[bd71]

2/1 context if it matters.

1D (2S) 3C (4S)
X

With your favorite partner and set of agreements how do you play this double? And what are the specific rules or meta-agreements you are using here?

I realize this isn't too esoteric, but this sequence just tripped us up.

[helene_t]

3♣ is a gf (or at least forcing to 3nt) so this double is penalty or optional depending of whether we play pass-double-inversion or not.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2013-May-08, 03:21

[bd71]

helene_t, on 2013-May-07, 04:30, said:

3♣ is a gf (or at least forcing to 4m) so this double is penalty or optional depending of whether we play pdi or not.

"pdi"?

[Zelandakh]

PDI is pass/double inversion. It means that in forcing pass situations you pass with a penalty-oriented hand (ready to pass partner' re-opening double) and double with a "what do you think?" hand. It has a certain theoretical advantage due to more sequences being available but requires the pair to be very much on the same wavelength with respect to when forcing pass applies.

[ahydra]

I play that double as "strong penalty interest". We play forcing pass here but without PDI, so X = want to take the money, pass = not sure, bid = to make.

ahydra

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-07, 04:55, said:

PDI [.....] requires the pair to be very much on the same wavelength with respect to when forcing pass applies.

Is that so? Suppose that we play weak nt so the 3♣ bid is forcing to 3♦ only. Then pass would be nonforcing here. But double still wouldn't be penalty here. I think PDI is more similar to the meaning of double and pass in the non-forcing-pass situation, so more robust to misunderstandings about whether a pass is forcing or not.

Did I miss something?

[Zelandakh]

To some extent it depends on whether your agreement in the general case is more likely to be takeout or penalty. The times where forcing passes cause confusion tend to be in high level situations. If the meta-agreement is for X to be takeout here ("negative doubles through 7♠" or the like) then not playing PDI is pretty silly really. However, the majority play that such doubles are points-showing with an interest in penalising, in which case the standard way is less likely to result in an accident. I seem to remembering having made this argument before here (only I think coming from your side, making the point that it depends on other agreements).

[SteveMoe]

Penalty. Implied shortness in ♣s.