[1eyedjack]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 4 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

If one (or both) of the partnership has a penalty double, it doesn't matter which way round you play it; one person doubles and the other hand passes.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a bit of a problem with the "(or both)" part. If both have a penalty double then neither can make a take-out double which partner can then convert to penalties. That of course is worrying about catching an opponent's psych. But I grant that this is less likely than their having their calls, although if your opponents are adequately familiar with your doubling style it is more of an invitation to psych.

Perhaps there is some scope for artificial use of 2NT in these sequences (combined with double being for penalties in a forcing pass auction) - on the grounds that if you have a genuine 2NT bid then you likely have a penalty double so the 2NT becomes redundant in a natural capacity (either in direct seat or in response to a forcing pass). Not quite accurate of course - if you have a short guard and a source of tricks outside you might want to use 2NT as natural despite that double would have been for penalties.

As you say - possibly a bit beyond the BIL scope, but on topic in the context of the thread.

[dburn]

jtfanclub, on Dec 4 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

OK, so....the bidding goes:

1NT P 2♣ 2♠
-P- P

You hold a fairly ordinary

AJTx
xx
AKxx
xxx

Now what?

I think the point Frances was trying to make was that the 1NT bidder, assured of invitational values opposite, would already have doubled 2♠ "for takeout" before the bidding reached this "fairly ordinary" stage.

Of course, your example is not "fairly ordinary" at all; it assumes that your side has at least a combined 27 hcp with at least six spades, and that an opponent has enough to wander into the auction with 2♠. This will, I conjecture, not occur more often than one time in a few hundred million. I am an old has-been (as Jlall has pointed out), and your lifetime is likely to be longer than mine, but not that much longer in terms of the expected occurrence of this "fairly ordinary" situation.

Having said that, I confess that having played both approaches - [1] if pass is forcing, double is penalty; [2] if pass is forcing, double is takeout - method [1] has met with no bad results, while method [2] has met with nothing but bad results. The claimed "advantage" for method [2] in auctions starting with a double of 1NT turns out to be no advantage at all: the only time both of you combine to double for penalty is when neither of you has any trump tricks, while you have God knows what unexplored fits in other suits.

But then, I am that bridge player described to a T by P G Wodehouse when he wrote:

Out in the silent Rockies,
Tracking the teddy bears,
There's a man whose brow is furrowed,
Whose hairs are silver hairs.
Folks in that far-off region
Know him as Jaundiced Jim,
And now I'll tell you his story -
How do I know it? I'm him.

[jtfanclub]

dburn, on Dec 4 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Dec 4 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

OK, so....the bidding goes:

1NT P 2♣ 2♠
-P-  P

You hold a fairly ordinary

AJTx
xx
AKxx
xxx

Now what?

I think the point Frances was trying to make was that the 1NT bidder, assured of invitational values opposite, would already have doubled 2♠ "for takeout" before the bidding reached this "fairly ordinary" stage.

OK, forget the HCP. My point was...what is the X for takeout showing exactly? Four hearts? Two or fewer spades? What are you supposed to do with ordinary hands with neither?

I don't know what an X should be called that doesn't promise shortness or an alternate suit, but it doesn't feel like takeout is a good description. I'm not sure what the real advantage is of this either.

[MomoTheDog]

This is penalty unless you have some super-specific agreement. It is more useful as a penalty double at this spot.

[lexlogan]

dburn, on Dec 4 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

lexlogan, on Dec 1 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

dburn, on Dec 1 2007, 11:46 PM, said:

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one.

It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

I'm sure you have more expertise in this area than I, but you wouldn't double 2S with AKxx xx Axx Axxx ?

If West, a passed hand, bids 2♠ at his second turn, a likely explanation is that he has six spades and four hearts (else he would have opened 2♠). I might then hope to draw dummy's trumps and wait for partner to take some heart tricks.

But all too often, declarer has a habit of turning up with such as ♠QJ109xx and ♥QJ10x. That's seven tricks facing ♥9, even if dummy doesn't turn up with the king of declarer's minor-suit doubleton. In the meantime, we can make 3NT in comfort - and we can often do that even when we beat 2♠.

No, I wouldn't double 2♠ with ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣Axx. But if you would, you could easily be right.

OK, thanks. I can't afford to play in regionals or nationals, while at sectionals or club events players routinely overcall 1NT on 5 card suits. So I think doubling may be more profitable in my experience than yours :).

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2007, 06:59 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Dec 2 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Surely you play that partner has either 4 spades or an 8+ count, yes?

So you wouldn't bid stayman with xxx Jxxx Txxxx x?

One of the most successful weak Stayman bids I have ever made was on some one count - i forget where the jack was:

xxx xxx xxxxx xx

Note we play weak NT so I knew they had a game almost certainly.

[neilkaz]

Cascade, on Dec 6 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2007, 06:59 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Dec 2 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Surely you play that partner has either 4 spades or an 8+ count, yes?

So you wouldn't bid stayman with xxx Jxxx Txxxx x?

One of the most successful weak Stayman bids I have ever made was on some one count - i forget where the jack was:

xxx xxx xxxxx xx

Note we play weak NT so I knew they had a game almost certainly.

And the opps deserve the presumed bad board for not competing here, but sometimes their points are split and neither has that exciting a hand, and they just cannot believe that they have 26-28 (assuming your ACOL 12-14 NT) HCP between them.

.. neilkaz ..