When 4th hand intervenes after a 1NT opening.
Jerome Keslin
I would like to know how you play the following sequence:
1NT - P - P - 2S
I am assuming that this shows spades with or without another suit.
What do doubles by opener or responder mean?
I see that in KSU (A16) it is suggested that the double by opener be for penalties.
Unfortunately, the way I play, responder could hold Qxx, xx, Jxxxx, xxx for his initial pass.
How do you handle this type of situation?
Leo Zelevinsky
pass with Qxx xx Jxxxx xxx - that is a clearcut 2D call.
The more challenging question is that we also weren't allowed to pass
with for example xxx xxx xxx xxxx - there we'd probably bid 2C and
pass partner's response? or 2D and then redouble for SOS.
Yes you will get in trouble sometimes, but it's far easier for them to
double your 1N P P for penalties and then double your subsequent
runout for penalty than it is if you start bidding right away.
And it makes it easier to penalize them when they balance, since as
you say, double by opener we then played as penalties, knowing that
responder has some values at least.
Note:
1N P P 2H
P P
x is penalty
2S shows 4 spades and a second place to play - opener runs away if
spades are no good. Responder cannot have 5 spades because pass denied
them.
Jerome Keslin
Of course responder should bid 2D immediately.
It's just that I forgot that 2D was not a transfer.
Jerome.
Adam Wildavsky
2. A similar hand would be more of a problem: xx Qxx xxx Jxxxx. It also would not have the option of an immediate 2d response.
3. Opener's penalty double does not come with an iron-clad guarantee. You hold an opening hand, as does your RHO. Your high cards and your trumps are behind his, and the remaining points and trumps rate to be roughly evenly distributed between your LHO and CHO. Double will do well in the long term, and may be necessary to prevent partner from balancing and perhaps turning a plus into a minus. Remember what Sheinwold said -- if they don't make occasionally you're not doubling often enough.
All that said, it would be reasonable to play these doubles for takeout, though that comes with its own hazards. Myself I prefer penalties, but I'll do as partner prefers.
AW
Steve Willner
> The way that I played KS was by the book - responder is not allowed to
> pass with Qxx xx Jxxxx xxx - that is a clearcut 2D call.
A lot depends on exactly this point. If responder's pass shows values,
either opener or responder can hold a penalty double. One can argue
whether takeout doubles might be better, but penalty is certainly
playable. If responder's pass can be a zero-count, no hand opener can
hold will be worth a penalty double. In that case, doubles should be
takeout. (Jeff Goldsmith convinced me that doubles, whether takeout or
penalty, should have the same meaning on both sides of the table.)
Personally, I prefer _not_ to require values for responder's pass, but I
generally play against weaker opponents than Adam does (and Mr. Kaplan
did). Passing puts a lot of pressure on fourth-hand, and non-experts
will make a lot of mistakes. Maybe that's less true in areas where weak
NT is common.
judyorcarl
If responder is genuinely busted (and with no long suit, of course),
then the reopening takeout double will lead to a large minus just as
reliably as a penalty double.
Carl
Steve Willner
> If responder is genuinely busted (and with no long suit, of course),
> then the reopening takeout double will lead to a large minus just as
> reliably as a penalty double.
It's that qualifier that's important, and "long suit" doesn't have to be
all that long. Look at it this way: opener's penalty double will lose
whenever responder is broke. (Opponents seldom rescue, in my
experience, and often redouble.) For a takeout double to lose,
responder has to be broke _and_ have no suit fit. And even then,
opponents (bad ones, in my case) often rescue. Even without that last
bit of help, takeout is better _if responder's pass can be a bad hand_.
If responder's pass shows values, things are quite different. Even
then, there's some case for takeout doubles, but it's not as strong.
Ron
>I would like to know how you play the following sequence:
>
>1N - P - P - 2S
>
>I am assuming that this shows spades with or without another suit.
>What do doubles by opener or responder mean?
>I see that in KSU (A16) it is suggested that the double by opener be
>for penalties.
>Unfortunately, the way I play, responder could hold Qxx, xx, Jxxxx,
>xxx for his initial pass.
>How do you handle this type of situation?
Here's what I have found useful
A= Responder is Captain when We open 1N. Therefore Opener should
=very= rarely make any call other than "pass".
B= On the very rare occasions where Opener has anything to say,
a= Opener is more likely to be holding a trump stack than a T/O X. OR
b= Opener has a long suit because they opened an aberrant
shape (6322 or 7222) 1N= 12-14
So,
1= Opener should pass almost always.
2= If Opener X's, it is for penalty
3= If Opener bids, they have an unexpectedly long suit for their 1N opening.
Ron Peacetree
judyorcarl
But if partner is busted, the opponents have values for game, and, at
least if you're playing with screens, they don't know it yet. No law
of nature says they must discover the fact on their own. Especially
if they're weak players.
In that case, opener's action gives them many extra chances to get 300
or 380 or 800 or . . . The less likely they are to catch you when a
big number is available, the less likely they are to work out their
own constructive prospects in the absence of further competition from
you.
The problem is that opener's silence puts responder in a difficult
position when he has 8-10. Some of you, I gather, are willing to risk
disaster in order to assist responder in the nobody's-hand situation.
My own feeling is that once I open 1NT, I have given up all hope of
knowing what to do on partscore deals. So I am inclined to stay fixed.
Carl
Steve Willner
> A= Responder is Captain when We open 1N. Therefore Opener should
> =very= rarely make any call other than "pass".
judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> But if partner is busted, ...
> opener's action gives them many extra chances to get 300
> or 380 or 800 or
An argument that opener should never double has merit, however unpopular
(and contrary to my personal experience) it might be. If that's your
position, it doesn't matter what you agree about double.
The question at hand, though, is for those pairs who are willing to
double once in awhile, what it should mean.
Ron again:
> B= On the very rare occasions where Opener has anything to say,
> a= Opener is more likely to be holding a trump stack than a T/O X. OR
> b= Opener has a long suit because they opened an aberrant
> shape (6322 or 7222) 1N= 12-14
Case b isn't relevant to discussion about double. As for a, I don't see
why a trump stack is more likely than shortness. It seems to me
shortness should be more likely, once intervenor has announced length.
Moreover, if double is takeout and opener holds a trump stack, it's
quite safe to pass. If responder doubles for takeout opener can pass.
If instead responder is broke and passes, you're better off not having
doubled.
Ron
>An argument that opener should never double has merit, however
>unpopular (and contrary to my personal experience) it might be. If
>that's your
>position, it doesn't matter what you agree about double.
>
>The question at hand, though, is for those pairs who are willing to
>double once in awhile, what it should mean.
>
>I don't see why a trump stack is more likely than shortness. It
>seems to me shortness should be more likely, once intervenor has
>announced length.
>Moreover, if double is takeout and opener holds a trump stack, it's
>quite safe to pass. If responder doubles for takeout opener can pass.
>If instead responder is broke and passes, you're better off not
>having doubled.
The 1N opener has shown a balanced hand. Therefore they are far less
likely to have shortness in Overcaller's suit and far more likely to
hold a trump stack than Responder would.
*dons asbestos suit* So what I guess I am really advocating is that
X's by Opener should be for penalty and X's by Responder should be for T/O.
Kees Schaafsma
> The 1N opener has shown a balanced hand. Therefore they are far less
> likely to have shortness in Overcaller's suit and far more likely to
> hold a trump stack than Responder would.
It can easily be shown that your premisse is false.
Suppose overcaller has 6 cards:
1) Suit is distributed 6-3-2-2;
Opener has 3 cards 1 times out of 3 and 2 cards 2 times out of 3. Hardly
a trump stack
2) Suit is distributed 6-3-3-1;
Opener has 3 cards 2 times out of 2 (discounting the singleton). Again
hardly a trump stack.
3) Suit is distributed 6-4-2-1;
Opener has 4 cards 1 times out of 2 and 2 cards 1 times out of 2. Maybe
a trump stack on a strong four-card.
Etc, etc.
So opener is far more likely to have 2 or 3 cards than a trump stack in
overcaller's suit.
Whether this warrants playing T/O doubles is another matter, IMO over 2C/D
yes,
over 2S no.
Regards
Kees
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <rjp...@earthlink.net>
To: <kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: When 4th hand intervenes after a 1NT opening.
>
> At 05:18 PM 7/4/2008, Steve Willner wrote:
>
> >An argument that opener should never double has merit, however
> >unpopular (and contrary to my personal experience) it might be. If
> >that's your
> >position, it doesn't matter what you agree about double.
> >
> >The question at hand, though, is for those pairs who are willing to
> >double once in awhile, what it should mean.
> >
> >I don't see why a trump stack is more likely than shortness. It
> >seems to me shortness should be more likely, once intervenor has
> >announced length.
> >Moreover, if double is takeout and opener holds a trump stack, it's
> >quite safe to pass. If responder doubles for takeout opener can pass.
> >If instead responder is broke and passes, you're better off not
> >having doubled.
>
>
Ron
suit , there are still chances that the suit will be distributed such
that Opener has more than 3 trumps. Your examples imply it next to impossible.
Also, the 1N opener has =zero= chance of holding a void or singleton
while Responder is not so constrained.
As I said earlier, any further action by a 1N opener should be very
rare. As a first guess, I'd say the 1N Opener should X with about
the same frequency that a player should convert a T/O X to penalty.
OTOH, Responder knows more about the distribution of values and shape
around the table than the 1N Opener does under most
circumstances. Barring surprises like Opener holding lot's 'o trump,
Responder should be better placed to decide when to compete and when to pass.
In addition, when Responder has values at the upper range of their
initial pass and a stiff or void in Overcaller's suit, the odds are
higher that Ovecaller will be running into a bad trump break in
addition to having the minority of values during the play.
Of course, Responder's disciplined T/O X tells Opener a great deal
about the hand. If Opener does not like their trump holding in the
context of Responder talling them that Responder is short in trumps,
then Opener knows that the odds of a good score by defending are less
and can take that into account when deciding whether to bid or penalty pass.
Hope this is useful,
Ron Peacetree
Steve Willner
> The 1N opener has shown a balanced hand. Therefore they are far less
> likely to have shortness in Overcaller's suit and far more likely to
> hold a trump stack than Responder would.
In the cases where opener's side has a trump stack, yes, it's far more
likely for opener to have length than responder. Tenace holdings by
opener are also more valuable than if held by responder, though not
hugely so when eventual dummy is short in trumps and weak overall.
The other cases to consider are when opener and responder are both short
in opponents' suit and when one or both have three cards or a weak four.
> *dons asbestos suit* So what I guess I am really advocating is that
> X's by Opener should be for penalty and X's by Responder should be for T/O.
I am sure this is the worst agreement. If responder's double is for
takeout, why would opener need a penalty double? I suppose it caters to
cases where the trumps are 4-3, but then the opponents may have a better
contract.
Both takeout and penalty doubles cater to a trump stack on either side
of the table (by passing a takeout double for the former). The
difference is that takeout doubles take care of both hands being short
in opponents' suit, while penalty doubles take care of balanced hands
(often 3-3 in opponents' suit) and opener's side owning the hand. My
argument is that if responder's initial pass has not guaranteed values,
takeout is more valuable or at least less dangerous.
Kees' suggestion that double should be takeout through 2H and penalty of
2S is sensible, though I've never played it. Double of 2S will be very
rare, whichever way you play it, though takeout is certainly possible
white at matchpoints. (I have personally lost far more matchpoints by
failing to bid 3H over 2S than by getting hammered in any contract.)
Otis Bricker
top(AKQ) in spades. Also while Responder is not explicitly constrained
from holding a singleton, the fact that he would takeout to a suit on
many hands that do have one does make it less likely.
A simple sim using my 1N constraints, giving RHO a 6 card hearts suit
and constraining responder from holding a 6 card minor or a 5 card major
yields the following.
Opener holds:
2 Hearts 37.6%
3 Hearts 46.7%
4 hearts 15.8%
change it to only deny 5 card diamonds and the odds are even worse
2 Hearts 40%
3 Hearts 46.1%
4 hearts 13.9%
So shortness(2) seems 2 1/5 times as likely as length(4)
I don't have a strong preference for TO vs Penalty. I would say that
Penalty makes it harder for them to get off the hook. And seems to be
less likely.
Otis
Otis Bricker
>
> Kees' suggestion that double should be takeout through 2H and penalty of
> 2S is sensible, though I've never played it. Double of 2S will be very
> rare, whichever way you play it, though takeout is certainly possible
> white at matchpoints. (I have personally lost far more matchpoints by
> failing to bid 3H over 2S than by getting hammered in any contract.)
>
One thing I feel helps the case for penalty doubles, assuming that pass
shows some values, is that responder has the next step free for takeout
once openers pass denies a penalty oriented hand. He can hardly bid the
next step for penalties.
But I do think it is best to match the meaning for both opener and
responder. If opener has to pass a penalty double, responder is stuck
doubling for T/O to protect him.
Otis
henry...@yahoo.com
Woolsey in his book on Matchpoints suggest that doubles over the
overcaller should be penalty oriented (maximum hand, 4 trumps) and
doubles under the overcaller be optional (penalty suggestion, 3 trumps
but not 4333 [i.e., with 2 other places to play])?
He felt that conceding the situation where our 4 card length is under
the overcaller (i.e., opener makes a takeout double with 2 spades) is
the case where we stand to lose the least because our trump length is
under the overcaller's length.
Woolsey's argument has always struck me as sound.
Henrysun909
Steven Willner
> ...didn't Kit
> Woolsey in his book on Matchpoints suggest that doubles over the
> overcaller should be penalty oriented (maximum hand, 4 trumps) and
> doubles under the overcaller be optional (penalty suggestion, 3 trumps
> but not 4333 [i.e., with 2 other places to play])?
As you quote Woolsey as saying, you can't get them every time. The
suggestion above gets them when trumps are 3-3 or 4-2 over the
overcaller but not 2-4 with the length under. Either penalty or takeout
doubles get them on both 4-2 breaks but not on 3-3. That makes more
sense to me, but you have to decide what you want, including in cases
where you have fewer or more(!) than six trumps.
Barbara Allen and David Morgan
Another issue to consider is flexibility in the auction: takeout(ish) doubles often provide greater flexibility, and occur more often, than ones that promise shortness in partner's suit and three cards in their suit. Here in Australia it's common (among younger players at least) to play most doubles as takeout. You then need to agree what minimum length (if any) doubler promises in certain auctions; for example, I play X after our side opens 1N as takeout (unless our side has made a strength-showing redouble or analogous double) but responder's X after 1N (2x) cannot be made on a void (so that O can pass with some safety with four good cards in their suit).
David