[ceblair]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ opening, 4♠ overcall. Is this a clear-cut decison? What if the clubs were KQ432 ?

---

[pclayton]

Surely there's a story here.

[andy_h]

Pass is indeed clearcut

[SoTired]

Jlall, on Aug 26 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

Yes this is the worlds most obvious pass. If you double partner has the right to play you for a much better playing hand offensively, and may jump to slam or bid at the 5 level erroneously. When you have a pure penalty X with no redeeming features you need to pass and hope that partner can reopen with a X. If partner cannot reopen with a double it's not the end of the world and you chalk it up to being able to bid a large group of hands intelligently in order to not be able to double with a pure penalty type of hand.

It is commonly played by non-experts (and some stubborn experts) that dbl of preempt 4H is takeout/negative, but dbl of 4S+ is penalty. These are probably the same players that want preempts to have 2 of top 3 honors.

[OleBerg]

This is as much "partnership-agreement-territory" as it can get.

If you have agreed dbl. to be penalty, double is obvious.

If you have agreed it to be takeout, pass is equally as obvious.

If you have no agreement; shame on you, even with a pick-up partner. (Though maybe not on BBO.)

[nige1]

Sorry - double posting

[nige1]

ceblair, on Aug 26 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ Q432 ♥ 8 ♦ 753 ♣ A9532

1♥ opening, 4♠ overcall.  Is this a clear-cut decison?  What if the clubs were KQ432 ?

Without agreement, you would expect a modern partner to treat X as cards, action, or transferrable values. But it's OK to double for penalties if you know that partner's views are more traditional.

[Lobowolf]

I'd like to hear Fred's views on the auction 1♥-(4♠)-X. I play it as cards, because that's pretty much the way it's done anymore (except I play it as penalty with students), but I'm by no means convinced that it's better than penalty, on a number of theoretical counts, in no particular order --

1. Preempts have been becoming more and more aggressive...pretty much "any 8 will do" except at favorable vulnerability, when any 7 will do. It seems counterintuitive to me that as the preempts have less playing strength than they used to, the direct penalty double becomes less fasionable.

2. Yes, opener can convert a "cards" double to a penalty double, but who's better placed to know whether the opponents' contract should be penalized - opener, who knows that his partner has "cards" (1♥ - 4♠ -X: describe doubler's hand), or the responder, who knows what trump he has behind the preemptor, where they belong, knows that his partner has an opening bid, and knows that partner has 5 hearts?

3. 5 over 4 from a LTT perspective...how often is it correct? How often when it's correct will opener know to bid? Know WHAT to bid? How often when it's incorrect will he sit for 4♠ doubled? Is the ideal double 1-4-4-4? The unbid suits? A partial fit and a minor? Two suits and mild tolerance for penalty? Agreeing that double is penalty is if nothing else unambiguous.

Yeah, responder will get handcuffed on some hands when he has values and no clear direction, but is the answer really to let him make a random double with the confidence that opener will place the contract correctly? I mean, the chorus was just preaching that 1M - (3♣) was extremely disruptive...now a double at the 4♠ level is what we're hoping for? I suspect that a strong majority of the time, double and take the money is right anyway, and you pick up the benefits of being able to double with the problem hand, which has an ace, a natural trump trick, and an "extra" trump to go with it.

I don't really care, because it's a fairly rare auction and there is some general consensus that it be deliberately ambiguous, but I sure do suspect that if you played it as "cards" for a year, and "penalty" for a year, you'd do better in the "penalty" year.