[1eyedjack]

If we're to run to 2C on 3-4-3-3 (which I would not, incidentally) then it would be with a commitment to redoubling, expecting to scramble to a 4-3 fit somewhere (not 100% guaranteed)

You are still going down in 2C on the first of the above 2 hands. 3 rounds of Spades then 3 rounds of Hearts. If declarer ruffs trick 6 it promotes East's trump. So by running you have still just converted a plus into a minus.

I feel that Lycier is equating the priorities for running with the scenario where your own 1N opener is doubled although I normally (away from GIB) play in weak NT fields which again changes the dynamics. Who really plays pen X v strong NT in real life?

[lycier]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-10, 21:02, said:

If we're to run to 2C on 3-4-3-3 (which I would not, incidentally) then it would be with a commitment to redoubling, expecting to scramble to a 4-3 fit somewhere (not 100% guaranteed)

You are still going down in 2C on the first of the above 2 hands. 3 rounds of Spades then 3 rounds of Hearts. If declarer ruffs trick 6 it promotes East's trump. So by running you have still just converted a plus into a minus.

I feel that Lycier is equating the priorities for running with the scenario where your own 1N opener is doubled although I normally (away from GIB) play in weak NT fields which again changes the dynamics. Who really plays pen X v strong NT in real life?

Yes and No.
It silly me !!! now I got it.
The real definition of this double is the doubler have ability to make with tricks or overwhelming power, so partner is requested to pass.
Then this should show Gib CC is pretty correct because only especially when with 5 cards minor suit in the hand, partner can be able to decide escaping to a safty minor contract, or it would rather pass whatever its result is good or bad.
Many thanks to you for your reminder.

[lycier]

However , if the real definition of this double is penalty with 16+hcp, my point is correct with no doubt.
Here I got a evidence hand for today.

---

Some top expert opinion is not equal to the truth.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 06:59, said:

However , if the real definition of this double is penalty with 16+hcp, my point is correct with no doubt.
Here I got a evidence hand for today.

---

Some top expert opinion is not equal to the truth.

Which of your points do you maintain that this hand supports?
Earlier you wanted to pull the penalty double, and the other contributors say no, you should leave the penalty double in. On this hand, pulling the double converted a positive result into a negative result. If anything this tends to suggest leaving the double in.

Not that I think that anyone in their right mind would pass the double with North, but the result is hardly a ringing endorsement of bidding.

Incidentally, 2D??? Seriously??? *THAT* is worthy of a bit of attention by the programmers, I think.

[lycier]

Keep calm.
I have played with Gibs over 100,000 hands, the probability of such hand is 1/10,000-15,000. And I would tell you the fact many doubler only with 16+hcp in the balanced hand makes a penalty, but opps could make its 1nt contract. It's not a rare thing, young Englishman.
If this double is to make with tricks or very strong power, partner must pass in any situation.
I found many times that you are very easy to get excitable, it shows you are not suitable for competition of the bridge game in fact.

[manudude03]

In what planet is South not leading a top spade on that hand? How do you make 1NT after the defense take the first 8. If what you are trying to say is that 1NT sometimes makes when the opener and the doubler have around the same points, no-one is disagreeing with that. However, that doesn't mean you pull the double just because you're weak.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 08:06, said:

Keep calm.

The only aspect of this thread that excites me, and that mildly, is North's decision to run to, of all things, 2D when he has KJT984 of Hearts.

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 08:06, said:

I have played with Gibs over 100,000 hands, the probability of such hand is 1/10,000-15,000. And I would tell you the fact many doubler only with 16+hcp in the balanced hand makes a penalty, but opps could make its 1nt contract. It's not a rare thing, young Englishman

When have I suggested otherwise? Indeed in this very thread I suggested that a penalty X of strong 1N is probably not the best use of X. While I did not give my reasons, they are largely down to the frequencies that you have experienced. That said, I have never advocated making a penalty double with a balanced 16 count, even when playing penalty doubles.

Incidentally, if the quoted hand is so rare that it would be meaningless to extrapolate a policy from it, why did you bother to introduce it?

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 08:06, said:

If this double is to make with tricks or very strong power, partner must pass in any situation.

That is the first time that this has been suggested, and not by anyone other than you. All that has been suggested here is that with a flat hand the cost of pulling the double is likely (and only likely) to exceed the cost of letting 1N X make. Even a penalty double of 1N does not guarantee 7 tricks in own hand, so yes, sometimes it will make. With a weak distributional hand it is entirely credible that the expectation from pulling the double exceeds that of standing it.

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 08:06, said:

I found many times that you are very easy to get excitable,

Crass stupidity does get me excited sometimes. Not yet in this thread, mind, despite the temptation.

lycier, on 2016-May-11, 08:06, said:

it shows you are not suitable for competition of the bridge game in fact.

Whom are you trying to convince?

Yourself? You are welcome.

Me? Fortunately for me I happen to be in the privileged position of having a wealth of personal experience in competitive bridge on which to draw, and faced with the choice of forming an opinion based on that experience on the one hand, or on the other hand on the opinion of someone whose judgement I value in ever decreasing amounts with the effluxion of time, I will go with personal experience every time.

The other readers of this thread? Oddly enough I don't feel threatened.

I tend to get a warm feeling when an opposing advocate does not answer the question asked (presumably because there is no answer) and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks. It basically means, buddy, that you lose.

[johnu]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-11, 07:06, said:

Incidentally, 2D??? Seriously??? *THAT* is worthy of a bit of attention by the programmers, I think.

Nothing wrong with a little canape action by GIB I commented on a similar canape bid by GIB a few months ago.

[1eyedjack]

johnu, on 2016-May-11, 12:12, said:

Nothing wrong with a little canape action by GIB I commented on a similar canape bid by GIB a few months ago.

Yeah, I know you are joking. But the subsequent 3H bid is not described as canapé: 4+H and 5+D

[lycier]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-11, 11:17, said:

Whom are you trying to convince?

Yourself? You are welcome.

Me? Fortunately for me I happen to be in the privileged position of having a wealth of personal experience in competitive bridge on which to draw, and faced with the choice of forming an opinion based on that experience on the one hand, or on the other hand on the opinion of someone whose judgement I value in ever decreasing amounts with the effluxion of time, I will go with personal experience every time.

The other readers of this thread? Oddly enough I don't feel threatened.

I tend to get a warm feeling when an opposing advocate does not answer the question asked (presumably because there is no answer) and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks. It basically means, buddy, that you lose.

I feel like I'm not appropriate for my last reply words,so I would say sorry very much to you.

[1eyedjack]

no prob. sometimes it gets heated and need to vent

[lycier]

Thank you very much.