What is this double?

[Dave D]

MPs, EW Vuln

W N E S
1S - - 1N
2S X -

South's 1NT is protective (10-14).

Playing a simple game (no previous agreement), is north's double for
takeout or penalties?

Thanks all


--
Dave D

[sbt]

In article
<1858562431350423962.35989...@nntp.aioe.org>,

It's a matter of partnership agreement; however, the traditional
meaning is penalties (old-fashioned tradition from both Culbertson and
Goren). Since returning to ACBL competition a couple years ago, I find
the split about 60% for card-showing or takeout, the remaining 40%
playing it for penalties.

--
Dennis Cohen

[HoneyMonster]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:08:06 +0000, Dave D wrote:

> MPs, EW Vuln
>
> W N E S 1S - - 1N 2S X -
>
> South's 1NT is protective (10-14).
>
> Playing a simple game (no previous agreement), is north's double for
> takeout or penalties?

Penalties.

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 8, 3:08 pm, Dave D <dave.doran....@gmail.com> wrote:
> MPs, EW Vuln
>
> W   N   E  S
> 1S   -    -  1N
> 2S   X   -
>
> South's 1NT is protective (10-14).
>
> Playing a simple game (no previous agreement), is north's double for
> takeout or penalties?
>

I play more penalty doubles than almost anyone else in this ng. I have
found doubles of players who open and then raise themselves extremely
profitable over the years.

However, I think this double is card-showing with the 1NT bidder
likely to leave it in. If his Spade stopper is four cards long or
three good ones, he leaves it in. With three mediocre or two Spades,
he finds a bid.

--
Will in New Haven

[Fred.]

If it is takeout, or cards, but South only bids
with clear action, I'm having a hard time picturing
the South hand for clear action.

To pull the double, South has to judge that 2S makes,
or that game makes NS and 2S goes down only one. Given
the balanced 10-14 how can South judge the spade
contract this closely?

I can understand the card showing double at IMP's where
game your way is still possible and leaving 2S in is
a huge loss if you are wrong, so you pull unless you see
a 2-trick set. At MP's, I suspect the double, whatever
you call it, works out to be penalty.

Fred.

[Sid]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:08:06 +0000 (UTC), Dave D
<dave.do...@gmail.com> wrote:

>MPs, EW Vuln
>
>W N E S
>1S - - 1N
>2S X -
>
>South's 1NT is protective (10-14).
>
>Playing a simple game (no previous agreement), is north's double for
>takeout or penalties?

PENALTIES. Caps for emphasis. :)

Sid

[Co Wiersma]

Op 8-2-2012 21:08, Dave D schreef:

If you want to keep it simpel
then this is clearly a penalty double

Co Wiersma

[Nick France]

On Feb 8, 3:08 pm, Dave D <dave.doran....@gmail.com> wrote:

I like to play it as takeout but think most would consider it penalty
in nature.

Nick France

[Henry Lockwood]

Penalties for us: we made the agreement a while ago that "If I could
have doubled that suit for takeout earlier and didn't, I'm not
changing my mind now". It's not a perfect agreement but at least we
both know it!

HenryL

[Frances]

On Feb 8, 8:08 pm, Dave D <dave.doran....@gmail.com> wrote:

Penalties

Some people (incluidng me) have agreed to play it as take-out, but
that needs a special agreement.
{Actually I think the best agreement is "penalties of a weak player,
take-out of a strong player" but that's not a very diplomatic
agreement to have!}

[Henry Lockwood]

On Feb 9, 11:21 am, Frances <franceshin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Some people (incluidng me) have agreed to play it as take-out, but
> that needs a special agreement.
> {Actually I think the best agreement is "penalties of a weak player,
> take-out of a strong player" but that's not a very diplomatic
> agreement to have!}

Not only that, but you need to assess before the round whether people
count as strong or weak! I suspect my threshold for "strong" is
rather lower than yours, Frances, so it would be more of a challenge
for me.

HenryL

[Dave D]

The general agreement seems to be that it's for penalties, which is what
I took it for. There was a written commentary to go with each hand. In
the commentary, it was played as take-out.

Dealer: W

Tx
KT9x
A8x
AT98

AKQ9xx xxx
x J8xxx
9xx QTx
KQJ xx

J8
AQx
KTxx
xxxx


One suggested bidding sequence was:

W N E S
1S - - 1N

2S X - 2N
- 3C END

1NT - protective (10-14)
X - Take-out
2NT - Pick a Minor

I'm not familiar with the 2NT 'pick a minor'. Does anyone know the name
of this convention? when is it used? are there similar bids to indicate
'pick a major'?


--
Dave D

[Co Wiersma]

Op 9-2-2012 12:21, Frances schreef:

rofl

[Co Wiersma]

Op 9-2-2012 12:52, Dave D schreef:

The person who wrote this commentary is probably to advanced for me

In my simple way of thinking
The north hand is easy worth a double the first round
And the south hand is to weak for me to bid 1NT ( no stopper and 10
points only, and the Jack of spades seems worthless)

Co Wiersma

[Dave D]

Yes, looking at it now, I (south) should possibly have not counted the
SJ, devalued my hand to 9 points, and passed.

BTW, In the protective (balancing) seat, we play that 1NT does not
necessarily show a stopper, and is a 10-14 point count.

--
Dave D

[Co Wiersma]

Op 9-2-2012 13:25, Dave D schreef:

Sure, but I just meant
as it is not a very strong hand, I would prefer to have a decent stopper

btw
to answer yoour previous question
to bid 2NT for the minors is called unusual NT(at least thats what its
called where I live)

The common way to play it is
RHO open 1H and you bid 2NT overcall

I doubt that its any good in the situation you gave
As you may wanna bid 2NT natural

Co Wiersma

[Frances]

Rather than 'pick a minor' this is more commonly described as
'scramble'. The theory is (assuming double was take-out) that
- South has defined the strength of their hand, so there is no need to
play (e.g.) 2NT as lebensohl
- A natural 2NT is not very useful, because with good spades South
would pass
- If South does not have a 5-card suit, he doesn't want to guess which
of two 4-card suits to bid. Instead he can bid 2NT to say 'I am not
passing the double for penalties, but I don't know where our fit is,
please bid your lowest 4-card suit'

On this deal it's only 'pick a minor' because South doesn't have 4
hearts.

On the sample hand, if North's minors had been the other way round,
they could have played in 3D.
If South's hand had been, say,

Qxx
AQxx
K10xx
Jxx

then after the double, South bids 2NT, North bids 3C (lowest 4-card
suit), South bids 3D (lowest 4-card suit) and North can bid 3H,
knowing of a 4-4 fit.
If South only had one suit, he usually just has to bid it, so 2NT
implies (at least) two possible suits to play in - that's how North
knows on my sample auction that there is a heart fit.

The exception is on exactly a 3=3=3=4 distribution: South can bid 2NT
knowing that he will play in a 4-4 club fit if there is one, but if
North had, say, a 2=3=5=3 shape they can play in the 5-3 diamond fit.

>
> --
> Dave D

[judyorcarl]

No, it *is* a perfect agreement.

Carl

[judyorcarl]

Yes. There is no reason not to double directly with the north hand.
And there is CERTAINLY no reason to create a system for him to change
his mind later.

Carl

[derek]

It's not really a convention - it's just bridge logic. Assuming the
double is takeout (not a great idea - clearly from posts here, it
isn't safe to assume!), partner shouldn't be strong enough to bid a
natural NT, and he would have bid hearts if he had 4, so he's just
handing the decision back to you (and only the minors are left).

[Frances]

> Carl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, it's not. It's a good agreement to start with - not least because
it _is_ an agreement, and saves accidents on auctions like this one,
but it's even better to have added to it
...."except for partscore protection"

and it can have added to it ...."and additional exceptions as defined"

For example, I doubt anyone plays the following doubles as penalties:

1S P 2S P P dbl
1D P 1S P 2S P P dbl

(these come under the "partscore protection" rule)

or, say,
1C P 1NT P 2C P P dbl (given that double of 1NT is usually played as
take-out of clubs)

and then one can get into auctions such as
1S P 1NT P 2S dbl
or
2S P 3S P P dbl

which can be played, by agreement, as two-way i.e. either very long,
or very short spades.

[Dave D]

That's a great answer Frances, many thanks. I've had a quick look in the
ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge, and I've found a Scrambling 2NT convention,
which, at a quick glance, looks like what you've described. More
research for me :)

--
Dave D

[Adam Beneschan]

I think there's a fundamental difference in those auctions, though:
doubler's partner hasn't said anything. Thus, even a player who
doesn't have the strength to have made a takeout double previously
could reason that partner has enough strength to make up the balance
(which is where I think we got the term "balancing"), since the
opponents' strength is limited by their failure to try for game.

That isn't quite the case in the original auction, so I think that
Henry's logic makes more sense there. But I guess it depends on how
willing you are to make a light takeout double in the first place.
Personally, I'd double 1S with 4=1=4=4 and only 10 HCP, or even a good
9 at favorable vulnerability; so opposite a balancing 1NT limited to
14 HCP I'm unlikely to have a hand that would want to make a takeout
double now. But for those whose takeout doubles are sounder, or those
who would bid 1S-pass-pass-1NT with as much as 16 HCP, the calculation
would be different.

-- Adam

[judyorcarl]

There is no reason at all for 1S-p-2S-p; p-X to be takeout. A hand
that is willing to commit to 3 but not to 2 doesn't exist. (And no,
partner is not marked with high cards. That would assume opponents
have not made an error.)

The same applies to 1S-p-1NT-p; 2S-X and 2S-p-3S-p; p-X.

Carl

[Will in New Haven]

The most profitable penalties I have ever seen have been against
strong players.

[judyorcarl]

"The opponents' strength is limited by their failure to try for game."

Yes, they may be assumed to have less than 26 hcp combined. But
that's the most you can infer.

Opponents pass out games all the time. Especially when the game is in
a different suit from that opened.

Carl