BBO Discussion Forums: What do you play this double as? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What do you play this double as?

Poll: What do you play this double as? (31 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you play this double as?

  1. Values, intent to penalize at most one of thier suits, no assured major suit fit (15 votes [48.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.39%

  2. Warning opener off competing, intent to penalize both suits (2 votes [6.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.45%

  3. Something else I will explain below (14 votes [45.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.16%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2010-February-14, 14:17

Scoring: IMP

1♠-(2N)-X-(P),
?


Do you bid 3 hearts right away, or do you pass and await developments? What is the standard meaning of double by partner in that situation?
Chris Gibson
0

#2 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2010-February-14, 14:34

Should there not be another option: intent to penalise at least one of their suits? Not that I have a strong opinion, but I feel that is a popular use.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#3 User is offline   neilkaz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,568
  • Joined: 2006-June-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barrington IL USA
  • Interests:Backgammon, Bridge, Hockey

Posted 2010-February-14, 14:40

1eyedjack, on Feb 14 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

Should there not be another option: intent to penalise at least one of their suits? Not that I have a strong opinion, but I feel that is a popular use.

Yes I agree that option should be listed.
0

#4 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,397
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Odense, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2010-February-14, 15:07

I think it promises at least some interest in defending doubled.

I would bid 3♥. This shows five and now might be the only chance of showing it.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#5 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2010-February-14, 15:08

I would pass, after all I have defensive values in the form of Aces.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#6 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-February-14, 15:40

I don't see how double can make any promise about penalising one or both of their suits. If it did, what would you do with a balanced 11-count that isn't particularly interested in penalties? You have to be able to bid something with Kx AKJx xxx xxxx.

With the hand in the original post, I'd bid 3♥, because I have five of them.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#7 User is offline   hanp 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,987
  • Joined: 2009-February-15

Posted 2010-February-14, 15:55

Ditto gnasher, I play it just shows values. I would pass with the 5-5 to see if partner can double.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
0

#8 User is offline   Pict 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 2009-December-17

Posted 2010-February-14, 16:21

'Traditionally' penalty oriented, but it's not clear that has ever worked very well.

I'd still assume that on the basis that partner can otherwise find something to say (usually), or can pass for the moment.
0

#9 User is offline   karlson 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 2005-April-06

Posted 2010-February-14, 16:24

I think it's also best to play the immediate double as flexible values, and to pass with a pure penalty double. Playing that structure, this is an easy 3♥ bid, but an easy pass if partner had passed over 2n.
0

#10 User is offline   pooltuna 

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

Posted 2010-February-14, 16:35

1eyedjack, on Feb 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

Should there not be another option: intent to penalise at least one of their suits? Not that I have a strong opinion, but I feel that is a popular use.

ah ha !! This is where my vote falls
"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

#11 User is offline   the hog 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-March-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Laos
  • Interests:Wagner and Bridge

Posted 2010-February-14, 19:51

I pass. Partner has said that she has the ability to penalise at least one of their suits, and has denied a Spade fit, and I have an AK and an A. Pass seems obvious to me. With the "values" hand type suggested by Gnasher, would not partner pass first and then double later for t/o?
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
0

#12 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2010-February-14, 21:33

gnasher, on Feb 14 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

I don't see how double can make any promise about penalising one or both of their suits. If it did, what would you do with a balanced 11-count that isn't particularly interested in penalties? You have to be able to bid something with Kx AKJx xxx xxxx.

You can easily agree that pass then double is balanced values, which I have done before. It's much more useful than waiting for a hand that wants to penalize one of their suits but isn't strong enough to double 2NT.

I bid 3♥ here as well but it's somewhat of a guess, as no one might have a fit anywhere.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#13 User is offline   peachy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,056
  • Joined: 2007-November-19
  • Location:Pacific Time

Posted 2010-February-14, 21:58

Intend to penalize them in one or both suits. Of course some values must be held, not just length, and setting up a force to at least three of something we can play unless we defend them doubled. I didn't vote because this option was not in it.
0

#14 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,122
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2010-February-15, 04:24

pooltuna, on Feb 14 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Feb 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

Should there not be another option: intent to penalise at least one of their suits? Not that I have a strong opinion, but I feel that is a popular use.

ah ha !! This is where my vote falls

My vote too.

Pass is sensible, 3♥ is also OK.

Might be coloured slightly by what you play 1♠-2N-3♣/♦ as. Many people play these as artificial with a wide variety of meanings.

If partner doubles 3m, you actually have a good hand for him with 3 top tricks, the trouble is that if he doesn't, you're likely only to be showing 4 hearts.
0

#15 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2010-February-15, 05:04

karlson, on Feb 14 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

I think it's also best to play the immediate double as flexible values, and to pass with a pure penalty double. Playing that structure, this is an easy 3♥ bid, but an easy pass if partner had passed over 2n.

Yep, this is what I play also. X means I have interest in defending in general, probably interest in penalizing one strain and tolerance for defending the other. If I have a pure penalty of one strain but not the other I can pass and then X.
0

#16 User is offline   MFA 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,625
  • Joined: 2006-October-04
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 2010-February-16, 07:24

I pass. If partner doubles 3m, it's fine for me. If he passes, I can bid 3♥ then. This is a potential disaster hand for the opposition, if the pass to 2NT is for instance 2-2 in the minors.
Michael Askgaard
0
Page 1 of 1
  • 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