[Lurpoa]

♥ ♥ ♥

Had some disagreement with my partner, and would like to receive your expert opinions.
We play BWS2001defaults with, FYI, following default for the doubles:

A. when a pass would be forcing, a double discourages further offensive bidding.
B. when a pass would be non-forcing and both partners are unlimited,
(1) a double indicates non-described high-card values, with sufficient length in the suit doubled to sustain a penalty pass on ordinary distribution
(2) the doubler is unlimited but his partner is limited, a double is for penalty
(3) when a pass would be non-forcing, either the doubler is limited and his partner is unlimited or both partners are limited, a double is for penalty.

The bidding went ( we are NS):
N...E...S...W
1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥
p... p...Dble

What is partner's double ?

My interpretations of bidding:
- 3♦ forcing for one round.
- North's pass = i have nothing to say = minimum hand + NO 6 spades + No stopper + NO ♦support. ( a double would have been for penalty - case B(3).

Please, your expert opinions ? Any suggestions to improve our default agreements ?

♥ ♥ ♥

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Partner's DBL is "competitive".

"Partner of the competitive doubler should choose the contract from the alternatives suggested by the previous bidding. Any nonjump bid (even a new suit) is nonforcing; jumps below game are invitational. Passing the double is a real possibility, requiring a suitable defensive hand with 4 trumps, or 3 trumps at the 3 level. "

"Rules" for a competitive DBL ( below 3S ):
-- Your partner had acted ( partner opened 1S ).
-- Your side has not established a fit.
-- Your side has not bid NT.
-- You did not pass THE doubled suit at your last turn
-- A forcing auction does not exist.

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2012-February-27, 18:45

[aguahombre]

So, which jumps are below game, when we are at 3HX?

[Phil]

Why in the world is this pinned? LOL

[BunnyGo]

 Phil, on 2012-February-27, 19:01, said:

Why in the world is this pinned? LOL

That was going to be my post verbatim!

[han]

I like the agreement that 3D is gameforcing unless the opponents bid, in which case it may be a lighter hand with a good diamond suit. Some people will tell you that that is crazy and makes no sense. Don't believe them.

[frank0]

 Lurpoa, on 2012-February-27, 15:15, said:

A. when a pass would be forcing, a double discourages further offensive bidding.
B. when a pass would be non-forcing and both partners are unlimited,
(1) a double indicates non-described high-card values, with sufficient length in the suit doubled to sustain a penalty pass on ordinary distribution
(2) the doubler is unlimited but his partner is limited, a double is for penalty
(3) when a pass would be non-forcing, either the doubler is limited and his partner is unlimited or both partners are limited, a double is for penalty.

I want to complain about this a little bit.
I'm wondering which world class player(or group of world class players) writes the rule in this confusing way . What's difference between "discourages further offensive bidding", "non-described high-card values, with sufficient length in the suit doubled to sustain a penalty pass on ordinary distribution", and "penalty"? In my opinion a X showing extra defense or minimum offense given the context of bidding is called penalty.

In your auction because partner's pass is forcing, you have to double if you have no other bid. Personally I call it "penalty" because you're more likely to have a defensive/flat hand without proper bid(that is not X) than an offensive hand without proper bid.

[WGF_Flame]

I dont agree with this being non forcing situation. 3D imo is GF, but even if not, its forcing to 3S, and we should be in forcing pass.

[Lurpoa]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-27, 18:37, said:

Partner's DBL is "competitive".

"Partner of the competitive doubler should choose the contract from the alternatives suggested by the previous bidding. Any nonjump bid (even a new suit) is nonforcing; jumps below game are invitational. Passing the double is a real possibility, requiring a suitable defensive hand with 4 trumps, or 3 trumps at the 3 level. "

"Rules" for a competitive DBL ( below 3S ):
-- Your partner had acted ( partner opened 1S ).
-- Your side has not established a fit.
-- Your side has not bid NT.
-- You did not pass THE doubled suit at your last turn
-- A forcing auction does not exist.

♥ ♥ ♥

No, we have no agreement on the use of what you call here "competitive" doubles.
Are you suggesting we should use them ?
How to change our default agreements in that case ?
♥ ♥ ♥

[Lurpoa]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-27, 18:42, said:

So, which jumps are below game, when we are at 3HX?

♥ ♥ ♥


We do not understand your comment.
What are you trying to say ?


♥ ♥ ♥

[Lurpoa]

 han, on 2012-February-27, 20:03, said:

I like the agreement that 3D is gameforcing unless the opponents bid, in which case it may be a lighter hand with a good diamond suit. Some people will tell you that that is crazy and makes no sense. Don't believe them.

♥ ♥ ♥

We do not play 3♦ as game-forcing (see NB). On a free 3♠ or 4 ♦ rebid by opener the 3♦responder can pass.
So, in this case, 3♠ over 3♥ shows something extra (not necessary much, but a 6card with 12 working points could be sufficient.
That is why I think that with our agreements the pass over 3♥ is not forcing.

If I read you well, you think 3♦ should be played as game-forcing. Could you explain that a little ? I don't see overwhelming advantages......But I might be very wrong....
In that case I would agree that pass by the opener is "forcing". But what does it express ? what would be a double ? and what would be a double by responder after pass by partner.

Although we would have preferred an answer based on BWS-defaults, we thank you for your input, and hopefully further comments.

NB: forcing or not ? In BWS2001 we have following agreement:
When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or non-forcing and there is no explicit agreement:
In general: In a competitive situation, treat as non-forcing; in a non-competitive situation, treat as forcing or non-forcing by which seems more sensible to the observer.

♥ ♥ ♥

[Lurpoa]

 frank0, on 2012-February-27, 21:20, said:

I want to complain about this a little bit.
I'm wondering which world class player(or group of world class players) writes the rule in this confusing way . What's difference between "discourages further offensive bidding", "non-described high-card values, with sufficient length in the suit doubled to sustain a penalty pass on ordinary distribution", and "penalty"? In my opinion a X showing extra defense or minimum offense given the context of bidding is called penalty.

In your auction because partner's pass is forcing, you have to double if you have no other bid. Personally I call it "penalty" because you're more likely to have a defensive/flat hand without proper bid(that is not X) than an offensive hand without proper bid.

♥ ♥ ♥


Yes, I agree the text is not easy to interprete. It is certainly not for beginners.

But, seen the complexity of the subject, it is a text with which experts can live.
I would like to ask you to restudy the text, and be less radical in your opinions: the people who wrote the standard are real world experts and merit your second opinion.


♥ ♥ ♥

[Lurpoa]

 WGF_Flame, on 2012-February-28, 02:50, said:

I dont agree with this being non forcing situation. 3D imo is GF, but even if not, its forcing to 3S, and we should be in forcing pass.

♥ ♥ ♥

Indeed, this is exactly what our discussion is.
Pass over 3♥ could be interpreted as forcing: 3♠ and even 4♦ could be the expression of minimum hands. In that case, in accordance with our default caseA a double by the opener discourages further offensive bidding. This double is very penalty oriented (some would call it cooperative). A pass by opener would have shown the will to further compete.

This surely is a possible interpretation....
We would surely like to receive all your further comments.

♥ ♥ ♥

[P_Marlowe]

3D forcing for one round - this translates to 3D game forcing, at least
for me, but it does not matter.
3D forced the partnership to play at least 3S, I dont think we ever planned
to end up in 3H, so pass is forcing, hence openers pass does not discourage
from bidding on.

A simple rule for FP seq., if an agreement forced the partnership
to play at least a certain level, if they intervene below this levels,
you are in a forcing pass seq.

An example

1S - (Pass) - 3C (*) - 3H

(*) Bergen Raise, what ever this may mean.

Also if you play 2-under transfers after a 1NT opening, you bid a transfer to
diamonds with 2NT, they intervene with 3C, this is a FP seq.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Lurpoa]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-01, 09:30, said:

3D forcing for one round - this translates to 3D game forcing, at least
for me, but it does not matter.
3D forced the partnership to play at least 3S, I dont think we ever planned
to end up in 3H, so pass is forcing, hence openers pass does not discourage
from bidding on.

A simple rule for FP seq., if an agreement forced the partnership
to play at least a certain level, if they intervene below this levels,
you are in a forcing pass seq.

An example

1S - (Pass) - 3C (*) - 3H

(*) Bergen Raise, what ever this may mean.

Also if you play 2-under transfers after a 1NT opening, you bid a transfer to
diamonds with 2NT, they intervene with 3C, this is a FP seq.

With kind regards
Marlowe

♥ ♥ ♥

Thank You Marlowe,

Yes, I agree with your point of view....
North's pass is forcing and unlimited. It just says I have nothing to add = No 6 spades + No stopper + No ♦support & I do not want to double this.
In line with our default agreements a double by North discourages further offensive bidding...maybe 3♠ or 4♦...but we should not let them play 4♥ undoubled.
After pass by N, a double by S is penalty !

Are there more of you who think like that ? Any other opinions ?

In that context, more questions: if east bids 4♥, what is pass by south, what is double by south, what is 4♠ (slam try ?)...

PS: for Marlowe. If you say Game Forcing, I understand from your comments: forcing to 3NT or to the 4-level (here that could be 4D) ? Is that right ?

♥ ♥ ♥

[whereagles]

dbl = cards, i guess

[neilkaz]

 whereagles, on 2012-March-04, 14:30, said:

dbl = cards, i guess

Yes, or sarcastically called "blame transfer". In a good partnership, both realize it shows cards and ins't blame transfer and both realize that sometimes they will collectively still make the wrong decision and get a bad result.

[Lurpoa]

 whereagles, on 2012-March-04, 14:30, said:

dbl = cards, i guess

♥ ♥ ♥


Are you speaking about the double of 3♥ by North?
or about a double by South after pass by North and a further raise to 4♥ ?


♥ ♥ ♥

[Lurpoa]

 neilkaz, on 2012-March-04, 14:43, said:

Yes, or sarcastically called "blame transfer". In a good partnership, both realize it shows cards and ins't blame transfer and both realize that sometimes they will collectively still make the wrong decision and get a bad result.

♥ ♥ ♥

What are you trying to say ?
We do not understand.

♥ ♥ ♥

[P_Marlowe]

 Lurpoa, on 2012-March-01, 14:02, said:

♥ ♥ ♥

Thank You Marlowe,

Yes, I agree with your point of view....
North's pass is forcing and unlimited. It just says I have nothing to add = No 6 spades + No stopper + No ♦support & I do not want to double this.
In line with our default agreements a double by North discourages further offensive bidding...maybe 3♠ or 4♦...but we should not let them play 4♥ undoubled.
After pass by N, a double by S is penalty !

Are there more of you who think like that ? Any other opinions ?

In that context, more questions: if east bids 4♥, what is pass by south, what is double by south, what is 4♠ (slam try ?)...

PS: for Marlowe. If you say Game Forcing, I understand from your comments: forcing to 3NT or to the 4-level (here that could be 4D) ? Is that right ?

♥ ♥ ♥

If you play a 2/1 style, that lets you out in 4m, than I would go with something similar here
as well, I am not very familar with BWS, so that is as best as I can answer.

Except that I dont believe in playing 4m.

With kind regards
Marlowe