[ajm218]

Scoring: IMP

1NT* X P P
XX    P P ?

---

 
1NT was 11-14
X was pens
In the opps rescue methods, pass forced a XX (presumably RHO wants to play in 1NTXX but they can't play in 1NTx)

If you think its not close then pertubate the hand as minimally as possible to make it close.

[hanp]

Partner is surely going to lead the wrong suit from his balanced 15-count. I would bid 2D which is unlikely to be a bad spot.

[whereagles]

I would already have bid 2♦

[Free]

I'd bid 2♦ because it's the smallest chance of having a distaster. 1NTxx-1 would obviously gain a lot, but 1NTxx= would lose even more. I don't think we'll beat opps by 2 tricks.

In MP's I'd probably pass, top or bottom.

[gwnn]

1D and then smile awkwardly and pass, wtp?

[jjbrr]

2♦. Trust the vulnerable redoubling opps.

[pooltuna]

ajm218, on Apr 27 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1NT* X P P
XX    P P ?

---

 
1NT was 11-14
X was pens
In the opps rescue methods, pass forced a XX (presumably RHO wants to play in 1NTXX but they can't play in 1NTx)

If you think its not close then pertubate the hand as minimally as possible to make it close.

definitely call 2♦ at your first opportunity and if the opps find 2♥ you are well positioned to decide whether 2♠ makes sense

[jjbrr]

pooltuna, on Apr 27 2010, 08:05 AM, said:

ajm218, on Apr 27 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1NT* X P P
XX    P P ?

---

 
1NT was 11-14
X was pens
In the opps rescue methods, pass forced a XX (presumably RHO wants to play in 1NTXX but they can't play in 1NTx)

If you think its not close then pertubate the hand as minimally as possible to make it close.

definitely call 2♦ at your first opportunity and if the opps find 2♥ you are well positioned to decide whether 2♠ makes sense

I'm not sure I agree with definitely bidding 2♦ the first time. If dbl is one of those silly "equal points" type of doubles, then obviously you should pull and figure out how to persuade partner to change the agreement. If double actually shows interest in penalizing them, I think pass is clear.

[Phil]

jjbrr, on Apr 27 2010, 08:59 AM, said:

2♦. Trust the vulnerable redoubling opps.

Yeah, people throw around phrases like "trust the redoubling vulnerable opponents" all the time, and really have no idea what it means.

I bid 2♦ (would have last time too).

[Cyberyeti]

I can't believe everybody's pulling this. I play this type of redouble system, and dummy most of the time has a flat 8-9. When he doesn't, partner is extremely upset with you for not allowing him to cash his C AKQJxxx(x).

If partner only has a flat 15, he will have a lead he's happy with, you might not be any help, but it shouldn't destroy his hand that he's hit your x or xx.

Pulling to 2D initially is a much weaker hand than this. Pulling to 3D over the XX is not stupid and suggests this type of hand, although I'd pass again.

[ArtK78]

I pull to 2♦ in balancing seat.

We might have 7 tricks (possibly more) on defense on the right opening lead, and we might not. It is a near certainly that we will not have 7 tricks on the wrong opening lead (this assumes that the double shows values not tricks).

Furthermore, I expect to go plus in 2♦ and I am allergic to numbers that start with -560 and increase by 200 per trick.

[jdonn]

I'm scared

[aguahombre]

Calling the original double "penalty" is confusing to me, because I don't know the exact agreement.

Assuming it is as ours --double is not "equal to theirs" but rather "equal to ours":

--then doubler has, in effect, opened 1NT (even though she might be stronger or off shape). We didn't have 2D available the first time, because our system was "on".
We happily play it in 2D now, since that is where we would like to play it opposite a strong NT. Not scared, just practical. Without the opponents' announced agreements, we would have had to play in 3D.

[jjbrr]

Phil, on Apr 27 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 27 2010, 08:59 AM, said:

2♦. Trust the vulnerable redoubling opps.

Yeah, people throw around phrases like "trust the redoubling vulnerable opponents" all the time, and really have no idea what it means.

I bid 2♦ (would have last time too).

Do I seem to know what it means, or was that comment directed at me? lol

[Jlall]

I have a confession, I pretty much never sit for 1N XX from either side of the table in a spot like this.

We both have like half the deck, and we have a nice 6 card suit where we can almost definitely make a partial. What is the point of gambling on the right layout/lead for a monster swing? I'm happy with my +110.

[Pict]

ArtK78, on Apr 27 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

I pull to 2♦ in balancing seat.

We might have 7 tricks (possibly more) on defense on the right opening lead, and we might not. It is a near certainly that we will not have 7 tricks on the wrong opening lead (this assumes that the double shows values not tricks).

Furthermore, I expect to go plus in 2♦ and I am allergic to numbers that start with -560 and increase by 200 per trick.

You need to be allergic because the numbers start at -760 and the next one is -1160.

[Jlall]

Bidding 2D the first time or not is really a question of tactics. IMO the hand is definitely strong enough to start with a pass, but it may enable the opps to locate a club fit and compete effectively, or it may allow RHO to bid 2H which will make things awkward for us.

Bidding 2D immediately may enable us to bid 2S next also if someone bids 2H which is nice.

The downside is that we are underbidding our hand by bidding immediately (which shows a weak hand), and that might cause us to miss a game. Whether or not it's right to bid immediately or pass first might depend on the details of their runout system (which hands pass).

[Mbodell]

This depends on partnership style. With my partners this is a fairly safe pass. We will set them much more often than they make.

For state of match considerations I may pull at IMP if I expect to win the match against opponents and then a 1ntxx= would be a disaster, but overall I expect -2 or -3 more often than = or +1.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on Apr 27 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Calling the original double "penalty" is confusing to me, because I don't know the exact agreement.

Assuming it is as ours --double is not "equal to theirs" but rather "equal to ours":

--then doubler has, in effect, opened 1NT (even though she might be stronger or off shape). We didn't have 2D available the first time, because our system was "on".
We happily play it in 2D now, since that is where we would like to play it opposite a strong NT. Not scared, just practical. Without the opponents' announced agreements, we would have had to play in 3D.

I would just like to say that this is an awful agreement to have. I can't be bothered to look up the 3 or 4 threads that have discredited it, suffice it to say, partner promised something like 15-25 with 0-6 cards in all 4 suits, and it is generally accepted that this range is too far from 15-17 with 2-5(6) cards in all 4 suits to play exactly the same system over it.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on Apr 27 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Apr 27 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Calling the original double "penalty" is confusing to me, because I don't know the exact agreement.

Assuming it is as ours --double is not "equal to theirs" but rather "equal to ours":

--then doubler has, in effect, opened 1NT (even though she might be stronger or off shape).  We didn't have 2D available the first time, because our system was "on".
We happily play it in 2D now, since that is where we would like to play it opposite a strong NT.  Not scared, just practical.  Without the opponents' announced agreements, we would have had to play in 3D.

I would just like to say that this is an awful agreement to have. I can't be bothered to look up the 3 or 4 threads that have discredited it, suffice it to say, partner promised something like 15-25 with 0-6 cards in all 4 suits, and it is generally accepted that this range is too far from 15-17 with 2-5(6) cards in all 4 suits to play exactly the same system over it.

I was not advocating, just stating what we do, and what has worked for us. If you think it is awful, don't play it. But with all the constructive natural overcalls available (they are not weak vs. weak nt), there seems to be a lot less confusion in our auctions than you might imagine.

We treat a double like a NT overcall, unless we find out later it is a mountain --and an overcall (of a weak nt) is like an overcall of a one-bid. Hopefully we will live another 25-30 years to experience a disaster with this approach.