Do You Get Involved?

[dorisga44]

Do you get involved?

 

Teams. [hv=pc=n&s=s3hak42dkt5cqjt64&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3s]133|200[/hv]

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3hak42dkt5cqjt64&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3s]133|200|

dorisga44 "Teams. Do you get involved?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Yes. Double, The partner short in opponent's suit usually acts, even on minimal values.[/hv]

 

 

 

[gordontd]

Yes. Double is automatic.

[FelicityR]

Yes. Double, The partner short in opponent's suit usually acts, even on minimal values.

 

Even vulnerable

[gordontd]

Even vulnerable

Especially vulnerable. You don’t want to miss game.

[pilowsky]

♣Having recently discussed this with a new partner I am interested in your views. Our system card says bid after double below 3♠. Does that mean that in this case 'double is penalty or 'act'?.

My second question is at what point do you feel free from an obligation to act if the responder intervenes with a bid?

Is there any research on this or is it a 'judgement call'

For example 1♣ X 2♣ 2♠ easy. (based on a hand the robots gave my friend and me).

But what about the present situation particularly where your system card specifies 3♠ as the GIB card does? "Negative X and Responsive X up to 3♠, Support X up to 2♥ (GIB may do support X with Kx)." Perhaps the advanced robots will call the director! Is the response always automatic?

And then, 5 minutes after I make this post, playing in an ACBL daylong comes this hand where I open 3♣ the robot doubles, my partner passes, and there is a pause (robot simulating) and then the robot passes! 100% to me. Here's the hand.[hv=pc=n&s=sa872h76djckqjt42&w=skj54hkj4dq9854c6&n=sq6hqt983dk632ca3&e=st93ha52dat7c9875&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp3cdppp]399|300[/hv]

So the robots don't follow their card - Director!

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa872h76djckqjt42&w=skj54hkj4dq9854c6&n=sq6hqt983dk632ca3&e=st93ha52dat7c9875&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp3cdppp]399|300| Pilowsky "Having recently discussed this with a new partner I am interested in your views. Our system card says bid after double below 3♠. Does that mean that in this case 'double is penalty or 'act'?. "

IMO the higher the level, the less clear-cut the take-out double. Tim Rees says high-level doubles "show the cards you hold". i.e. both partners must rely on judgement.

My second question is at what point do you feel free from an obligation to act if the responder intervenes with a bid? Is there any research on this or is it a 'judgement call'. For example 1♣ X 2♣ 2♠ easy. (based on a hand the robots gave my friend and me).But what about the present situation particularly where your system card specifies 3♠ as the GIB card does? "Negative X and Responsive X up to 3♠, Support X up to 2♥ (GIB may do support X with Kx)." Perhaps the advanced robots will call the director! Is the response always automatic?

IMO, although negative/responsive/support doubles are similar to action doubles, they are different from pure take-out doubles.

And then, 5 minutes after I make this post, playing in an ACBL daylong comes this hand where I open 3♣ the robot doubles, my partner passes, and there is a pause (robot simulating) and then the robot passes! 100% to me. So the robots don't follow their card - Director!

IMO, a triumph for Pilowski's heavy pre-empt. GIB (West) dutifully makes a minimal double. Arguably, GIB (East) is fixed. None of the robot's actions are exceptional. Rub of the green. But well done, Pilowsky! [/hv]