Does the hesitation suggest anything (II)

[ahydra]

Every TD knows a slow penalty double suggests the doubler may be amenable to partner pulling it. But what about a slow TOX?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sj92ha7dq43cat952&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dpp2c2dd(takeout, slow)p]133|200[/hv]

 

edited to add, it's IMPs.

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

A slow ToX is often "I'm not sure what this double means".

 

When it's not that, Gordon is right, it's "I don't have the perfect hand for anything but have too much to pass".

[gordontd]

It suggests that partner doesn't have the perfect shape for it, which I think suggests passing over bidding. I've got a problem as to what to bid now, mainly because of failing to bid 1NT on the previous round.

[sanst]

E knows legally that W must have something. But what? From the slow double he also unauthorized knows that it’s not both majors and not a clear support for clubs. I would guess a hand fit for a penalty double, so, whatever E bids, pass is not an option. If this - IMHO lousy - hand is according to this pair a pretty good one, I would expect E to bid either 3NT or 3♦ asking for a stopper, otherwise 2NT is acceptable.

[weejonnie]

E knows legally that W must have something. But what? From the slow double he also unauthorized knows that it’s not both majors and not a clear support for clubs. I would guess a hand fit for a penalty double, so, whatever E bids, pass is not an option. If this - IMHO lousy - hand is according to this pair a pretty good one, I would expect E to bid either 3NT or 3♦ asking for a stopper, otherwise 2NT is acceptable.

I think the hand at the vulnerability is a fair balancing hand, minimum but not lousy. My concern would be: where are the majors? It now appears that partner has them and an unsuitable holding for making a TOD of 1♦ - 4=4=4=1 and 10+ points certainly comes to mind. (Obviously the pause before making the TOD suggests that is not the case - perhaps 3=5=4=1). I think we can agree partner can only have one or two clubs.

 

I would certainly agree that pass is not an option 'take out doubles are meant to be taken out' - I think that 2♠ would also come under consideration - playing in a 4-3 fit (or 5-3 with a very poor spade suit opposite) is not the end of the world NV. (With a minimum hand - yes you do sometimes bid on minimum hands - I would be surprised at the suggestion of bidding 2N or 3♦)

[etha]

It suggests that partner doesn't have the perfect shape for it, which I think suggests passing over bidding. I've got a problem as to what to bid now, mainly because of failing to bid 1NT on the previous round.

 

 

or just opening the hand in the first place.

[sanst]

2♠ is certainly a LA.

[HardVector]

I would certainly agree that pass is not an option 'take out doubles are meant to be taken out'

A double of 1d would have been take out. Passing then doubling is generally NOT take out. It's either responsive showing both majors or penalty. This is something that you and your partner needs to figure out. I kind of like penalty doubles here when playing in inferior competition and responsive when playing people who know what they are doing. I love getting 800 in a suit the opponents freely bid twice.

 

An example hand is something that I got when I was first starting. I had KQxx AKJxx Kxx x. RHO opened 1h, so I passed. It then went (1n)-p-(2h)-; I liked that, so I doubled. My partner, however, thought as you did that it was takeout and bid 3c. This hand was a "you bid, you die" hand. Nobody could make anything.

[ahydra]

Some interesting responses here. Seems there is general agreement that UI suggests passing and that there are plenty of LAs to pass (my choice would be 2S).

 

I think the hand at the vulnerability is a fair balancing hand, minimum but not lousy. My concern would be: where are the majors? It now appears that partner has them and an unsuitable holding for making a TOD of 1♦ - 4=4=4=1 and 10+ points certainly comes to mind. (Obviously the pause before making the TOD suggests that is not the case - perhaps 3=5=4=1). I think we can agree partner can only have one or two clubs.

 

I would certainly agree that pass is not an option 'take out doubles are meant to be taken out' - I think that 2♠ would also come under consideration - playing in a 4-3 fit (or 5-3 with a very poor spade suit opposite) is not the end of the world NV. (With a minimum hand - yes you do sometimes bid on minimum hands - I would be surprised at the suggestion of bidding 2N or 3♦)

 

This was my opinion too when I called the TD at the end of the hand, after East had passed the TOX and partner finished down two (she could have made it though). TD ruled... well, she didn't really (she was partway through the explanation when she got interrupted by a, erm, notoriously unsocial player), except that score stands.

 

Worse than that was West's behaviour, slighting my TD call as "ridiculous", "I'm going to appeal it", "I didn't do anything wrong by hesitating", etc. (No, you didn't, but your partner did - or at least might have done - by using the UI. TD really should have explained that!) This was followed by several more annoying comments over subsequent hands, e.g. after I took 1-2 seconds longer than my usual tempo to make a call on the next hand she started saying "ooh look, you're hesitating now". I was >--< this close to calling the TD again, but thankfully after the fourth comment or so she shut up.

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

Passing then doubling is generally NOT take out. It's either responsive showing both majors or penalty.

Responsive IS takeout.

[sanst]

A double of 1d would have been take out. Passing then doubling is generally NOT take out. It's either responsive showing both majors or penalty. This is something that you and your partner needs to figure out. I kind of like penalty doubles here when playing in inferior competition and responsive when playing people who know what they are doing. I love getting 800 in a suit the opponents freely bid twice.

 

An example hand is something that I got when I was first starting. I had KQxx AKJxx Kxx x. RHO opened 1h, so I passed. It then went (1n)-p-(2h)-; I liked that, so I doubled. My partner, however, thought as you did that it was takeout and bid 3c. This hand was a "you bid, you die" hand. Nobody could make anything.

Had you hesitated before making the double and had your partner passed, you should have had a very clear warning and an AS, don’t you think?

[sanst]

This was my opinion too when I called the TD at the end of the hand, after East had passed the TOX and partner finished down two (she could have made it though). TD ruled... well, she didn't really (she was partway through the explanation when she got interrupted by a, erm, notoriously unsocial player), except that score stands.

 

Worse than that was West's behaviour, slighting my TD call as "ridiculous", "I'm going to appeal it", "I didn't do anything wrong by hesitating", etc. (No, you didn't, but your partner did - or at least might have done - by using the UI. TD really should have explained that!) This was followed by several more annoying comments over subsequent hands, e.g. after I took 1-2 seconds longer than my usual tempo to make a call on the next hand she started saying "ooh look, you're hesitating now". I was >--< this close to calling the TD again, but thankfully after the fourth comment or so she shut up.

 

ahydra

Was this in North London? :D

[helene_t]

No I don't think it suggests anything in particular. Partner may have marginal values and considered pass. He may have a defensive hand and considered pass. He may have an offensive hand and considered 2M or 3♣. He may have a run-of-the-mill hand and just didn't know how the double was defined.

 

Pass, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3NT are logical alternatives and I would allow any of them. I would probably allow illogical alternatives, too.