[Double !]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

The more I read this thread, the more I like the following approach:

3. Pass = forcing. Yes, forcing! The current trend of this being a non-forcing sequence caters to a very small spectrum, where a) both of our hands are minimum, b ) we can't make anything at the 5 level and , c) we can't set 4S.

Thank You.
I concur (for what that's worth.) and, I was one who initially voted to pass (and then pull).

It is difficult for me to visualize very many, if any, hands where I expect the opps to be able to make 4S. If pass is forcing (my partner did imply decent values and a decent suit or else secondary support for diamonds), then the follow-ups after a double by partner are fairly easy to reason out, even if no prior discussion had occurred.

I agree with phil that the double might express doubt about being able to make something at the 5-level, often a wk NT type of hand, possibly with some wasted value in spades. If the opener has a wk NT hand then, IMO, the hand should be sound enough to provide some defensive tricks. Otherwise one might wish to give a second thought to opening 1 minor on a light, unbalanced hand unless one has something in spades.

I don't know. Perhaps my thinking is very influenced by having played weak NT for so very long whereby opening 1m implied better than a minimum balanced or semibalanced hand. The idea of the I have values but don't know what to bid at the 4-5 level double, unless partner will know for some reason that you are short in spades (and then can start to infer more about your distribution) just seems difficult to handle and is almost like passing the buck to partner.

DHL

[keylime]

Don,

This hand is ideal for pass-double inversion, what I use with Larry in our forcing club p'ship. This is a banner hand for it (I'd double to show 2 places to play, definite, clear takeout - would not need to bid 5♣ as I did here).

[Double !]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

Don,

This hand is ideal for pass-double inversion, what I use with Larry in our forcing club p'ship. This is a banner hand for it (I'd double to show 2 places to play, definite, clear takeout - would not need to bid 5♣ as I did here).

Dwayne:

Sounds like a great idea.
Is pass-double inversion part of BBO Advanced? Remember, I am a bidding dinosaur, so I might not be familiar with some more recent innovations.

DHL

[mikeh]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

Don,

This hand is ideal for pass-double inversion, what I use with Larry in our forcing club p'ship. This is a banner hand for it (I'd double to show 2 places to play, definite, clear takeout - would not need to bid 5♣ as I did here).

But the inversion only applies, as far as I know, when you are in a forcing pass situation: it is not a broader device: merely an inversion of the use of pass/double once the auction is forcing.

And the expert consensus is clear on this hand: if you play the fp (or inversion) you are out of the mainstream.

[Double !]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

Don,

This hand is ideal for pass-double inversion, what I use with Larry in our forcing club p'ship. This is a banner hand for it (I'd double to show 2 places to play, definite, clear takeout - would not need to bid 5♣ as I did here).

But the inversion only applies, as far as I know, when you are in a forcing pass situation: it is not a broader device: merely an inversion of the use of pass/double once the auction is forcing.

And the expert consensus is clear on this hand: if you play the fp (or inversion) you are out of the mainstream.

That is fine.
I accept what you say without objection, and I do not question the judgments or opinions of players who are much more accomplished than I.

However, where is it written that I must be mainstream? lololol, me? mainstream? Heaven forbid.....................

BTW: Mikeh: you did a fine job with this BPO


DHL

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2007, 03:09 AM, said:

But Justin felt that his double would usually be left in. He felt that it was 'Really awful. I expect partner to typically pass here....Passing is possible to increase the chances that partner bids, but I fear a passout too much and I won't know what to do if he doubles...'

I am slightly surprised at this comment. I consider this double "takeout" in the sense that partner will take it out more often than he will "take out" a pass. (As a side note, especially for awm , that way the name "takeout double" makes some sense despite the fact that it is left in more often than taken out.)
I would also pass with Phil's example hand Kx Ax AKxxx Qxxx because I don't want partner to bid at the 5-level unless he is going to without my help.

[Double !]

cherdano, on Jan 5 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

I would also pass with Phil's example hand Kx Ax AKxxx Qxxx because I don't want partner to bid at the 5-level unless he is going to without my help.

a moot point but...

are you sure that you would be opening 1 diamond with the above-mentioned hand?

DHL

[cherdano]

Double !, on Jan 6 2007, 04:38 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 5 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

I would also pass with Phil's example hand Kx Ax AKxxx Qxxx because I don't want partner to bid at the 5-level unless he is going to without my help.

a moot point but...

are you sure that you would be opening 1 diamond with the above-mentioned hand?

I am sure I would open 1♦ (but I wouldn't be sure that it's right ).

I would open 1N with heart and clubs switched.