[babalu1997]

I held xxx, xxxx, xxxx, Kx

Partner deals and opens 1nt, 15-17

1NT-P-PASS BYME-2CLUB

PASS BY ME- PASS- DBL BY NO TRUMP BIDDER

all passed

i passed twice, i sure was not playing 2 something vulnerable on that crap I had.

If that double is going to be anything, let it be penalty.

That is why i lose at bridge.

The partner of course, logged off but i find this kind of bidding selfish and insulting, in addition to being stupid.

[zheddh]

babalu1997, on Nov 10 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

1NT-P-PASS BYME-2CLUB

PASS BY ME- PASS- DBL BY NO TRUMP BIDDER

Passing out of turn is probably not an effective way of getting rid of stupid partners.

[Codo]

It is ridiculous to assume that double ist take out without discussion.

It is ridiculous to assume that double is penalty without discussion.

Maybe on of this two is a lesser crime, but it is not me to judge it.

For what it is worth: I play it as take out and see not much sense in penalty, but there are many who disagree.

[kfay]

Codo, on Nov 10 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

It is ridiculous to assume that double ist take out without discussion.

It is ridiculous to assume that double is penalty without discussion.

Maybe on of this two is a lesser crime, but it is not me to judge it.

For what it is worth: I play it as take out and see not much sense in penalty, but there are many who disagree.

I agree with you (takeout). But I also agree nothing to get upset about.

[ArtK78]

At least 2Cx is not game.

Personally, I would assume that the double is for penalty if the 1NT bidder is behind (over) the 2♣ bidder. But reasonable players disagree on this point.

It really does not take a great deal for partner to have 2♣x beaten in his own hand (combined with my Kx of clubs). For example - Axx Axx xxx AJ9x. And that is not enough to open 1NT. The 2♣ bidder could have QTxxxx of clubs and a lot of stuff.

Of course, the problem with doubling 2♣ is that you don't know if there is any other contract that you can beat. But I can understand it. Just because partner passed 1NT doesn't mean that he has a blizzard. Partner may be able to hit whatever they run to.

[pooltuna]

Codo, on Nov 10 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

It is ridiculous to assume that double ist take out without discussion.

It is ridiculous to assume that double is penalty without discussion.

Maybe on of this two is a lesser crime, but it is not me to judge it.

For what it is worth: I play it as take out and see not much sense in penalty, but there are many who disagree.

So you are saying with no agreement in place there is no standard on whether X by the 1NT opener is TO or penalty? I thought the standard for that situation was the most natural meaning of the bid is the standard. For X I think the most natural meaning is clear. Not to be unfair as a caveat I prefer all X and XX in auctions starting with 1NT be business probably not the best for MP but leads to acceptable IMP results.

[babalu1997]

the question behind this is a captaincy principle.

First, there was no discussion it was a pickup partner.

Second, this is no expert game, although there are the folks out there who would establish intricate details.

True i could have had a little more to pass, but I passed 1nt and the guy in the last seat bid 2clubs.

I could have acted over his 2 clubs if i had more, i could have doubled, bid a suit, etc. I passed agai- i am not interested.

As far as i am concerned, whatever partner does, he is on his own under the circumstances-- ie playing a game with a random partner.

After the zero, the partner logged off, i thought it was for the best.

[helene_t]

Agree with Codo.

I would take the dbl as t/o and bid 2♥ unless there is some suggestion that this particular partner defines lots of low-level dbls as penalty. Maybe if we have agreed to play dbl by responder as penalty there is some suggestion that this double is penalty as well.

Partner took a gamble (namely that you were able to guess his intentions correctly), and he lost his gamble.

Personally I think it's OK to take such gambles unless you are playing for high stakes, or you have asked him to try to avoid undiscussed calls.

In any case he is not in a position to blame you.

An advice to you, Lu: It is not good reasoning that partner is captain because you have twice said that you don't have much values. First, your second pass doesn't reinforce the weakness of your hand: you could easily have some 7 points and a hand unsuitable for any action (especially if you don't know how p would take a double of 2♣ by you). Second, you haven't said much about your shape, other than that you are unlikely to have a five-card major (and I suppose with a decent 5-card diamonds you would have come in over 2♣).

You have to ask this question: Which meaning of this double would be more practical? Surely partner can easily have a 4432-hand with doubleton clubs, and it's a type of hand that could do nothing if dbl is not t/o. On the other hand, a hand with 5 clubs (or 4 very good ones) that would like to double for penalties is not likely on this auction, and even if opener has such a hand he might want to pass, since maybe a penalty dbl helps opps to run, and besides if you have some values you can dbl 2♣ sinc you must be short in clubs. And if you don't have any values, he would be happy to defend 2♣ undoubled.

Once you have reached the conclusion that t/o is the most sensible meaning of this double, there is a good chance that a good partner will mean it as t/o (unless of course you have some evidence that this particular partner means it as penalties).

That said, given the behavior of your partner, it is quite possible that he meant the dbl as "this dbl obviously means whatever I happen to have in my hand", so he might have chosen to dbl if he had five clubs as well.

[vuroth]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Partner took a gamble (namely that you were able to guess his intentions correctly), and he lost his gamble.

Personally I think it's OK to take such gambles unless you are playing for high stakes, or you have asked him to try to avoid undiscussed calls.

I agree with helene.

I disapprove of your partner storming off, but I also kind of disapprove of your reaction. How are we ever going to establish partnership understandings if we're afraid to make what we think is the best bid, and if one disagreement leaves both parties too angry to talk?

A pickup partnership with a threshold of less than 1 disagreement has a real problem.

Partner may have stormed off, but if one bid you don't like is going to make you this upset, maybe your partnership skills need work?

I'm not trying to be critical - I wasn't there, and maybe I'm misinterpreting events. I mostly wanted to make the point that there has to be a progression of understanding, and that this usually is spurred on by misunderstandings.

0.02

V

[JanM]

It seems to me that you've mis-remembered or mis-stated the auction. If it really went: 1NT-P-P-2♣ on the first round, then your partner doubled 2♣ after you had passed once in response to 1NT, not after you had passed twice.

I would have thought that partner's DBL in this position was generally played as penalty - good clubs. He's over the 2♣ bidder and it would be unusual for a 1NT bidder, who has already done a good job of describing their hand, to want to force partner to compete at the 2-level, when partner has already announced (by passing 1NT) that s/he has a relatively balanced hand. Opener with a 4432 good hand might think it was right for their side to be competing at the 2-level, but that seems less likely than that opener will have good clubs and good defense and think that it's right to defend 2♣ doubled.

If 2♣x made, that's bad luck. If partner intended the DBL as takeout, I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that you passed (whether once or twice) but rather suggests that you and partner need to discuss things like this if you're going to continue to play together. I admit that I know nothing about the "proprieties" when playing online with a pickup partner, so I'm not going to comment on partner "storming" off (how does one know that a person "storms" online?)

[pooltuna]

JanM, on Nov 10 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

I would have thought that partner's DBL in this position was generally played as penalty - good clubs. He's over the 2♣ bidder and it would be unusual for a 1NT bidder, who has already done a good job of describing their hand, to want to force partner to compete at the 2-level, when partner has already announced (by passing 1NT) that s/he has a relatively balanced hand. Opener with a 4432 good hand might think it was right for their side to be competing at the 2-level, but that seems less likely than that opener will have good clubs and good defense and think that it's right to defend 2♣ doubled.

WHAT!!! YOU USED LOGIC!!! I thought you had to get special permission to do that.

[vuroth]

JanM, on Nov 10 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

It seems to me that you've mis-remembered or mis-stated the auction. If it really went: 1NT-P-P-2♣ on the first round, then your partner doubled 2♣ after you had passed once in response to 1NT, not after you had passed twice.

I certainly couldn't make heads nor tails of the auction.

[zheddh]

i assume it went

1NT - p - p - X
p - 2C - p - p
X ///

[blackshoe]

babalu1997, on Nov 10 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

1NT-P-PASS BYME-2CLUB

PASS BY ME- PASS- DBL BY NO TRUMP BIDDER

More conventionally:
W.....N...E...S
1NT-(P)-P-(2♣)
.............P-(P)
X-???

Where the .... in the second line indicate that two players whose turn it was to call did not do so before East passed the second time. I doubt that's what happened, but it is what was reported. I'm not going to guess what the actual auction was, nor what West or East should or should not have done. I will say this: there seems an unfortunate tendency in online bridge for players who don't get "instant gratification" (by getting a good board) to abandon their partners and go do the same thing again to someone else. Given that a significant proportion of such bad boards cannot be laid to CHO's incompetence, this seems a bit silly, but maybe that's just me.