JUMP OVERCALLS

[mycroft]

as opposed to, say, my pass playing NLDs of cuebids, which expressly says "my holding in my/our suit is good enough to be led into" as opposed to "find another lead, please, partner, unless *your* hand says otherwise".

[blackshoe]

All I can say at this point is that I disagree with Sven and agree with Barry.

[pran]

All I can say at this point is that I disagree with Sven and agree with Barry.

Please consider the auction (The system is natural with negative doubles up to 2♠):

 

1♥ - 2♦ - PASS - PASS

Double - ?

 

How do you understand the Double (you are the player that bid 2♦)?

(What sort of values do you expect to find with the opener and his partner respectively?)

[mycroft]

I would assume that opener has the "partner, if you *do* have a penalty double, here you go. If you *don't*, do something intelligent, defending 2♦ is not our best score."

I would assume that passer has any hand that can't bid in this system, so while it's quite possible she has a penalty double, she may also have a "negative double without strength", or even a bad hand if 2♦ is the top of "not double-and-diamonds" and fourth hand has a nice quiet 6-count pass.

 

If partner passes the double? Okay, sure. Until then, we don't know that partner has *anything*, except in that the opponents didn't try for game.

[pran]

I would assume that opener has the "partner, if you *do* have a penalty double, here you go. If you *don't*, do something intelligent, defending 2♦ is not our best score."

I would assume that passer has any hand that can't bid in this system, so while it's quite possible she has a penalty double, she may also have a "negative double without strength", or even a bad hand if 2♦ is the top of "not double-and-diamonds" and fourth hand has a nice quiet 6-count pass.

 

If partner passes the double? Okay, sure. Until then, we don't know that partner has *anything*, except in that the opponents didn't try for game.

Exactly.

And shouldn't opener alert the possibility: partner, if you *do* have a penalty double, here you go because that understanding (showing values) is definitely included among the possible understandings of the PASS???

 

(Incidentally, in my book also opener's partner shall alert a double by opener in this situation because that double is probably based on the PASS in a "negative double position".)

[blackshoe]

Under whose regulations are we proposing to alert this double?

[pran]

Under whose regulations are we proposing to alert this double?

I am not familiar with all the regulations that exist, so let me answer with two questions:

 

1: Is a demand pass (a pass that demands a bid or a double from partner if next hand passes) "natural" or "conventional"?

2: Is a pass that suggests a double from partner at his discretion "natural" or "conventional"?

[barmar]

as opposed to, say, my pass playing NLDs of cuebids, which expressly says "my holding in my/our suit is good enough to be led into" as opposed to "find another lead, please, parttner, unless *your* hand says otherwise".

I'm not trying to say that there are NO passes that show values (or something else specific); for instance, many play that pass after an overcall of partner's strong 2♣ is a forcing pass, showing values. But 1X-(1Y)-Pass is not like that -- the passer might have values, he might not. Even if the pair has an agreement that opener is required to reopen if he's short in Y, it doesn't show values, that agreement is only there in case he does. When he doesn't, he'll pull the double.

[barmar]

Exactly.

And shouldn't opener alert the possibility: partner, if you *do* have a penalty double, here you go because that understanding (showing values) is definitely included among the possible understandings of the PASS???

I don't see why they should.

 

This is basically just a takeout double. And like any other takeout double, partner is allowed to leave it in if he has a hand that would prefer to defend.

 

The only difference in this case is that when you're in the balancing seat, RHO's failure to raise their partner suggests that your partner may have length in the suit, so he may have a trap pass. This isn't any kind of partnership agreement, it's just something you figure out from the way the auction has progressed.

[blackshoe]

I don't see why they should.

 

This is basically just a takeout double. And like any other takeout double, partner is allowed to leave it in if he has a hand that would prefer to defend.

 

The only difference in this case is that when you're in the balancing seat, RHO's failure to raise their partner suggests that your partner may have length in the suit, so he may have a trap pass. This isn't any kind of partnership agreement, it's just something you figure out from the way the auction has progressed.

Sounds like it derives from "knowledge generally available to bridge players". :)

[blackshoe]

I am not familiar with all the regulations that exist, so let me answer with two questions:

 

1: Is a demand pass (a pass that demands a bid or a double from partner if next hand passes) "natural" or "conventional"?

2: Is a pass that suggests a double from partner at his discretion "natural" or "conventional"?

Okay, I'll play. But first, what is the definition of "natural"? What is the definition of "conventional"?

[pran]

Okay, I'll play. But first, what is the definition of "natural"? What is the definition of "conventional"?

That should be defined in your regulations.

 

Our regulations contain:

[iii] A suit is "long" if it contains at least three cards

...........................

[vi] A call is conventional when it according to partnership understanding may convey information other than

- willingness to play in the denomination named (or last named)

- honor strength in the denomination

- long suit

[vii] A call is natural when it is not conventional (according to the definition above)

 

And:

The main alert rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted.

[This includes]

- Natural calls where the partnership understandings include essential information in addition to what follows from the call being natural

- Natural calls where the understanding is significantly influenced by other agreements so that opponents cannot easily draw the correct conclusions from the auction

- Natural calls where there can be reasonable doubt about the demand level

.........

[some specific exceptions are listed]

[blackshoe]

Not sure that the calls listed as natural under "this includes" are in fact natural under your regulations.

[barmar]

Not sure that the calls listed as natural under "this includes" are in fact natural under your regulations.

Yeah.

 

In the past, I think we've referred to 3 categories: natural, artificial, and conventional.

 

Natural and artificial are mutually exclusive -- natural bids suggest the suit bid as a denomination in the final contract, artificial bids don't.

 

Conventional bids are not mutually exclusive with natural bids. A natural bid can be conventional if it shows additional information unrelated to the suit bid. E.g. a DONT bid that shows the suit bid and a higher suit.

 

The regulation quoted seems to be confusing artificial and conventional.

[pran]

Yeah.

 

In the past, I think we've referred to 3 categories: natural, artificial, and conventional.

 

Natural and artificial are mutually exclusive -- natural bids suggest the suit bid as a denomination in the final contract, artificial bids don't.

 

Conventional bids are not mutually exclusive with natural bids. A natural bid can be conventional if it shows additional information unrelated to the suit bid. E.g. a DONT bid that shows the suit bid and a higher suit.

 

The regulation quoted seems to be confusing artificial and conventional.

No, it intentionally does not use the word "artificial". It explicitly defines "conventional" calls and states that any call not being "conventional" according to this definition is considered "natural".

 

But be aware that a "natural" call shall be alerted when it may convey information other than, or in excess of what follows from its state as a "natural" call.

 

The point with a missing negative double is that the pass in this situation may convey information on a possible desire for a penalty double. Such information is in case clearly an addition to just "willingness to play in the last denomination named".

[pran]

Not sure that the calls listed as natural under "this includes" are in fact natural under your regulations.

The calls listed under [this includes] shall specifically be alerted even if they are not conventional (i.e. "natural") by the definition. This clause may be redundant but it is there to avoid any doubt about alerting.

[barmar]

But be aware that a "natural" call shall be alerted when it may convey information other than, or in excess of what follows from its state as a "natural" call.

But their definition of "conventional" is a call that may convey other information than length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit. So it's not possible for a call to be both natural and also convey excess information.

 

Maybe what they meant in the definition of "conventional" is that its meaning doesn't include length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit (which is essentially my definition of "artificial").

[pran]

But their definition of "conventional" is a call that may convey other information than length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit. So it's not possible for a call to be both natural and also convey excess information.

 

Maybe what they meant in the definition of "conventional" is that its meaning doesn't include length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit (which is essentially my definition of "artificial").

Just a reminder - I did write:

The calls listed under [this includes] shall specifically be alerted even if they are not conventional (i.e. "natural") by the definition. This clause may be redundant but it is there to avoid any doubt about alerting.

[WellSpyder]

So, LHO deals and opens 1♠. Partner passes. Oh dear! I'm in a bit of difficulty, now. We play take-out doubles in partner's position, so he may decide to pass when he wants to make a penalty double. I guess I had better alert that pass then, should I?

[pran]

So, LHO deals and opens 1♠. Partner passes. Oh dear! I'm in a bit of difficulty, now. We play take-out doubles in partner's position, so he may decide to pass when he wants to make a penalty double. I guess I had better alert that pass then, should I?

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

[mycroft]

Nope, they both say "hey partner, if you have a penalty double given my strength, go ahead and pass." Don't see any difference.

 

Yes, it is much more likely that (playing negative doubles) partner has trap passed than partner has a pass of a takeout double. But that doesn't mean that the pass shows values - he's also passing with a flat zero. The pass of the double - well, yeah, that shows values, at least the pass of 1Mx (which might get sent back!)

[WellSpyder]

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

Obviously the subset of all possible hands which is likely to make the call is different, but the general principles are more or less the same, aren't they?

[pran]

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

Obviously the subset of all possible hands which is likely to make the call is different, but the general principles are more or less the same, aren't they?

AFAIK

 

The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

 

The negative double over an intervening bid after partner's opening bid shows that the intervening bid has prevented opener's partner from his preferred response bid. A pass in this situation may show interest for a penalty double.

 

I don't see these as more or less the same?

[WellSpyder]

AFAIK

The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

I think that is a very unusual way of playing the take-out double of an opening bid. AFAIK it is more usual unless showing significantly more than minimum opening strength to have interest in all other suit denominations other than that opened. (Equal Level Conversion can modify this rule for very specific combinations of suits.) If the suit opened is your best suit then you may well have no sensible call to make other than pass even if you have opening values and interest in another denomination as well as that opened.

[barmar]

AFAIK

 

The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

 

The negative double over an intervening bid after partner's opening bid shows that the intervening bid has prevented opener's partner from his preferred response bid. A pass in this situation may show interest for a penalty double.

 

I don't see these as more or less the same?

A pass in the direct seat over opener can also have values, but all calls are flawed. E.g. 4-1=4-4 shape over a minor opening (shouldn't make a takeout double because you can't handle partner bidding the singleton), or a strong balanced hand without a stopper in opener's suit (most won't bid NT with this), or a hand that wants to penalize opener (but double would be for takeout). That's why players routinely balance with weak hands, to protect partner in this situation. This is very analogous to passing in the seat where you would make a negative double if you had an appropriate hand.