[helene_t]

Well it is IMPs so 1100 is better than 400 regardless of what happens at the other table(s).

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Apr 15 2010, 04:11 AM, said:

Does anyone play double as takeout or convertible values here?

Probably. To some, every double is takeout . But I think there is a rule about when our side has bid NT in a natural sense and they are at the 3-level or higher, doubles become penalty.

[Codo]

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

I believe partner, I don't like to base my actions on partner forgetting something as simple as this. If I'm right, I'll trust my partner's calls less, if I'm wrong partner won't trust me anymore.

Then you have the wrong partner.

I try to anticipate what is going on at the table.

If I would pass here and I am wrong, my partner will understand it. Luckily my partner does not make many msitakes, but like any human being, he is able to blunder once in while, or to forget an agreement that seldom occurs. So, if I belive that this had happened here, he will still trust me in the future.

As I am unable to construct hands, where he has his bid, I would simply pass.
Of course, playing against frivolous citizens, I would double. But these players are rare birds.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Apr 15 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

Cascade, on Apr 15 2010, 04:11 AM, said:

Does anyone play double as takeout or convertible values here?

Probably. To some, every double is takeout . But I think there is a rule about when our side has bid NT in a natural sense and they are at the 3-level or higher, doubles become penalty.

That is not a general rule.
1NT-(2bananas)-X
can be played as penalties since we have lebensohl, but
1NT-(3bananas)-X
can only be played as t/o.

But in most other situations, like here, I agree with your principle. This double is penalty.

[Simplicity]

I would consider X to be a failure to use bridge logic.

Pass

[Free]

Codo, on Apr 15 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

I believe partner, I don't like to base my actions on partner forgetting something as simple as this.  If I'm right, I'll trust my partner's calls less, if I'm wrong partner won't trust me anymore.

Then you have the wrong partner.

I try to anticipate what is going on at the table.

If I would pass here and I am wrong, my partner will understand it. Luckily my partner does not make many msitakes, but like any human being, he is able to blunder once in while, or to forget an agreement that seldom occurs. So, if I belive that this had happened here, he will still trust me in the future.

As I am unable to construct hands, where he has his bid, I would simply pass.
Of course, playing against frivolous citizens, I would double. But these players are rare birds.

Anticipating that partner forgot an agreement that seldom occurs is acceptable I guess. But (1X)-p-(1Y)-1NT is not rare at all, you encounter this every session!

[Rossoneri]

Well, if you're playing with Darren himself, it may be very well possible that he psyched the 1NT...if I was playing with myself then I would be doubling!

[Free]

aguahombre, on Apr 15 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

If partner has his hand, it probably means LHO has 3♠ with a ♥ void with less than 2/1 strength.  He didn't want to bid 1NT, so he choose the smallest lie.

If lefty has that, we still don't have game anywhere; the final contract will not be duplicated at the other table, and we will still gain a lot by passing. Double is a no-win call.

I agree that Dbl is a no-win call. But I wouldn't say I expect to gain a lot by passing, because you still have to find a good lead and might give away the contract if you don't.

[dake50]

Do not believe there is a penalty bonanza here. Maybe 4S=, 4S-1. Close.

Should I double in dis-belief? Let's see opponents make 9,10 tricks - challenge.

[pooltuna]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2010, 05:18 AM, said:

Well it is IMPs so 1100 is better than 400 regardless of what happens at the other table(s).

This is certainly true and I was inclined to jump up on my chair and yell "harvest time." However since you rate to make a part score at the other table your net total points prior to IMP converssion rates to be in the 500-700 or 1200-1400 total and the IMPS difference between those scores is on the order of 4 or 5. Consequently this becomes more of an insurance policy where you give up 4 or 5 IMPS in case partner has screwed up bigtime but still expect to net 10 or 11 IMPS

[Codo]

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 08:18 PM, said:

Anticipating that partner forgot an agreement that seldom occurs is acceptable I guess. But (1X)-p-(1Y)-1NT is not rare at all, you encounter this every session!

I have still a hand to come where I can bid 1 NT natural in this position.

I am very sure that this is so seldom, because we had hard fights about the meaning of this bid. I believe that it will "never" happen, that you hold a hand, where you want to bid a natural 1 NT in 4. position. Up to now, (around 600 boards later) I am still winning the bet.

But I guess my partner and me will still not forget the meaning because the discussion was really lengthy...

[mohitz]

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

Anticipating that partner forgot an agreement that seldom occurs is acceptable I guess. But (1X)-p-(1Y)-1NT is not rare at all, you encounter this every session!

I disagree. I don't even remember the last time I had a 5-5 hand in the unbid suits when the auction went this way.

[Phil]

I'm going out on a limb here.

I'm predicting someone wasn't too happy when their opponent passed this hand, thus fielding a misbid of the 1N bidder.

Is Sandwich NT commonly played in the UK?

[jjbrr]

How did you know this came from the UK?

[Phil]

jjbrr, on Apr 15 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

How did you know this came from the UK?

I have AI.

[jjbrr]

icwudt

[DarrenE]

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

Well, if you're playing with Darren himself, it may be very well possible that he psyched the 1NT...if I was playing with myself then I would be doubling!

Lol! One of those situations where partner does not know our system! 1N for us in the sandwich position is artificial!

[Rossoneri]

DarrenE, on Apr 15 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

Well, if you're playing with Darren himself, it may be very well possible that he psyched the 1NT...if I was playing with myself then I would be doubling!

Lol! One of those situations where partner does not know our system! 1N for us in the sandwich position is artificial!

Well, in the context of your question, you have to admit that you did make that 1NT overcall "psyche" last month...

[DarrenE]

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

DarrenE, on Apr 15 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

Well, if you're playing with Darren himself, it may be very well possible that he psyched the 1NT...if I was playing with myself then I would be doubling!

Lol! One of those situations where partner does not know our system! 1N for us in the sandwich position is artificial!

Well, in the context of your question, you have to admit that you did make that 1NT overcall "psyche" last month...

moi?

[Ant590]

DarrenE, on Apr 15 2010, 10:15 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

DarrenE, on Apr 15 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Apr 15 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

Well, if you're playing with Darren himself, it may be very well possible that he psyched the 1NT...if I was playing with myself then I would be doubling!

Lol! One of those situations where partner does not know our system! 1N for us in the sandwich position is artificial!

Well, in the context of your question, you have to admit that you did make that 1NT overcall "psyche" last month...

moi?

LOL. My first thought on reading this thread for the first time was "I bet Darren psyched the 1NT", and lo! and behold, Shen Ting writes the same thing on the second page of the thread

All we need now is the Gnome agreeing with us and we'll have the hattrick...