[joshs]

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner opens 1S (about 10-14 with 5+ spades)
You bid 2D (Game Forcing)
LHO bids 2H
Passed around to you.
Your bid? Your plan?

1S-P-2D-2H
P-P-?

[asdfg2k]

What are my agreements? If partner's double would have been support, I have an easy reopening double. If partner's double would have been penalty, I reopen with 3C as it is the best description of my hand.

My plan? To listen to the bidding from this point forward to see what my next bid should be.

Oh, you meant that I should guess now what partner and the opps might bid? I suppose a small subset of possibilities is worth considering in advance:

If we are playing support doubles, then if over my reopening double:

partner bids 2 or 3 spades, I raise one level.

partner bids 3c or 3d, I bid 3h and then bid 4s over whatever partner bids, unless partner jumps to 5c or 5d, in which case I pass.

partner bids 3h I bid 3s

then I pass 3nt or 4s and raise 4 of a minor to game and over 4h I probably bid 5nt (pick your slam).

partner bids 4c or 4d, I raise.

partner bids 5c or 5d, I pass.

If I bid 3C, then if:

partner bids 3 spades, I raise

partner bids 3d I bid 3h

partner bids 3h I bid 3s

partner bids 3nt, I pass

partner bids 4c, I bid 4s

partner bids 4d, I bid 5d

partner bids 4h, I jump to 6c.

partner bids 4s, I pass

partner bids 5c, I pass

partner bids 5d, I pass

I think.

[jdonn]

I presume double by partner would have been straight up penalty, promising HHx or four decent hearts. I like to play the reopening double by the 2/1 bidder here as sort of optional. Playing it as pure penalty doesn't make sense since opener is unlikely to be short in the opponent's suit, since he didn't rebid his own suit or raise me. So I think the reopening double here is protypically 2353, and though this hand lacks three trumps it does have very good defense. I consider double a reasonable option, but I will bid 3♣.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

I presume double by partner would have been straight up penalty, promising HHx or four decent hearts. I like to play the reopening double by the 2/1 bidder here as sort of optional. Playing it as pure penalty doesn't make sense since opener is unlikely to be short in the opponent's suit, since he didn't rebid his own suit or raise me. So I think the reopening double here is protypically 2353, and though this hand lacks three trumps it does have very good defense. I consider double a reasonable option, but I will bid 3♣.

agreed

[han]

Josh, it makes no sense to me to play that the double by opener is penalty and the double by responder is take-out oriented. There should be a way to penalize the opponents when opener has xx and you have 4 good trumps.

Also, once opener has denied a penalty double it doesn't seem that useful to play the double by as take-out oriented, as opener is very unlikely to pass. It seems more straightforward to bid 3C.

With Ben I play 2/3 doubles here. The double by opener would show 2 or 3 hearts, and the pass denies that (so shows either 1 or 4+ hearts, with a void opener would bid directly). Now the double is obvious, partner will pass with 4+ hearts and pull with a stiff.


However you play opener's double, I think that it should be possible to play 2HX when either hand has 4 trumps and the other hand doesn't have shortness.

[awm]

Josh is suggesting basically the reverse of your 2/3 doubles, which I believe is actually standard:

Opener's X = penalty
Opener bids on with shortness in enemy suit
Opener's pass = 2/3 cards in enemy suit
Responder's X = good 3/4 card holding in enemy suit, penalty-oriented

[joshs]

I think what Josh suggested is standard (but one can argue about if it is optimal).

x by both players is penalty oriented. In direct chair its more of a statement about your hand (usually Hxxx of trumps, but a strong 3 card holding will sometimes do, especially with a stiff in partner's suit). In balancing chair, you have more information than in direct chair. You have partner's pass, which denies lots of shapes. x thus is more a statement that:
"Since it appears that we don't have much of a fit anywhere, I think we should be defending". I think the typical balancing x in this auction is 2353 or 1354 shape.

Most treatments will miss some juicy x's. But the least important x's is when responder has 4 good trumps but opener has only 1 trump since:
a. the trumps are well placed for declarer, so the penalties are not as big as when the trumps are well placed for the defense
b. playing 3N is usually a good alternative, with the oppoennts suit protected from the opening lead

[han]

I'd like it if opener is able to pass comfortably with xx in hearts. Given Adam's definition (good 3/4 card holding in enemy suit, penalty-oriented) this is easy. But Jdonn's definition (sort of optional) sounds to me like opener should never pass with xx. Of course, sort of optional is rather vague and maybe I misinterpreted his intention. However, if Josh considers doubling with Jx of hearts as well as QJ10x of hearts, it will be hard for opener to make the right decision.

You guys are of course correct that no matter what you play, you will miss some juicy penalty doubles. Obviously, Ben and I miss out on doubling any time opener is short in hearts. But as I said above, I would like to be able to defend sometimes when opener has xx.

I admit that I have never discussed this with any partner (except with Ben), and I'm glad to read about the "standard" treatment.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Apr 11 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

I'd like it if opener is able to pass comfortably with xx in hearts. Given Adam's definition (good 3/4 card holding in enemy suit, penalty-oriented) this is easy. But Jdonn's definition (sort of optional) sounds to me like opener should never pass with xx. Of course, sort of optional is rather vague and maybe I misinterpreted his intention. However, if Josh considers doubling with Jx of hearts as well as QJ10x of hearts, it will be hard for opener to make the right decision.

You guys are of course correct that no matter what you play, you will miss some juicy penalty doubles. Obviously, Ben and I miss out on doubling any time opener is short in hearts. But as I said above, I would like to be able to defend sometimes when opener has xx.

I admit that I have never discussed this with any partner (except with Ben), and I'm glad to read about the "standard" treatment.

Incidentally, I never called responder's double takeout even though you seemed to be quoting me that way. I called it optional, which to me is something between takeout and penalty.

So opener passes with his 2 or 3 hearts, and responder doubles. Does opener pass that with xx and with AJx? You are hardly avoiding some degree of guesswork either, the difference between 2 and 3 is huge.

For my money, I'm more interested in defending in cases where both players have Hxx then when HHxx is onside and xx is offside (onside and offside from the heart bidders perspective).

[HeartA]

3C, wtp?

[Codo]

I "never" play penalty doubles, so I am quite surprised, that this is standard for nearly all here.

So for me, x now is clear cut, showing nothing in hearts, something in Clubs and ask the Partner to do something intelligent.

[FrancesHinden]

Even among people who play a lot of take-out doubles, it's very common (even 'standard') to play double as penalties when you are already in a game forcing auction.

I bid 3C.

[Impact]

A simple rule/premise to adopt is that if a pass is forcing, a double should be "penalties" - however that is defined.

You should not make a forcing pass with a hand which possesses a clear feature (like an unbid 5+card suit) as you risk being unable to catch up....

This also allows you to nail them from either side.

In this instance, by application of the initial premise, you simply bid 3C (assuming that that is forcing under your system...).

Once you accept the initial premise of pass is forcing, hence double is penalties, many auctions are clarified.

Pass and pull also takes on particular overtones (can show extra strength etc)

regards

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

since you are in a gf, partners pass was
forcing, and said, that he was unsure, what
to bid, i.e. he was not sure if he prefered
a penalty dbl to playing our own game.

I now dbl, since I am fairly bal., with lots of
controls.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2006, 04:07 PM, said:

Hannie, on Apr 11 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

I'd like it if opener is able to pass comfortably with xx in hearts. Given Adam's definition (good 3/4 card holding in enemy suit, penalty-oriented) this is easy. But Jdonn's definition (sort of optional) sounds to me like opener should never pass with xx. Of course, sort of optional is rather vague and maybe I misinterpreted his intention. However, if Josh considers doubling with Jx of hearts as well as QJ10x of hearts, it will be hard for opener to make the right decision.

You guys are of course correct that no matter what you play, you will miss some juicy penalty doubles. Obviously, Ben and I miss out on doubling any time opener is short in hearts. But as I said above, I would like to be able to defend sometimes when opener has xx.

I admit that I have never discussed this with any partner (except with Ben), and I'm glad to read about the "standard" treatment.

Incidentally, I never called responder's double takeout even though you seemed to be quoting me that way. I called it optional, which to me is something between takeout and penalty.

So opener passes with his 2 or 3 hearts, and responder doubles. Does opener pass that with xx and with AJx? You are hardly avoiding some degree of guesswork either, the difference between 2 and 3 is huge.

For my money, I'm more interested in defending in cases where both players have Hxx then when HHxx is onside and xx is offside (onside and offside from the heart bidders perspective).

I think I misquoted you in my first post, but that was not intentional (I misinterpreted your comment, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth). The post you quote here seems fair though, I explicitly quote you as saying that the double is "sort of optional", and mention that it is not clear to me exactly what you mean.

You have made it much more clear now though. Indeed, playing this "standard" structure you will have an easier time playing 2HX when both players have Hxx, while if you play that the reopening double is penalty then you will easily defend when opener has xx or better and responder has Hxxx or better.

Maybe you are right that the former is better. It is not clear to me, even when responder has only KJxx and opener has xx this will often give two defensive trump tricks. Dummy is likely short, so the only danger is a trump coup.

Also, playing the double as penalty doesn't cause any serious problems. With spades, you support. With 5-4 in the minors, you bid 3C. With 6+ diamonds, you can rebid 3D, and with a balanced hand and a stopper you bid notrump. The cuebid is available for the hands you typically double with: 2-3-5-3 shape with xxx in trump.

I would appreciate further responses in this thread, I think it is an important issue that I (and perhaps others too) have not discussed enough.

[joshs]

For what its worth, the winning bid was x, followed by any plan that would declare 3N from the Jx side.

I had AKJ9x Kxx xx xxx and had an easy pass of a x.
The overcaller had x AQT9x T987x Kx

Your probably not going to make 3N from my side unless they misdefended.
We have 300 against 2H-x as long as we lead trumps before diamonds.

If you bid 2N overcaller might well lead the heart T and let you make. I don't know what the moral of the story is...

[keylime]

To me, since opener is self-limited by not opening 1♣ (remember 10-14 was mentioned), I've of the "hammer them to the wall" grouping.

[civill]

3♣ is very good.

[luke warm]

Codo, on Apr 12 2006, 02:10 AM, said:

I "never" play penalty doubles

a good thing for an opponent to know

[Codo]

as long as pd knows, there is no big problem :-)