[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

You open 1D in first seat and hear this convoluted acution:

1D-2D*-P-2S
P-P-X-XX
P-P-2N-X
?
*Majors

Your partner is known to be of sound mind. Do you gut in out in 2N doubled or run out? The event is K.O. teams.

---

[adhoc3]

Seems pard swing between to play or to punish, probably I would run from XX, but I will stay 2NTX. Pard should have half stop in Spade.

I wish I know him more than "sound mind".

[HeartA]

I will pass 2N dbl. The danger is RHO might be abe to cash clubs.

[HeartA]

I will pass 2N dbl. The danger is RHO might be abe to cash clubs.

[Double !]

I really don't know what partner has or is doing, but partner does know.

I am not forced to bid here. I pass and wait for partner to clarify his/her intentions. I certainly hope that they are honorable.

DHL

[chicken]

look @ my nick.

3♦

[mr1303]

I'm not convinced partner's 2NT is natural there, I think it's meant to be a scramble, suggesting two places to play. As a result, I'm going to put 3D down, and tell him not to try and confuse me in future by making ambiguous calls.

At pairs I might pass though, but not at imps

[MickyB]

Do you have an agreement about partner's double? I would have bid 3♦ over the redouble, expecting pass to be to play; I agree with Mark that 2N sounds like 2 places to play, so I bid 3♦, if I pass again partner might think I actually have something more than Kx in ♠.

[FrancesHinden]

Partner may be of sound mind, but we clearly aren't of sound system.

I play partner's double of 2S as strict penalties (that's not least why I passed the redouble). It is simply not conceivable in my regular partnership that he would pull the redouble.

So, I conclude that we haven't discussed this auction, and he meant the double as take-out. In which case he's asking me to bid a minor, so I bid 3D. But to my mind, it shouldn't matter because if I pass partner is going to bid anyway.

[Al_U_Card]

Since pard did not double initially, he should not be able to penalize one or both of the majors. His subsequent double should be cards and he wants to know what you think. His running from the redouble shows both minors with more clubs I would imagine. You must bid 3D and any subsequent double of 3S would certainly be penalty.

[FrancesHinden]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 16 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

Since pard did not double initially, he should not be able to penalize one or both of the majors. His subsequent double should be cards and he wants to know what you think.

There are a lot of 'shoulds' here which I don't fully agree with, showing why it's a good idea to discuss this. The way I play, which I believe has some logic, is that an initial double of 2D shows cards and some interest in defending, and wants to know what you think. A pass over 2D followed by a double is a 'trump stack' double which is not interested in what you think, which is why you weren't consulted the previous round.

I don't think either why round of playing this set of agreements is worth a 'should'.

Quote

His running from the redouble shows both minors with more clubs I would imagine.  You must bid 3D and any subsequent double of 3S would certainly be penalty.

Here we are agreed.

[Gerben42]

Agree with Frances on all counts on this.

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 16 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 16 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

Since pard did not double initially, he should not be able to penalize one or both of the majors.  His subsequent double should be cards and he wants to know what you think.

There are a lot of 'shoulds' here which I don't fully agree with, showing why it's a good idea to discuss this. The way I play, which I believe has some logic, is that an initial double of 2D shows cards and some interest in defending, and wants to know what you think. A pass over 2D followed by a double is a 'trump stack' double which is not interested in what you think, which is why you weren't consulted the previous round.

I don't think either why round of playing this set of agreements is worth a 'should'.

Quote

His running from the redouble shows both minors with more clubs I would imagine.  You must bid 3D and any subsequent double of 3S would certainly be penalty.

Here we are agreed.

Points well taken. I do have the KT of S so if he has a trump stack then the opps are playing chicken and I just swerved.....happens....

[mikeh]

I never look to win matches on this kind of hand, so I am pulling to 3♦. I don't think that bidding here can 'lose' imps, although it may give back imps that we were about to win (and I believe there is a difference).

As for what is going on, one should have an agreement yet it seems that we don't. I usually play differently than Frances: for me this double of 2♠ shows a hand with values but unable to bid earlier: interestingly, I was rereading a 1998 BW last night, and this hand came up: J10x A9xx xx KQ109. Partner opened 1♦ and RHO overcalled 2♦..majors. In the problem, this hand had doubled and then faced 2♠ P P.

A large segment of the panel criticized the initial double, advocating, instead, an initial pass followed by a double to show this hand type. I have been playing that way ever since 1998, when I first read the article.... well, with a couple of partners.

With others, I play as Frances does: pass and double is pure penalty: which I know it is not, with my hand.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

this hand came up: J10x A9xx xx KQ109. Partner opened 1♦ and RHO overcalled 2♦..majors. In the problem, this hand had doubled and then faced 2♠ P P.

A large segment of the panel criticized the initial double, advocating, instead, an initial pass followed by a double to show this hand type. I have been playing that way ever since 1998, when I first read the article.... well, with a couple of partners.

With others, I play as Frances does: pass and double is pure penalty: which I know it is not, with my hand.

That hand looks like the poster boy for an initial (eventual) penalty double of H. As always, an agreement (whatev) makes all the difference.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

Interestingly, I was rereading a 1998 BW last night, and this hand came up: J10x A9xx xx KQ109. Partner opened 1D and RHO overcalled 2D..majors. In the problem, this hand had doubled and then faced 2S P P.

A large segment of the panel criticized the initial double, advocating, instead, an initial pass followed by a double to show this hand type. I have been playing that way ever since 1998, when I first read the article.... well, with a couple of partners.

As others have said, it's knowing the agreement that's important.

In fact, I don't exactly play the way I have described it: I have an additional wrinkle. I play take-out doubles after the first double. So to take the example hand J10x A9xx xx KQ109

1D (2D) x (2S)
P P ?

Partner's pass is forcing (at the 2-level by our agreements, not higher) and shows either a penalty double of spades, or a strong hand that isn't prepared to defend whatever partner's hand. I double happily, showing a hand prepared to sit a penalty double.

If partner doubled 2S, that showed a hand happy to stand a penalty double from partner. An immediate bid would have been weaker and distributional.

The advantage of playing this way round is that when I don't have a penalty double and I don't have a suit to bid, I double for take-out. I wonder if in fact I need to be playing this way round to make my choice work (pass-then-double trump stack and immediate double cards).

There are two disadvantages -

i) You can miss out on penalties when your trumps are 3-3 or sometimes 3-2. Then the alternatives of 'take-out under, co-operative over' or 'co-operative under, penalties over' do better.

ii) You can miss some bid penalties at the 3-level, when we play pass as non-forcing but still play double as take-out.

[Winstonm]

This is the first time you have played with your partner in over 20 years so there is only a vague "accepted norm" type of agreement in place. Most I know play initial double as penalty and pass and back in as "cards". Partner pulled to 3D which I think is the correct move.

---

[FrancesHinden]

I've thought of another reason to play the first double as cards: if you have a big penalty double, they aren't going to pre-empt you. If you have 'cards' excluding honours in one of their suits, they might bid to an uncomfortable level before you have a chance to tell partner it's your hand.

Anyway, at least this time the opponents helped us out slightly!

p.s. if the double was cards, it's a good job you had an agreement about the pass of the redouble - in these auctions (double = cards or take/out) I play the pass of the redouble as penalties!

[Winstonm]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 16 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

I've thought of another reason to play the first double as cards: if you have a big penalty double, they aren't going to pre-empt you. If you have 'cards' excluding honours in one of their suits, they might bid to an uncomfortable level before you have a chance to tell partner it's your hand.

Anyway, at least this time the opponents helped us out slightly!

p.s. if the double was cards, it's a good job you had an agreement about the pass of the redouble - in these auctions (double = cards or take/out) I play the pass of the redouble as penalties!

Actually, this makes a whole lot of sense and I think it a better approach - when you don't exaclty know what to do it's better to get your message in early than late after 1D-2D-P-3S or the like.

Good idea and thanks.

Winston