[louisg]

Scoring: IMP

---

Pass 1♥ 2♦ Pass
2♠ Pass Pass Dbl
Pass ??

[gnasher]

Partner has a penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠. I have a diamond void, a trump trick and two likely side-suit winners. Pass seems clear.

[Phil]

gnasher, on May 31 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

Partner has a penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠. I have a diamond void, a trump trick and two likely side-suit winners. Pass seems clear.

I would wager we are making 2♠ on defense. Pass is totally obvious.

[aguahombre]

Glad nobody complained about the one-heart opening. Save the weak two or some other blast for on-line with other than regular partner.

[JLOL]

I WOULD RISK A PASS CALL IN THIS SITUATION!!!

[xcurt]

This is a lead problem right? I'll be a farmer and play a high heart.

[louisg]

If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was:

♠xx
♥QJ
♦AJxxxxx
♣Kx

Any suggestions?

[Phil]

louisg, on May 31 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Any suggestions?

Well it certainly isn't a double. A useful rule is you need Hxx in the 2nd suit after a penalty pass.

2N and 3N are possible. So is a probe of 3♦.

[neilkaz]

louisg, on May 31 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was:

♠xx
♥QJ
♦AJxxxxx
♣Kx

Any suggestions?

Just one suggestion...pd's 2nd double is poor and is looking for a disaster.

[xcurt]

louisg, on May 31 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

If pass is that obvious, then maybe the -570 we achieved on this board was North's fault. North's hand was:

♠xx
♥QJ
♦AJxxxxx
♣Kx

Any suggestions?

This hand is an awful dummy for either black suit. The ♦A is either facing a void or getting ruffed off, and the ♥QJ aren't worth anything on defense. That leaves you with about two half tricks against spades, one of which replicates a value in partner's hand if it is in fact a full trick, definitely nowhere close to double.

[mtvesuvius]

It was partner's double that buried you.

[OleBerg]

I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades.

The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers.

Seems like a good place to have an agreement.

[rogerclee]

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades.

The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers.

Seems like a good place to have an agreement.

I don't see the point of this, since sometimes we have them nutted in spades, and with values and long ♦ and short ♠, we have plenty of bids available to us.

[OleBerg]

rogerclee, on Jun 1 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

I would never dream of treating any book as a bible, but if you play: "According to Robson and Seagal" (Authors of the book: "Partnership bidding in bridge"), the double shows penalty of diamonds, take-out of spades.

The idée is to go plus as often as possible, and give up on the once in a while big numbers.

Seems like a good place to have an agreement.

I don't see the point of this, since sometimes we have them nutted in spades, and with values and long ♦ and short ♠, we have plenty of bids available to us.

Then check out the actual hand.

It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist.

[rogerclee]

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

Then check out the actual hand.

It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist.

My mistake, I didn't realize that having two clubs was ideal for a takeout double.

[marcD]

Good problem . I do not have the agreement that partner's dbl shows at least Hxx in the second suit so for me , on general principals, the double is more of the take out / Do Somtehing Intelligent type (penalty dbl of diamonds , no natureal bid, points). I think it is a close call but I would pull to 3♣ .

[OleBerg]

rogerclee, on Jun 1 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

Then check out the actual hand.

It's really the old discussion; T-O vs Penalty, just with a little twist.

My mistake, I didn't realize that having two clubs was ideal for a takeout double.

Np. This forum is for advanced players too.

[louisg]

I've seen a lot of criticism of the double, but no real discussions of the alternatives. Do we pass and miss an easy vul game opposite something like xxx AKTxxx x AQx (ducking the DK lead at trick one in 4H)? Not to mention the fact that partner may have spades well held and was unable to act last round.

Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)? Who knows how partner would take a 3D bid?

Yes, I realize that this may not be the textbook holding for a double ("penalty double of diamonds and some defence against 2♠", as stated by gnasher), but when compared with the alternatives I don't think it looks all that bad.

Additional comments welcome.

[xcurt]

I would have bid 3H not x for the playing strength reasons I mentioned earlier.

[jdonn]

louisg, on Jun 1 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)?

I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no?