[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♠-(Dbl)-Rdbl-(2♣)
?

---

Over to you.

Edited to add a pull and gave a hint... partner Xs if you pass.

[pclayton]

3♣. A FP is possible too.

[cherdano]

What is the difference between a direct 3♣, and passing a pulling a penalty double to 3♣?

[Halo]

3S

For me pass and correct is weak ( I like to pass weak hands).

So 2S is a good hand.

So 3S is a good hand - with (logic suggests) < 4 hearts, < 5 diamonds, certainly >= 6 spades.

Down to partner to justify his redouble and progress the bidding.

3C is OK, but says (IMO) it is my responsibility (maybe 54 majors), but that is not what I have.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on May 28 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

What is the difference between a direct 3♣, and passing a pulling a penalty double to 3♣?

You would have passed partner's penalty double if he didn't hesitate.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on May 28 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

What is the difference between a direct 3♣, and passing a pulling a penalty double to 3♣?

For me, a pass-and-pull can stop at 3♠. An immediate 3♣ is GF.

Sounds like that isn't standard, though. Sigh. I'll figure these out eventually.

[gnasher]

jtfanclub, on May 28 2008, 10:03 PM, said:

For me, a pass-and-pull can stop at 3♠. An immediate 3♣ is GF.

If anything, I'd expect it to be the other way around.

[jtfanclub]

gnasher, on May 28 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 28 2008, 10:03 PM, said:

For me, a pass-and-pull can stop at 3♠.  An immediate 3♣ is GF.

If anything, I'd expect it to be the other way around.

I play that

1♠ X XX 2♣
-P- P 2♠ -P-

is nonforcing. Now I'm probably going to find out that isn't standard either.

This would mean that planning to pass and pull can get stuck.

1♠ X XX 2♣
-P- 3♣ X P

Now what? If I bid 3♠, am I strong or weak? What does 3 of a red show, exactly? Maybe you guys have nice explanations for each of these bids, but I'm kinda screwed. With the hand from the OP, what would you say now?

If passing 2♣ shows a minimum hand or a hand with clubs, then the meanings of the later bids should be obvious. And if an immediate 3♣ is a GF...well, partner doesn't have to worry about whether I have a strong or weak hand either.

What is the advantage to having both weak and strong hands in the pass, not including hands that may want to play in 2♣X?

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on May 28 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

What is the advantage to having both weak and strong hands in the pass, not including hands that may want to play in 2♣X?

Is that what anyone says they play? The whole point is not to pass with a minimum unless you intend to pass partner's double.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on May 28 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

The whole point is not to pass with a minimum unless you intend to pass partner's double.

I agree, and that works perfectly in this auction - with a 5332 minimum you're happy to pass partner's double; with a weak unbalanced hand that doesn't want to defend you can make a natural bid over 2♣.

It's a bit more awkward if advancer has bid diamonds or hearts, however. Suppose that you have Qxxxx Kx x AQ10xx after 1♠ x xx 2♦. Neither bidding 2♠ nor defending 2♦ doubled is attractive. In fact, what I'd like to do is bid a non-forcing 3♣. Should this be a Lebensohl (or Rubensohl) situation?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on May 28 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 28 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

The whole point is not to pass with a minimum unless you intend to pass partner's double.

I agree, and that works perfectly in this auction - with a 5332 minimum you're happy to pass partner's double; with a weak unbalanced hand that doesn't want to defend you can make a natural bid over 2♣.

It's a bit more awkward if advancer has bid diamonds or hearts, however. Suppose that you have Qxxxx Kx x AQ10xx after 1♠ x xx 2♦. Neither bidding 2♠ nor defending 2♦ doubled is attractive. In fact, what I'd like to do is bid a non-forcing 3♣. Should this be a Lebensohl (or Rubensohl) situation?

I'm under the impression you simply bid a direct non-forcing 3♣, showing a worse hand than if you pass and bid 3♣. I know they could raise diamonds and block you if you pass first but it's just what I think standard is.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on May 28 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

What is the difference between a direct 3♣, and passing a pulling a penalty double to 3♣?

My two cents.

I would say a pass and pull indicates an ability to control the auction and indicates a big two suiter, or maybe a spade bomb and a club void. I think it can also hand some preemption from the bad guys too.

A 5=4=4=0 is possible, but why wouldn't you 3♣ directly with that? A 5440 (or the OP) is a flexible hand, and we want to hear about pard's hand asap.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on May 28 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 28 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

What is the advantage to having both weak and strong hands in the pass, not including hands that may want to play in 2♣X?

Is that what anyone says they play? The whole point is not to pass with a minimum unless you intend to pass partner's double.

Cool. Thank you. I'll untwist all of this stuff eventually.

[nige1]

Apologies for double posting

[nige1]

kfay, on May 28 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ AK10xxx ♥ K10x ♦ AQJx ♣

1♠-(Dbl)-Rdbl-(2♣) ? Partner Xs if you pass.

IMO it is a matter of agreement. Old-fashioned Acol players follow Eric Crowhurst's simple advice, of 30 years ago:

After a business redouble, immediate actions admit to a dearth of high cards. Delayed actions promise sound high card values.

♠ AKTxxx ♥ KTx ♦ AQJx ♣ -
is a forcing pass of RHO's 2♣ for us. Then we might pull partner's double to 3♣.

Constructing a hand suitable for an immediate 3♣ is harder. Perhaps ...
♠ AJT9x ♥ QJTx ♦ QJTx ♣ -