[MFA]

benlessard, on Mar 19 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

Im surprised by amount of player that are afraid of 3S making, the 2nd X show game aspiration, I did bid 3D freely so with Qx of D and xx of ♠ partner wont X unless he is sure 3S goes down. Opps wont bid 3S red with cheese so partner X in these position tend to show a stiff diamonds, but by the look of my hand its unlikely. I think partner most probable holding is xx in [D] and xx in ♠. So i have a hard timse seeing how 3S or 3Nt can make.

Of course if we have the agreement that X tend to ask for a stopper is a different story. Also if we had solid-semi solid diamonds and a spades stopper would you bid 3D or 2Nt ? For my 3D partner shoulndt play me for a S stopper too often.

It seems to me that this interpretation of partner's X of 3♠ is somewhat sought.
In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

[MFA]

gnasher, on Mar 19 2008, 03:06 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 18 2008, 08:50 PM, said:

In 1), a good south would have at least a vague hope of making 3♠ when he bids it vul vs not.

That depends on how often he thinks you'll save in 3NT.

Hehe...
Nah, he knows he is in danger of being X'ed. Look how triggerhappy the crowd is even with ♠Kx onside.

[Halo]

MFA, on Mar 19 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

[pclayton]

1. 3N. Frequently pard will be completely stuck over 3♠ even with a balanced hand and diamond support. Pard's double is about the only was we can sensibly get to 3N. If pard has 3415 or 3424 without a diamond card, its unfortunate because we probably aren't making 3N and we are crushing 3♠.

2. Pass.

[MFA]

Halo, on Mar 19 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 19 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

[Cascade]

MFA, on Mar 20 2008, 08:01 AM, said:

Halo, on Mar 19 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 19 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

[MFA]

Cascade, on Mar 19 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

MFA, on Mar 20 2008, 08:01 AM, said:

Halo, on Mar 19 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 19 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

??

[sathyab]

Surely partner can't have more than two Diamonds for his double and if he has Qx and a spade stopper he'd have bid 3nt himself, especially as you can have a better hand, since you are not handicapped by the burden of conventions such as good-bad 2nt. If you bid 3nt you're hoping that partner has a full stopper when opponents have a nine card fit or Qxx of spades when they have only an 8-card fit (LHO's 3s being based on distribution, but not necessarily a six bagger) and of course a doubleton Diamond rather than a stiff. The chances of 3nt seem to be pretty bleak if it's intended seriously to make, but a pretty good bid if you think of it as a sacrifice against 3s.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

The chances of 3nt seem to be pretty bleak if it's intended seriously to make, but a pretty good bid if you think of it as a sacrifice against 3s.

Isn't 3NT quite likely to go three down? Partner might have xx AQxx xx KQxxx.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Mar 18 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 18 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

On the first one I think passing is most often the right decision. However, the downside (3♠x making) is horrible, and the upside of 3NT (it makes) is so big, that I believe bidding 3NT is the long time IMP winner. Thus I'm in the 3NT camp.

On the 2nd hand it's an easy pass.

I think he said it very well.

I think Josh expressed my views very well

[Cascade]

MFA, on Mar 20 2008, 08:12 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 19 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

MFA, on Mar 20 2008, 08:01 AM, said:

Halo, on Mar 19 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 19 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

??

No we are not "forced to start with a negative double with 4♥".

I would bid 3NT with four hearts often.

And I would double without four hearts often.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

Oddly enough, someone has just told me about this auction, playing a weak notrump and four-card majors:

  1♥   1♠   2♥  2♠
  Dbl  3♠   Dbl

2H was the only way to raise to the two level, and might have three or four card support; opener's double showed a strong notrump with only four hearts. Should responder's double be asking opener to bid 3NT with a stopper?

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Mar 20 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

Oddly enough, someone has just told me about this auction, playing a weak notrump and four-card majors:

  1♥   1♠   2♥  2♠
  Dbl  3♠   Dbl

2H was the only way to raise to the two level, and might have three or four card support; opener's double showed a strong notrump with only four hearts. Should responder's double be asking opener to bid 3NT with a stopper?

Why not?

I'm not sure I would use the double of 2♠ for this purpose though. What would 2NT/3NT have meant?

Against double asking for a stopper there are not that many hands that would raise 1♥ to 2♥ that would be that interested in 3NT opposite a minimum strong NT hand. Perhaps opener would pass with some of the minimum 15/16 balanced hands.

[sathyab]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

edit: this reminds me of when I was like 13 and I used to overcall on a 5 card suit and crappy hand then compete to the 3 level if my partner raised on an auction just like this (1m 1M X 2M 3m 3M) because they did not know how to get to 3N if opener had a stopper and responder didn't (ie, X, pass 3N). So they would invariably go to 4m or 5m. Maybe I got cracked for penalty sometimes but it is worth it to have your opps not be able to bid 3N.

Amazing. This post could qualify for the Saturday Night Live segment "Really ?!$%". So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow ? What would you do when you were dealt a defensive hand with shortness in Diamonds ?

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

I think he said it very well

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 20 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

So do I and I still would like to know why partner can't have more than xx in Ds. Are you suggesting that with more Ds should be raised? If so what happened o a possible 3NT contract?

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

Okay, sure I understand there're auctions where you're cramped for space and double is the only way to suggest that you have the values not to sell out to opponents but that you don't have a clear-cut action. Say an auction such as 1c-1s-X-3s(preempt)-X, where the X is most likely not for penalties, but just looking for a playable spot. But in this auction it's not clear at all the X wasn't a legitimate penalty double, but a "card showing" or "an offer to do something intelligent, for some definition of the word intelligent which is left to you as an exercise in bidding judgement".

You argue that without your interpretation of the double, your side would be stolen blind, miss 3nt sometimes. Fair enough. But can't it be argued too that

1) You will often be pulling partner's double when your side wasn't making 3nt quite often when neither side was making anything.

2) Having witnessed your tendency to pull his doubles to 7 or 8-trick 3nt contracts often enough, your partner starts passing instead of venturing a double.

Do you have any reason to believe that statistically 3nt makes far more often than 3s X going down when 3nt wasn't making ?

[CSGibson]

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

sathyab, on Mar 19 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

Okay, sure I understand there're auctions where you're cramped for space and double is the only way to suggest that you have the values not to sell out to opponents but that you don't have a clear-cut action. Say an auction such as 1c-1s-X-3s(preempt)-X, where the X is most likely not for penalties, but just looking for a playable spot. But in this auction it's not clear at all the X wasn't a legitimate penalty double, but a "card showing" or "an offer to do something intelligent, for some definition of the word intelligent which is left to you as an exercise in bidding judgement".

You argue that without your interpretation of the double, your side would be stolen blind, miss 3nt sometimes. Fair enough. But can't it be argued too that

1) You will often be pulling partner's double when your side wasn't making 3nt quite often when neither side was making anything.

2) Having witnessed your tendency to pull his doubles to 7 or 8-trick 3nt contracts often enough, your partner starts passing instead of venturing a double.

Do you have any reason to believe that statistically 3nt makes far more often than 3s X going down when 3nt wasn't making ?

If partner's double was penalty, then he has more spade stoppers for us or a very good hand outside of spades. If it's the first, we don't need 9 running tricks, and if the second, 9 running tricks have play often enough to be effective.