Help
Your rho opens 2 NT for a two suiter. You double to show points and at least a semibalanced hand, else you havd bid 1 or two suiters different.
LHO picks his poison with 3 ♦ P doubles to show....?
(2NT) X (3 ♦) X =?
Please name the pros and cons for your approach
TIA
Page 1 of 1
Ansd this double? Another X to misunderstand
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-November-09, 07:51
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#2
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2006-November-09, 07:59
With a t/o oriented hand you would have made a cue-bid so your double encourages partner to double for penalty. So it must be at least penalty oriented. Maybe the agreement is that you'll sit for the double with two or more trumps (which you'll usually have).
It could also depend on the vulnerability. At least at unfavorable, you still have the option of bidding 3NT if you prefer.
It could also depend on the vulnerability. At least at unfavorable, you still have the option of bidding 3NT if you prefer.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,741
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2006-November-09, 18:39
Of course this depends on your agreements. It may also depend on whether 2NT shows a specific pair of suits (i.e. minors) or can be any two-suiter.
In any case my preference is to play this double as takeout. I am certain that the standard agreement, however, is penalty.
There are a number of advantages to playing doubles for takeout in a forcing auction. In particular:
(1) It eliminates any problems due to confusion in auctions that may or may not be forcing, because double has the same meaning regardless of whether pass is forcing.
(2) It makes more sequences available, because in principle you can bid directly, or double then bid on, or pass and then bid over partner's double. The general distinction is that a direct bid shows shortness in the opposing suit without willingness to defend, double and then bid is an "off-shape" takeout double with 1-2 cards in the enemy suit but willing to defend, and pass then bid shows length in the opposing suit but not good enough trumps to defend. If double is penalty then there is no option to "double then bid" since double will end the auction, and passing followed by bidding can lead to tempo issues (if partner's double is slow) as well as the fact that partner's double is far less automatic in this style (what if partner doesn't have a penalty double? he won't pass but the auction may be bumped to a higher level).
In any case my preference is to play this double as takeout. I am certain that the standard agreement, however, is penalty.
There are a number of advantages to playing doubles for takeout in a forcing auction. In particular:
(1) It eliminates any problems due to confusion in auctions that may or may not be forcing, because double has the same meaning regardless of whether pass is forcing.
(2) It makes more sequences available, because in principle you can bid directly, or double then bid on, or pass and then bid over partner's double. The general distinction is that a direct bid shows shortness in the opposing suit without willingness to defend, double and then bid is an "off-shape" takeout double with 1-2 cards in the enemy suit but willing to defend, and pass then bid shows length in the opposing suit but not good enough trumps to defend. If double is penalty then there is no option to "double then bid" since double will end the auction, and passing followed by bidding can lead to tempo issues (if partner's double is slow) as well as the fact that partner's double is far less automatic in this style (what if partner doesn't have a penalty double? he won't pass but the auction may be bumped to a higher level).
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2006-November-10, 03:58
I believe take-out is better than penalty. I would play the sequence as
(2NT) dbl (3♦) ...?
dbl = take-out, 4 in a major. Pard bids 4♣/♦ with both majs min/max, else 3M up the line.
3M = 5 card, NF.
3NT = let's play'em
4♣/♦ = shortness, 55 majors
(2NT) dbl (3♦) ...?
dbl = take-out, 4 in a major. Pard bids 4♣/♦ with both majs min/max, else 3M up the line.
3M = 5 card, NF.
3NT = let's play'em
4♣/♦ = shortness, 55 majors
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 604
- Joined: 2005-November-02
- Location:U.S.A. Maryland
- Interests:Science fiction, science fantasy, military history, bridge<br>Bidding systems nut, I like to learn them and/or build them.<br>History in general(some is dull, but my interests are fairly wide ranging)<br>
Posted 2006-November-10, 09:13
Hi everyone
Takeout for me. Partner's double was penalty showing values. "If' I hold a trump stack, he should double for takeout at his next turn to bid. If is hold a takeout type hand, I can double for 'takeout.'
I do play 'takeout' doubles over my 1NT opening so this method is merely following the chosen bidding path.
Regards,
Robert
Takeout for me. Partner's double was penalty showing values. "If' I hold a trump stack, he should double for takeout at his next turn to bid. If is hold a takeout type hand, I can double for 'takeout.'
I do play 'takeout' doubles over my 1NT opening so this method is merely following the chosen bidding path.
Regards,
Robert
Page 1 of 1