[Chamaco]

Quote

It is a very old-fashioned style to play that a simple overcall has a maximum of 16 HCP.

I know, but usually, if not 16 hcp, you can nudge the max to 17 hcp; it's not 1 hcp that will change matters here.
I doubt anyone would make a simple overcall with 18+ hcp.

Moreover, usually a 2m overcall by an expert has a high offense/defense ratio, certainly not the case of the hand of the original post.

Quote

While a hand suitable for a penalty double is quite rare at IMPS (less so at matchpoints), there is little need to use the double for other purposes. Partner has defined his hand with the 3D call; if you want to make a game try you can bid.

I knw, in this case especially so since if pard pulls he has to go up to level 4.

However, when I mean it should show "cards", I am not saying it's not at all penalty.
I simply mean it's cooperative, with tolerance for a penalty pass. Pard is expected to exert judgment.
I think such hand type will be WAY more frequent than a pure penalty.

At any rate, IMO the double here did not have any of the rquirements needed, either for a "pure penalty" nor for a "maximal" double.

Quote

Most experts would overcall in diamonds holding, say, Q109x x AKQxx AKx rather than double (or bid 1NT, but that's not my style).

Most experts would ? Why not double and correct to NT pard's heart response ?

[reisig]

The 2♦ overcall is worse than terrible...in my opinion. It has all the fatal flaws - bad suit (only 5 cards) and 3 cards in opponents Major.

[FrancesHinden]

reisig, on Aug 2 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

At any rate, IMO the double here did not have any of the rquirements needed, either for a "pure penalty" nor for a "maximal" double.

We aren't disputing that. (Though I thought the double was not as bad as the pull.)

[Chamaco]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 2 2005, 02:03 PM, said:

We aren't disputing that. (Though I thought the double was not as bad as the pull.)

Sure.
The last point was on the usefulness of penalty double here by the 2D bidder.

Well, let me put it this way:

at IMPS scoring, all textbooks say that a penalty double of a partscore should be sure to set the contract by 2+ tricks (with the high likelyhood to set only 1 trick, better reconcile to let them play and set them undoubled).

According to this principle, in the specific case, realistically placing 1 defensive trick in the hand of the 3D bidder, if the double was penalty it should GUARANTEE 5+ defensive tricks (in the hand of the 2D bidder alone).

How frequent will this occurrence be (for a hand that did not start with a t/o dbl) ?


Of course I'll repeat here that IMO at MP scoring there is more justification to adopt more freely business doubles.

[000002]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 2 2005, 07:44 AM, said:

Most experts would overcall in diamonds holding, say, Q109x x AKQxx AKx rather than double (or bid 1NT, but that's not my style).

If u can penalize opps solely with 16~17hcps,the reason u want NOT to overcall 1nt is U have a void or a good 6cards suit. y?

If u can penalize opps with ur cards ♠(QJ9X),ur pd's total points(6-8) reduce HCP to 1 honor,y?

if u want to overcall 2♦,why it is a poor suit ,only 1card honor?

I doubt this punitive dbl, anyone can help me?

An newbie, thanks u!

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

at IMPS scoring, all textbooks say that a penalty double of a partscore should be sure to set the contract by 2+ tricks (with the high likelyhood to set only 1 trick, better reconcile to let them play and set them undoubled).

Depends on the length of the match. For a very long match, you go with expectation ignoring volatility. So if they are vulnerable and you assume team-mates will be in the same contract making the same number of tricks undoubled, then if you are

30% that it will make (-730/+140), 11 imps out
40% that is will be one off (-100/+200) 3 imps in
30% that it will be two off (-200/+500) 7 imps in

you are neutral about whether to double or not (non-vul you need slightly better odds to double)

The reason (IMO) the textbooks say you need 2+ tricks is that more mistakes are made on defence than by declarer: doubling for one off is fine, as long as it always goes one off. So whether to double for one off might depend a little on how obvious the opening lead is, and how good you think your partnership defence is!

Quote

How frequent will this occurrence be (for a hand that did not start with a t/o dbl) ?

Not very. But you can't just agree to play double as "cards". You need to discuss in significant detail on what hands partner is expected to pass. Four trumps? Honour to three? doubleton? Only with two sure defensive tricks? Not with 4-card support? How much defence are you showing for the double? If you are distributional, you run the risk of defending on a double fit hand. If you are balanced, why didn't you overcall 1NT, or double planning to rebid NT?

So, tell me exactly what a "card-showing" double shows, and if that's at least as frequent as a pure penalty double, I'll agree it's a better treatment. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I think it could well be better, just that either treatment isn't going to come up very often so I don't have much at-the-table experience to go on.)

Quote

Of course I'll repeat here that IMO at MP scoring there is more justification to adopt more freely business doubles.

Indeed. This is another theory-vs-practice point. I'm pretty confident that in theory one should play significantly different competitive methods at IMPs and at MPs (there's a hand on rgb at the moment where 2NT in competition makes perfect sense as "to play" at MPs but would be crazy at IMPs). However, I just don't have the time or the energy to learn two different systems. It's easier to play the same methods but use them more often at matchpoints!

[hotShot]

There are 2 ways to play this and both are valid partnership agreements.

1) Inferfere light in second seat, raise solid in 4th seat.
2) Interfere solid in second seat, raise light in 4th seat.

Those who prefer the 2nd way, claim that the 2♦ bid is not a good idea, but agree with the 3♦ raise.
I prefer the first way, so i dislike the 3♦ bid.

What happend here was:
Interfere light in second seat and raise light in 4th seat.
This is no way to reach success.

[Chamaco]

Quote

The reason (IMO) the textbooks say you need 2+ tricks is that more mistakes are made on defence than by declarer: doubling for one off is fine, as long as it always goes one off. So whether to double for one off might depend a little on how obvious the opening lead is, and how good you think your partnership defence is!

hehe , sure :-)
But I think that, in more practical terms, it avoids putting the partnership under a heavy burden of stress, for simply a one-down contract.

In other words, when you do a mistake, it's very heavy, and when you do get it right, the frequency of a heavy gain is less.

Quote

Not very. But you can't just agree to play double as "cards". You need to discuss in significant detail on what hands partner is expected to pass. Four trumps? Honour to three? doubleton? Only with two sure defensive tricks? Not with 4-card support? How much defence are you showing for the double?

Absolutely agree on the need to discuss the points you raise.

Below are my views:

I think it should show a hand with 3.5+ sure defensive tricks.
Tricks in our long suit (where we have a fit) should be devalued (except Ace).
Pard should leave the dbl in with 1.5 tricks.
With less (1 trick), he should exert judgment based on the nature of his hand: if unbalanced, pull, if balanced and/or with lots of quacks (slow tricks), a acse might be done of leaving the dbl in, hoping that it scores better than playing a doubled contract with a low ODR dummy.

Quote

So, tell me exactly what a "card-showing" double shows, and if that's at least as frequent as a pure penalty double, I'll agree it's a better treatment. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I think it could well be better, just that either treatment isn't going to come up very often so I don't have much at-the-table experience to go on.)

No problem, I understand the point of your comments :-)

AKx-Qx-KQTxxx-Qx

In my view this is a good "cardshowing" double.
However, I have to admit that I am more inclined to use such doubles in cases where pard can still signoff at the 3-level rather than hang him to bid at the 4 level such as in the case of this post.

[FrancesHinden]

Chamaco, on Aug 2 2005, 10:26 AM, said:

AKx-Qx-KQTxxx-Qx

In my view this is a good "cardshowing" double.

Isn't this a 1NT overcall?

How about

AKx Qxx AJxxxx K ?

[Chamaco]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 2 2005, 03:34 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Aug 2 2005, 10:26 AM, said:

AKx-Qx-KQTxxx-Qx

In my view this is a good "cardshowing" double.

Isn't this a 1NT overcall?

How about

AKx Qxx AJxxxx K ?

Ok, even better

[beatrix45]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 2 2005, 08:34 AM, said:

How about

AKx Qxx AJxxxx K ?

The difference between:

Q9x
AKQ
QJ6xx
xx

and

AKx
Qxx
AJxxxx
K

is huge. Doesn't this make the the double the worst bid? In fact, personally, I think your double makes a lot more sense at matchpoints than at IMPs. The pull was bad, too, but opposite this hand (changing it slightly to get rid of duplicate cards) you might have:

x
Axxx
xxx
Jxxxx

Would you rather be in 3♠* or 4♦??

Hardly seems to matter.

[Joe de Balliol]

Afraid I'm placing all blame with East for 4D - 3D not out of this world, 4D is.

I'm assuming x of 3S is pens...

[Fluffy]

After 6 months I amsurprised I rated 2♦ as 4/10 is worse than that, 3/10 at most