PhilKing said

[kuhchung]

omg I am so glad multi is banned in the states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[manudude03]

I still remember a hand years ago when an opponent played "2-way doubles" and the auction went 2D-P-2S-X with the doubler having a singleton spade. Unfortunately, so did her partner. But hearts and clubs is the normal meaning here.

[Vampyr]

We play doubles of P/C bids as takeout or penalty. I think that this is essentially the same as what Phil King said.

[gnasher]

We play doubles of P/C bids as takeout or penalty. I think that this is essentially the same as what Phil King said.

 

There are two ways to play two-way doubles:

- Double is a takeout double of one of the majors.

- Double is a takeout double of the bid suit, or an overcall in the bid suit.

 

Phil plays the first. It sounds as though you play the second.

 

I think both methods have merit.

[PhilKing]

.

[PhilKing]

I still remember a hand years ago when an opponent played "2-way doubles" and the auction went 2D-P-2S-X with the doubler having a singleton spade. Unfortunately, so did her partner. But hearts and clubs is the normal meaning here.

 

The recommendation is two-way doubles - not two-way passes of the double! :o :ph34r:

[rhm]

This is quite a frequent and important auction, and I have quite a few instances of it in my multi files.

 

My answer to this one is that it should not exist. A savvy West can (and sometimes will) make a psychic pass of 3♥. It's not so likely at these colours but is a huge danger when we are at red.

 

To protect ourselves, I think it is necessary to play a two way double over 3♥ showing a takeout double of EITHER major (I also favour 2-way doubles in all the parallel sequences (2D-X-2M-X 2D-X-3M-X and 2X-p-2M-X). Opener now can't screw with us - he has to reveal whether he has hearts or spades. The next double from either side should also be for takeout.

 

Make the auction exactly the same, but with us doubling twice, then I agree it shows a strong flexi hand with exactly five hearts and short spades. And without discussion I would have the same interpretation of the actual auction, but we all know what happens when people don't know what they are doing against a multi. The agreement is pretty simple - two-way double of all pass/correct bids.

What PhilKing said

Bidding starts:

 

(2♦) - Pass - (2♠) - DBL*

Pass - ???

 

* = Philking's new two-way brainchild.

 

Now I see choices an advancer to Philking's DBL may face:

 

Either

1) DBL is takeout of spades and both 4♥ for advancer and 2♠ for the opponents are on

or

2) DBL is takeout of hearts and both 2♠ doubled and 4♥ doubled go for a telephone number.

 

This is not an unlikely scenario. The relative major suit lengths of responder to multi are virtually unknown.

Tell me how poor advancer to the DBL is supposed to react?

The above sequence is an everyday multi sequence and frankly I do not see how advancer can react sensibly holding the other major after the two way DBL.

 

Clever oppenents might throw a spanner: For example by not preempting and reveal a fit with the multi opener.

You may well get to play doubled at a low level when advancer and takeout doubler are short in the same major.

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

Bidding starts with a common everyday multi sequence, which will get even more frequent when employing our new two-way DBL:

 

(2♦) - Pass - (2♠) - DBL*

Pass - ???

 

* = Philking's new two-way brainchild.

 

Now I see choices an advancer to Philking's DBL may face:

 

Either

1) DBL is takeout of spades and both 4♥ for advancer and 2♠ for the opponents are on

or

2) DBL is takeout of hearts and both 2♠ doubled and 4♥ doubled go for a telephone number.

 

This is not an unlikely scenario. The relative major suit lengths of responder to multi are virtually unknown.

Tell me how poor advancer to the DBL is supposed to react?

 

Thanks

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Yeah, if only I had considered this whilst examining about 200 hands where the Multi has come up in top level play.

 

I don't really understand the problem you are referring to - say partner has a 1435 12 count, he cue bids 3♠. I guess I could play 2NT followed by 3♠ as a 1543 twelve count, but personally I would just tend to overcall 2♥ on that, thankful that the multi lets us come in lower.

 

Anyway, the two-way doubles idea comes from the Rodwell booklet from the late 90s.

[gnasher]

Anyway, the two-way doubles idea comes from the Rodwell booklet from the late 90s.

The idea is older than that. I think I was playing them in about 1990, and I didn't invent them.

[cherdano]

Will talk to partner about adding Bowles doubles.

[karlson]

Yeah, if only I had considered this whilst examining about 200 hands where the Multi has come up in top level play.

 

I don't really understand the problem you are referring to - say partner has a 1435 12 count, he cue bids 3♠. I guess I could play 2NT followed by 3♠ as a 1543 twelve count, but personally I would just tend to overcall 2♥ on that, thankful that the multi lets us come in lower.

 

Anyway, the two-way doubles idea comes from the Rodwell booklet from the late 90s.

 

Well, ok, if he has another place to play, like a 5-card minor, then yes, it's easy.

 

How about something like a 2533 11-count? I think that's closer to what Rainer is worried about, and I'm a little worried about it too.

 

(If you think that's impossible on this auction, then let's switch the majors around).

[PhilKing]

Well, ok, if he has another place to play, like a 5-card minor, then yes, it's easy.

 

How about something like a 2533 11-count? I think that's closer to what Rainer is worried about, and I'm a little worried about it too.

 

(If you think that's impossible on this auction, then let's switch the majors around).

 

Yeah, I guess we need one of the cues to promise five hearts and a game force. With the majors the other way round, we can jump to 3♠ showing five(and forcing), I think.

[karlson]

Yeah, I guess we need one of the cues to promise five hearts and a game force. With the majors the other way round, we can jump to 3♠ showing five(and forcing), I think.

 

So we get to 3n instead of defending 2MX with marginal values and our long suit opposite partner's shortness. Surely this is a significant loss.

 

I'm not out to bash the system -- it's an interesting idea. But I think there is pretty clearly a big downside.

[PhilKing]

So we get to 3n instead of defending 2MX with marginal values and our long suit opposite partner's shortness. Surely this is a significant loss.

 

I'm not out to bash the system -- it's an interesting idea. But I think there is pretty clearly a big downside.

 

I don't think that's entirely the case. We still get all the trumps over the weak two penalties, and the trumps under situations are somewhat rarer. The big plus is that we don't get frozen out, even against ABC players.

 

Say we have a 4144 16 count, and it goes 2♦-pass-2♠. Playing standard, we have to pass, and there are plenty of ways that can work out badly, but it's extremely unlikely that we can pass and take them for a number.

 

My rule of thumb for an either/or double is that with shortage in the bid suit, we double with standard values, but with length in the bid suit, we need about a queen extra (I've done it this way since about 1996 - not as long as Gnasher, of course). This means that if partner forces to game we are fine, and if 2/3M gets passed out we have not missed much.