[adhoc3]

I'd rather believe Pard have 3343. If he had 4333, my RHO appears insane --- leaving his pd in 42 doubled? Whatever, Pard's second double could be a mixer: stay or go? I was in the bottom, so I left. I wonder, even ACBL standard, there's 100% penalty double at level 1.

Yes, I recognized that because of previous 1H bid made 2C confusing: is it a new suit showing some decent cards or the cheapest bid showing nothing?

Let change the bidding a little bit:

1D----dbl-----pass-----2C
2D----dbl-----pass-----??

We still have a problem of what to bid. 2H/S could 54, 3C.....I dont know.

[cinvent77]

In the new situation,

(1♦) - X - (P) - 2♣
(2♦) - X - (P)

at least it's clear what the second double means: this is take-out. Partner has an above average take-out double, three-suited. Unless he is super strong he will pass 2♥ and 3♣. He could have bid 2♥ himself with 5♥ so he probably has only four. I'll bid 2♥ that's one level lower than 3♣.

The more I think about the original problem the less certain I get what the "right" meaning of the second double should be. As a general policy I'm in favor of "no double is penalty unless we specifically agree it is" (This seems contrary to the usual practise, but I think it makes more sense).

Maybe mike was right and this should be a case were the (second double) is "penalty" ie. show a decent hand with good spades. That doesn't mean we always have to pass the penalty double, of course.

Two questions:

- Is anyone in favor of pulling a penalty double here?
- Say that the second double is penalty. Would you then play

(1♦) - X - (P) - 1♥
(1♠) - X - (2♦) - 2♠

as natural?

[jtfanclub]

temp3600, on Feb 17 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Partner bid 1♠ voluntarily. He is showing exactly 4 spades (rarely 5, when he is 6-5), and at least 4 diamonds, quite often 5.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave him in the 4-2 fit because it's at the 1 level and not go back to the 4-4 or often 5-4 fit at the 2 level.

I play a 12-15 'weak' NT. For a while, I played automatic runouts after penatly double in direct seat. I stopped. Now passing is 'optional', based on the 1NT'ers hand.

Well, sometimes we ended up running anyways, and sometimes we played it and made or went down one. But what I also found was that, more than half the time when they could have gotten us for a phone number, the partner of the doubler chickens out, and they get a part score. It signficantly improved the 1NT.

If you're the partner of the 1♠ bidder, and you just pass like it was just another part score auction, odds are they'll pull. I mean, just look at this thread. An awful lot of people here would turn a 200 or 500 into a 120 or 130. After seeing the the results of of the poll, how can you doubt that the right thing to do is just pass and have the opponents let you off the hook?

Some people have described this as a penalty X. I don't think it's that at all. It's an opening 2NT hand (20-23). If you had, say 5 hearts and 4 points, a very reasonable hand for you to have on this auction, you'd say 4 hearts. Partner doesn't know you have 3 spades. If partner has something in that range, he's not going to make 3NT across your hand (although he'd make it across something just a little bit stronger), but I think it's an excellent gamble that he can take 7 tricks regardless of trump. As long as you're balanced, of course. If you were short in spades, that would cause problems.

Let me put it this way. Do you agree that if partner has a 2NT opener (or a little stronger), that most likely they can't make 1♠ but you guys can't make game? If so, what hand do you think that isn't covered by the existing available bids that so desperately needs to use the X? Because it's not like there's a different bid he can make that says 'game or penalty, it's up to you'.

There's also one other little issue...if partner means it as a penalty X, he's not going to interpret a 2♣ as three hearts and four clubs. He's going to think you have no points, 4 hearts, and probably 5 clubs and short spades....a hand that would pull the X even by my interpretation the X. And partner may get frisky.

[jtfanclub]

cinvent77, on Feb 18 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

In the new situation,

(1♦) - X - (P) - 2♣
(2♦) - X - (P)

Hmmm...ok, other half of the same question. Everybody vulnerable.

You have xx xx T8xxx xxxx

Auction is as listed above.

What is your call?

[temp3600]

jtfanclub, on Feb 18 2007, 12:40 AM, said:

temp3600, on Feb 17 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Partner bid 1♠ voluntarily. He is showing exactly 4 spades (rarely 5, when he is 6-5), and at least 4 diamonds, quite often 5.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave him in the 4-2 fit because it's at the 1 level and not go back to the 4-4 or often 5-4 fit at the 2 level.

I play a 12-15 'weak' NT. For a while, I played automatic runouts after penatly double in direct seat. I stopped. Now passing is 'optional', based on the 1NT'ers hand.

Well, sometimes we ended up running anyways, and sometimes we played it and made or went down one. But what I also found was that, more than half the time when they could have gotten us for a phone number, the partner of the doubler chickens out, and they get a part score. It signficantly improved the 1NT.

If you're the partner of the 1♠ bidder, and you just pass like it was just another part score auction, odds are they'll pull. I mean, just look at this thread. An awful lot of people here would turn a 200 or 500 into a 120 or 130. After seeing the the results of of the poll, how can you doubt that the right thing to do is just pass and have the opponents let you off the hook?

We have a completely different evaluation of the situation : you are trying hard to escape a double (and therefore prefer to stay in 1♠ which gives you better chances of getting "off the hook", for the reasons you mentioned, which I would likely agree with if I was running too), whereas I think 2♦ is a fine, fine spot for us.
Partner bid voluntarily the second time, despite hearing our pass and the opponent's exchange, so he was ready to face a weak hand. We do have a weak hand, but with a good fit for his first suit. Did I say I thought 2♦ was a fine spot? That was an understatement.

[jtfanclub]

temp3600, on Feb 18 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

We have a completely different evaluation of the situation : you are trying hard to escape a double (and therefore prefer to stay in 1♠ which gives you better chances of getting "off the hook", for the reasons you mentioned, which I would likely agree with if I was running too), whereas I think 2♦ is a fine, fine spot for us.
Partner bid voluntarily the second time, despite hearing our pass and the opponent's exchange, so he was ready to face a weak hand. We do have a weak hand, but with a good fit for his first suit. Did I say I thought 2♦ was a fine spot? That was an understatement.

Um, how would I phrase this?

Something is not kosher here. Partner doubled the first time, knowing that 1♠ was a likely response. Now 3 suits have been bid, and he's doubling again.

If what partner had was a powerhouse with just clubs, he'd surely bid that suit now. If partner was very pleased with my heart bid (say, a club-heart two suiter), surely he'd raise or cue-bid.

So every hand I make for him has at least three spades. I have 3 spades, opener has 4 spades, that leaves at most three spades for responder. Either my partner also has lots of diamonds, in which case I *definitely* want to leave it in, or responder knows that diamonds is their better fit and yet left it in spades.

So, I think that while you may have read it right, responder has read the situation wrong and thinks this is a running situation. Either that, or partner is so strong in their suits that there's no point in going back to diamonds.

Or...well, actually, there's another possibility. Opener may be getting cute.

♠ VOID
♥ QJTx
♦ AQTxxx
♣ Axx

Absolutely opener should should either pass or bid 2♦ over 1♥, but why not bid 1♠? If the doubler was planning to show a strong hand with a spade suit (which seems likely given the hand and auction so far), you just fried the auction for them. X sounds like takeout, 2♠ sounds like a cue bid, and you may trick them into a non-making heart contract instead of a making spade contract. Your partner may get fooled too, but that's the risk of a psyche, and if he couldn't speak the first time.... If nothing else, it's lead directing, all right.

I don't think it's likely, but of all the times to psyche, surely this is the safest. If you get it undoubled, and they have a spade game, you just need two tricks for a good result. And if you are doubled, stripe tailed apes will be aghast at the speed that you switch back to diamonds.

But I think it's more likely one of the first two possibilities. Responder thinks that this is a good time to run, or diamonds is at least as bad as spades as a fit.

[adhoc3]

jtfanclub, on Feb 18 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

cinvent77, on Feb 18 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

In the new situation,

(1♦) - X - (P) - 2♣
(2♦) - X - (P)

Hmmm...ok, other half of the same question. Everybody vulnerable.

You have xx xx T8xxx xxxx

Auction is as listed above.

What is your call?

I hate pard's double at that time. As he did not make a strong michaels cuebid, I would have to bid 3C.

I was thinking 'the lowest NT' bid for NOTHING could be useful.

[gwnn]

This problem was a bit flawed... 2♣ is the normal response.

[inquiry]

The double of 1♠ not only shows extras, it shows a willingness to play 1♠X. In my opinion to run from this contract shows weakness, not strength, and thus 2♣ is defacto weaker than pass.

[kenberg]

Declarer would bid as he has holding six diamonds and four spades. He may well be about to bid 2D if you pass 1S X. Anything that you can do to keep partner from bidding again is all to the good. Unfortunately you have already bid hearts and if you now bid 2C partner will expect more shape. If you pas the double partner will think you have some values. Tough situation. Probably the best is to look over your cards, get a look of shock on your face, and conspicuously move one of your cards to a new spot as if you have just discovered one of your hearts is actually a diamond. Then hem and haw for a bid, and then bid 2C.

I have learned the hard way that online comments are often taking more seriously than intended, so let me add the smiley face as a clue.

[mikestar]

What does partner have? First of all, he very likely has exactly three hearts. With four he would raise or cue bid, with two or fewer he must have a very strong hand, in which case he can bid his suit to show this hand. He just might have two hearts with a very strong balanced hand--but he could show this by bidding NT. We can also rule out any minimum double--he would pass and trust us to bid with values. So what we are left with is a good hand with four spades--a hand where partner wants to give us the option to play for penalties. Give me just a tiny bit of strength and I will leave it in, but on the actual hand I will bid 2♣.

Also, penalty-suggesting is the best interpretation to protect against psychics. This is rather similar to (1♦)-X-(1♠)-X: the infamous sequence where Hamman stole the Italians blind, leading them to change their system on the spot.

A takeout interpretation is suitable for "Kitchen Bridge" where no one ever psyches and minimum off shape doubles are the order of the day.

[adhoc3]

kenberg, on Feb 22 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Declarer would bid as he has holding six diamonds and four spades. He may well be about to bid 2D if you pass 1S X. Anything that you can do to keep partner from bidding again is all to the good. Unfortunately you have already bid hearts and if you now bid 2C partner will expect more shape. If you pas the double partner will think you have some values. Tough situation. Probably the best is to look over your cards, get a look of shock on your face, and conspicuously move one of your cards to a new spot as if you have just discovered one of your hearts is actually a diamond. Then hem and haw for a bid, and then bid 2C.

I have learned the hard way that online comments are often taking more seriously than intended, so let me add the smiley face as a clue.

Love this one

[whereagles]

I've seen some good pairs playing the rebid of advancer's suit as the weakest bid. In that context, 2♣ would be a 44 and mild values; something like 5-7.

Without this agreement, I would tend to say that both 2♥ and 2♣ show little more than the already shown 0-7 pts.

[Codo]

whereagles, on Feb 28 2007, 12:47 AM, said:

I've seen some good pairs playing the rebid of advancer's suit as the weakest bid. In that context, 2♣ would be a 44 and mild values; something like 5-7.

Without this agreement, I would tend to say that both 2♥ and 2♣ show little more than the already shown 0-7 pts.

This agreement does not fit at all with the idea to bid 3 card majors before you bid 4 card minors but has merrits if you answer with your longest suit to a take out double. So obviously, this approach was not adopted from the heroes in this hand.