[awm]

Pass - 1♣ - 3♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♣ - Dbl

What is the double? Would it have a different meaning if partner were not a passed hand?

[maggieb]

I want to bid 5♦, and I'm just checking to see if you want to defend.

[FrancesHinden]

The "usual" meaning for a double by the pre-emptor is to show extra offence, i.e. a desire to compete further but doubling in case partner has a penalty double.

It's a an odd bid on this auction though, because if the preemptor had extraa offence, why didn't they overcall 4D last round? It's much more common after a game-level pre-empt.

[MFA]

Penalty.
The other options are very speculative, and I especially hate them if one of them is supposed to apply without a clear agreement.

[shintaro]

illogical unless optional

[gwnn]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 26 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

It's a an odd bid on this auction though, because if the preemptor had extraa offence, why didn't they overcall 4D last round?

Because he was afraid of missing 3NT

[cherdano]

I think a competitive preempt opposite a passed hand could well have a penalty double of a 5-level contract.an

[RichMor]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 26 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

The "usual" meaning for a double by the pre-emptor is to show extra offence, i.e. a desire to compete further but doubling in case partner has a penalty double.

It's a an odd bid on this auction though, because if the preemptor had extraa offence, why didn't they overcall 4D last round?  It's much more common after a game-level pre-empt.

"doubling in case partner has a penalty double"

That is too deep for me

Prefer to double in case I have extra defence or bid in case I have extra offence or Pass in the hope that partner can do the right thing.

RichM

[han]

Want to go to 5D unless you want to defend. Always when partner has raised.

[helene_t]

What Frances and Han describe is standard.

The idea is this: preemptor is supposed to have little or no defense so he cannot double for penalty by himself since 4♦ doesn't promise any defense. However, the 4♦ bidder could have a lot of defense.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 26 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

The "usual" meaning for a double by the pre-emptor is to show extra offence, i.e. a desire to compete further but doubling in case partner has a penalty double.

I must be the odd one. I play it as "I have a heavy preempt. Pls pass or pull accordingly."

[RichMor]

helene_t, on Nov 26 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

What Frances and Han describe is standard.

The idea is this: preemptor is supposed to have little or no defense so he cannot double for penalty by himself since 4♦ doesn't promise any defense. However, the 4♦ bidder could have a lot of defense.

Helene,

Agree that the preemptor will usually have 'little or no defense'. At the same time, preemptor would bid to whatever level is appropriate at the first opportunity.

So preemptor will rarely want to act again when partner has raised.

But when preemptor does act again, why not use natural meanings for various actions? Double with extra defense, bid with extra offense.

Using 'bid/double inversion' is playable but I don't see any significant advantage.

The 'I want to bid' double wins when both 5♣ and 5♦ are going down AND partner decides to Pass. That's a fairly small target. Plus, it gives the next opp the option to redouble.

RichM

[jdonn]

My feeling is that preemptor's doubles should be approximately the same as those by a one level opener (who is absent special conventions like maximal doubles.) So if I open 2♦ and it goes 2♥ P P and I double, I'm a maximum with approximately 3163 and cards useful for both offense and defense. And on the given problem auction it should be a penalty double, the same as if I had overcalled 1♦ to begin with.

I am aware of the common agreement that these doubles say "I want to sacrifice but I don't want to do it in case you have them beat", but I find this meaning a lot less useful, and just one more artificial bid I am not interested in.

[helene_t]

RichMor, on Nov 26 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

Agree that the preemptor will usually have 'little or no defense'. At the same time, preemptor would bid to whatever level is appropriate at the first opportunity.

So preemptor will rarely want to act again when partner has raised.

But when preemptor does act again, why not use natural meanings for various actions?

But with extra defense preemptor should pass.

He doesn't want sacrifice (since his extra defense suggests that it may be a phantom) and he doesn't want to double since he cannot have enough defense to beat the contract on his own.

You could play the double as either "extra offense and no defense" or "extra defense and extra offense".

[MFA]

Well, I guess I'm just not used to a style, where a 3-level preemptor sometimes comes back in and competes 5 over 5.

The suggested treatment, where X="I have another competitive move in me" is useful for 4♠ over 4♥ decisions.
2♠-(X)-3♠-(4♥), X for instance. Almost no defense, lots of tricks for spades.

Apart from that, count me out.

[han]

Why? Why is it useful for 4S over 4H but inconceivable for 5D over 5C? I agree that it would be uncommon, but any meaning for this double will be uncommon, we'll pass almost always. But sometimes you'll have a preempt that was very close to 4D, that is short in clubs, and whose offensive valule has gone up a lot after partner supported. I think it would be a good idea to agree that this is what the double shows. Maybe you will have such a hand, maybe you won't.

[RichMor]

helene_t, on Nov 26 2008, 02:11 PM, said:

RichMor, on Nov 26 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

Agree that the preemptor will usually have 'little or no defense'. At the same time, preemptor would bid to whatever level is appropriate at the first opportunity.

So preemptor will rarely want to act again when partner has raised.

But when preemptor does act again, why not use natural meanings for various actions?

But with extra defense preemptor should pass.

He doesn't want sacrifice (since his extra defense suggests that it may be a phantom) and he doesn't want to double since he cannot have enough defense to beat the contract on his own.

You could play the double as either "extra offense and no defense" or "extra defense and extra offense".

Helene,

'with extra defense preemptor should pass'

Again we agree ... but isn't it also true that:
with average defense preemptor should pass ?

It just seems logical to my simple mind that:
1. preemptor passes with a typical hand - that's probably 85% of the time
2. preemptor doubles with unexpected extra defense - 7.5%
3. preemptor bids with unexpected extra offense - 7.5%

RichM

[jdonn]

han, on Nov 26 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Why? Why is it useful for 4S over 4H but inconceivable for 5D over 5C? I agree that it would be uncommon, but any meaning for this double will be uncommon, we'll pass almost always. But sometimes you'll have a preempt that was very close to 4D, that is short in clubs, and whose offensive valule has gone up a lot after partner supported. I think it would be a good idea to agree that this is what the double shows. Maybe you will have such a hand, maybe you won't.

It's funny for you to be making this argument, since having seen your preempts opposite a passed partner I would say you in particular are quite likely to be heavy and want to make a penalty double.

[hatchett]

I agree with Han.

[cherdano]

In one way my opinion is exactly opposite to Frances'. I think
P (1♣) 4♥ (5♣)
P (P) X
should just by saying "I bid 4♥ to make and have enough defense to think it is our hand, please bid on or pass". Game level preempts can be made with more shape, but also with more strength.
In the auction here, both penalty and extra offense make sense to me (given partner's raise).