[kgr]

MPs: N/-

1C-(2D)-DBL-(3D)
DBL-(P)-

S has: AQxxx-T9xx-x-Qxx

2D is weak jump overcall
First DBL by S was negative (2S would have shown 10+ and 5 card by agreement), indicating 4 card M.
How you would agree about DBL of N: penalty, 4 card M, strong, ...?
I wasn't sure and decided to bid 3S with S hand (Even if DBL by N was penalty I'm not sure if I wanted to pass it).
=> more general: can I find somewhere a good set of rules to agree with partner if DBL is takeout, penalty, lead directing,...?

[inquiry]

kgr, on Jul 27 2004, 09:31 AM, said:

MPs: N/-

1C-(2D)-DBL-(3D)
DBL-(P)-

S has: AQxxx-T9xx-x-Qxx

2D is weak jump overcall
First DBL by S was negative (2S would have shown 10+ and 5 card by agreement), indicating 4 card M.
How you would agree about DBL of N: penalty, 4 card M, strong, ...?
I wasn't sure and decided to bid 3S with S hand  (Even if DBL by N was penalty I'm not sure if I wanted to pass it).
=> more general: can I find somewhere a good set of rules to agree with partner if DBL is takeout, penalty, lead directing,...?

1) If double is takeout, optional, penalty or something else is a matter of partnership agreement. Here is a quick rule you might want to form with your partner.. all doubles until we have found a fit are for takeout if no conventional meaning is defined. Using that rule, after your side preempts or uses a jacoby transfer bid, you are assumed to have a fit. So here, double would be for takeout. Partner problaby has four in one major, three in the other, or maybe a four card major and a good long club suit. If you bid the major he doesn't have, he will run to other major or back to clubs. OVer double if I was feeling aggressive, I would bid 4D and pass whatever major partner bids... :-), otherwise I would bid 3S.

2) Can you find a good set of rules? Go now to this lnk....
Robson/Segal notes and search down to you find Robson/Segal Notes link (about 1/2 down the page in the section entitled "More Stuff". Download the notes (well it is something like 230 .. it is actually an entire book). Read t hat, but not like a novel, more like a textbook that reqiures study.

Ben

[Free]

Read "To bid or not to bid" by Larry Cohen, this handles lots of similar situations. I think pass is the correct action with a ♦ singleton, and continue bidding with a void.

[kgr]

Quote

Robson/Segal Notes

I didn't know these notes also contain rules like DBL. I started reading the first 50 pages. I'll take it up again and read it completly.

Quote

Read "To bid or not to bid" by Larry Cohen, this handles lots of similar situations. I think pass is the correct action with a ♦ singleton, and continue bidding with a void.

I suppose that this answer assumes that it is clear that second DBL is penalty.

BTW: I did read that book and it is the most interesting bridge book I have read. Now we play e.g.: if partner overcalls then we support immediatly to 2 level with 3 card and to 3 level with 4 card support also with 0 HCP (vul we will be a bit more careful).

[inquiry]

The first 50 pages have to do with theory...

The chapter you want dealing with double is the last one, entitled something like competiting when no fit has been established (yet)... The opponents have found their fit (thanks to preempt and riase), and theoretically you have a fit... the trick is finding it... The tools in the book (scrambling 2NT, dbls still for takeout, cue-bids) are all aimed at helping you compete more effectively. Anyway, this is the last chapter, but it would help if you waded through the entire thing before getting to the last chapter.

This is a GREAT book, but to be honest, it does take mere mortals like me a couple of readings to fully grasp all it contains. This is the second most read bridge book I have (reread second most number of times). Anyone want to guess which one re-read the most? hehehe

Ben

[Free]

inquiry, on Jul 27 2004, 03:11 PM, said:

Anyone want to guess which one re-read the most? hehehe

Ben

No!

[mikestar]

I play North's double as responsive, asking for South's longer major--normally this means you are 4-4. So with this agreement, South bids 3S.

[han]

OK Ben, here is my guess: "Why you lose at bridge", by Simon.

(it's the book I've read most often)

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Jul 27 2004, 10:37 AM, said:

OK Ben, here is my guess: "Why you lose at bridge", by Simon.

(it's the book I've read most often)

I never bought that one.. since I never lose at bridge, I thougth it was meant for my opponents... I suspected it had only one page... with these words on it...

"You play against inquiry, what do you expect?"

Ben

Welcome to forum.. and it was a good guess... maybe we should have a thread about what book have you read the MOST times... that might be interesting to see who re-reads what....

[twcho]

I guess it is "The Adventure in Card Play"

[inquiry]

twcho, on Jul 27 2004, 11:25 AM, said:

I guess it is "The Adventure in Card Play"

ding ding ding ding... we have a winner... Adventures in card play... you either love it or hate.. there is no middle ground...

I love it.

Ben

[luke warm]

in spite of robson/segal (which might be best here, who knows), i think the second x should be penalty... how else can the ops be punished in this auction? if not penalty, they can preempt you till you bleed...

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Jul 27 2004, 04:57 PM, said:

in spite of robson/segal (which might be best here, who knows), i think the second x should be penalty... how else can the ops be punished in this auction? if not penalty, they can preempt you till you bleed...

If opener wants to punish them until they bleed, he passes 2♠. His partner will be short in this suit, and when it gets passed back to him, he doubles again, once again for takeout. Only this time, opener doesn't take out. Walla... opener can get them he wants them to bleed (by passing), and he can compete effectively when he doesnt (knows his partner is short and he is too, but doesn't know the correct place to play... ie the best fit).

Ben

[luke warm]

i don't think i'm following you ben... how do you exact a doubled penalty from them?

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Jul 27 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

i don't think i'm following you ben... how do you exact a doubled penalty from them?

Here is a recent hand....

Scoring: IMP

West North East South
 -     -     -     1♦
 1♠    X     2♠    Pass
 Pass  X     Pass  Pass
 Pass  

---

Partner lead a trump, and declearer tried a clever club to the nine=Ten Another trump out and his already shake house had the roof cave in. He won second trump, then exited with a trump. I played Diamond QUEEN, and we took 3H, 2S, 1C,and 3D, making 3S on defense. He could have saved two tricks by winning club ACE and leading a diamnod, but intead of down four it would still be down two

Now imagine as south you held a different hand... say something like this...

---

and the bidding starts the same way. What do you do? Do you bid 3♦? what if partner has some clubs and five weak hearts? He will have to pull to 4♣. What if partner thinks for 3♦ you must have a nice hand? No, without dbl here for takeout, you will not be able to decide intellengently between competitng to 3C or 3D. (I would use GB2NT here, so for me, 3D would in fact show a better hand, but using GB doesn't help, buecasue if partner bids 3C, you don't know if you bleong in 3C or 3D).

As a final note, you are much more likely to have a hand where you will need to make a takout double to compete with than one where you will want to double the opponents when you sit infront of declearer, so if you give up on dble for takeout here, I think they will in fact be stealling you blind .

Ben

[paulhar]

inquiry, on Jul 27 2004, 04:45 PM, said:

Now imagine as south you held a different hand... say something like this...

Dealer:  ????? 
Vul:  ???? 
Scoring:  Unknown 
♠  KQ 
♥  3 
♦  KQT2 
♣  AJT843 
 
and the bidding starts the same way. What do you do? Do you bid 3♦? what if partner has some clubs and five weak hearts? He will have to pull to 4♣. What if partner thinks for 3♦ you must have a nice hand? No, without dbl here for takeout, you will not be able to decide intellengently between competitng to 3C or 3D. (I would use GB2NT here, so for me, 3D would in fact show a better hand, but using GB doesn't help, buecasue if partner bids 3C,  you don't know if you bleong in 3C or 3D).

As a final note, you are much more likely to have a hand where you will need to make a takout double to compete with than one where you will want to double the opponents when you sit infront of declearer, so if you give up on dble for takeout here, I think they will in fact be stealling you blind .

Ben

If you didn't play GB (Good/Bad I presume) 2NT, I presume 2NT would be for the minors in a competitive auction where an opponent's major has been bid and raised. Having opened 1C with 6C and 4D, 2NT showing the minors is perfect! (P.S. is this the Scambling 2NT? Maybe I should read the guide and find out.)

[luke warm]

yeah, this one tracks... i agree the 2nd x is t/o here... somehow it seems different tho, but maybe it isn't..

[Cascade]

luke warm, on Jul 28 2004, 08:57 AM, said:

in spite of robson/segal (which might be best here, who knows), i think the second x should be penalty... how else can the ops be punished in this auction? if not penalty, they can preempt you till you bleed...

I think catering your bidding to getting the opponents is a sure way to miss a lot of good contracts.

After the opponents bid and raise I double for takeout. On this auction I use double to distinguish between reasonable hands that want to make a bid and very good hands. I would also double without a diamond stopper and values to bid but no sensible bid to make.

I look at it this way. If I have diamonds I can bid 3NT if I don't have diamonds but want to show something extra then I need to have something to say. I double. It doesn't make sense to do it the other way around - Dbl I have diamonds and 3NT I don't have diamonds. Takeout doubles are just more efficient in these competitive auctions.

[Trpltrbl]

Showing a balanced good hand, with no 4 card major for sure and not ♦ cards for 3 NT.
Optional I would say, pd make a wise decision, you know what I have now, I am not sure what you have.

Mike