BBO Discussion Forums: Frustrating - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Frustrating

Poll: Would you act again - Please give reason (42 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you act again - Please give reason

  1. Yes (34 votes [80.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.95%

  2. No (8 votes [19.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.05%

  3. Don't know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2009-August-10, 08:59

jakob_r, on Aug 10 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties.

EDIT:

By the way, regardless of the vulnerability, par on this hand is 4♠x down 1, as NS is cold for 10 tricks in hearts and always has 4 defensive tricks against spade or diamond contracts by EW. But I would not be surprised to find NS going to 5♥ over 4♠ or 5♦.
0

#22 User is offline   TimG 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,972
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:02

ArtK78, on Aug 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

jakob_r, on Aug 10 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties.

Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence.
0

#23 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:05

TimG, on Aug 10 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

jakob_r, on Aug 10 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties.

Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence.

Personally, I don't understand why. After a takeout double of 1♥, a subsequent double of 1♠ is a penalty double absent a specific agreement to the contrary. At least, that is the way it has been for about 80 years. Today, double never seems to mean double.
0

#24 User is offline   pooltuna 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,814
  • Joined: 2009-July-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:13

Jlall, on Aug 10 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Partner forgot to bid 2D???

REPEAT!!!... PARTNER FORGOT TO BID 2♦!!!!!!!
"Tell me of your home world, Usul"
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

George Bernard Shaw
0

#25 User is offline   cherdanno 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,640
  • Joined: 2009-February-16

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:16

TimG, on Aug 10 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

jakob_r, on Aug 10 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties.

Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence.

Well, double is a little ambiguous (between penalty and strong balanced), but 2♠ is natural, you don't need to have discussed that.
"Are you saying that LTC merits a more respectful dismissal?"
0

#26 User is offline   TimG 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,972
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:19

ArtK78, on Aug 10 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 10 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 10 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

jakob_r, on Aug 10 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties.

Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence.

Personally, I don't understand why. After a takeout double of 1♥, a subsequent double of 1♠ is a penalty double absent a specific agreement to the contrary. At least, that is the way it has been for about 80 years. Today, double never seems to mean double.

It's not often discussed because it is not a common occurrence for intervenor to double and then bid responder's suit.

I'm not sure I buy your suggested default agreement. I think lots of people would assume that in a sequence like 1H-X-1S-X the second double was responsive even if they had not specifically agreed to that. I'm not saying that I endorse that agreement, just that I think that is what lots of players would assume.

As you say, today double never seems to mean double.
0

#27 User is offline   bill1157 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 2007-December-11

Posted 2009-August-10, 09:19

pooltuna, on Aug 10 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 10 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Partner forgot to bid 2D???

REPEAT!!!... PARTNER FORGOT TO BID 2♦!!!!!!!

Maybe 2♦ is so obvious nobody can see it!

Bill
0

#28 User is offline   ONEferBRID 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 2009-May-03

Posted 2009-August-10, 10:58

se12sam, on Aug 7 2009, 06:35 AM, said:

Isn't the 1♠ bid a classic psychic bid situation?  A double again should expose it.

Yes:

( 1H ) - X - ( 1S ) - ??
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X = I got 4 cards Sp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S = I got 5+ cds Sp

... although here, Advancer has neither of those hands.

And:
( 1H ) - X - ( 1S ) - p
( p ) - 2S = spades; If I wanted a general force I would have cuebid 2H!
. . . . . . . . . ( a 2nd DBL would still have been for T/O )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I heard you, bill1157.. Advancer cudda/shudda bid 2D
Don Stenmark ( TWOferBRIDGE )
0

#29 User is offline   NickRW 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,951
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sussex, England

Posted 2009-August-10, 20:00

helene_t, on Aug 7 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Agree with Gonzalo. I don't think double is psych-exposing. 3244 would be typical.

FWIW, with some random pick up partner, that is the sort of thing I would expect.

Mind you, if the one spade bidder is my brother-in-law we'd better be playing X as "for the money".

Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users