[Hanoi5]

---

What do you bid? What's the meaning of your partner's double?

[pooltuna]

DSIP

[whereagles]

Meta-rules say take-out, but evidence says pard has got some spades as well (RHO didn't support, LHO didn't rebid). I say pass and lead your doubleton.

[MrAce]

GIB says this is penalty and suggests a ♠ lead. But GIB plays sandwich NT.

[nige1]

Hanoi5 asked What do you bid? What's the meaning of your partner's double?

IMO...
2♦ = 10. 2♥ = 9. Pass = 7, 2♣ = 4
The meaning of the double is influenced by what a direct 2♠ or 1N would have meant but you can agree to play it as showing opening or better values, takeout of ♣ with 4+ ♠.
Here opponents may have a ♣ fit that may help them to make 1N.
You might like to bid 2♣ but there is a real danger that partner would treat it as natural

---

[han]

I prefer to play it as penalty.

[P_Marlowe]

We play this X as T/O, I am pretty sure of this,
but will ask, hence I bidding my 5 card suit.

Even if X is penalty, I would bid 2D, but this is
certainly less clear.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

Imo this is a penalty Dbl and I should pass. Partner had a chance for a takeout Dbl and didn't take it. Playing sandwich or not is pretty irrelevant imo.

[gszes]

bid 2d at IMPS

at MP I would hazard 2h if I needed a top
else 2d.

we constantly see this type of situation
and come to the conclusion that it is a
TOX type of hand that just wasnt strong
enough to take action 1st time around.

The main reason for this is there appears
to be little reason to play the X as penalty
because it is all too easy for opps to run
to what might be a 9 card club fit.

While it is hardly impossible p could have
a hand where X wants to be penalty, the
% of hands where this is the case is surely
wayyyyyyy down there in the probablity scale
(any of you computer geniuses want to try
and do a hand comparison?)

We try and tailor our bidding to what gives
us the best overall probability of success
and in this situation TOX makes a ton more
sense than penalty. If p hand is that good
they will just have to now bid 2s and we
will pass.

[MrAce]

Free, on 2011-June-22, 05:24, said:

Playing sandwich or not is pretty irrelevant imo.

I think you misunderstood. Playing sandwich NT disables partner from making a natural 1 NT overcall initially, which directly affects the kind of hands pd may or may not have.

Playing sandwich NT, i would not be as sure as otherwise about the ♠ lead, and i may as well lift that DBL thinking pd has a strong 1NT overcall which he could not bid due to sandwich. Not playing sandwich NT, i wld pass and lead a ♠ w/o looking my hand as Andy would say To me it is % 100 relevant.

[Free]

MrAce, on 2011-June-22, 11:21, said:

I think you misunderstood.

Nope

MrAce, on 2011-June-22, 11:21, said:

Playing sandwich NT disables partner from making a natural 1 NT overcall initially, which directly affects the kind of hands pd may or may not have.

Playing sandwich NT, i would not be as sure as otherwise about the ♠ lead, and i may as well lift that DBL thinking pd has a strong 1NT overcall which he could not bid due to sandwich. Not playing sandwich NT, i wld pass and lead a ♠ w/o looking my hand as Andy would say To me it is % 100 relevant.

If you play sandwich, then you just have to pass the rest of the auction (pretty much always unless partner bids) with a strong balanced hand, under the philosophy that the most we can do is fight a part score battle and we don't have the unbid suits. So Dbl won't ever be the unbiddable strong balanced hand imo, it will be either takeout or penalty. Now, playing sandwich it seems pretty obvious that it can't be takeout because of the earlier pass, so it's penalty.

When not playing sandwich the Dbl won't be strong balanced either because it would bid 1NT immediately. So again, it's takeout or penalty. But I can hardly immagine a hand that's willing to bid now who didn't want to bid the round earlier. Although I must admit it's not as clear as playing sandwich (so it's a little bit relevant = "pretty irrelevant" ), I think it's better to play this as penalty.

[benlessard]

penalty is standard meaning, plus here I already pass 1C so partner had the chance to make a very light initial takeout X.

Partner can easily have 4(32)2 or even 5332 shapes but withose shape and strenght he can X for penalty planning to X 2C (takeout) later and with those hand and not a very good hand he should be happy defending 1Nt instead of risking we play the hand in a misfit all over the table situation. At Mp if they are white its a different story.

[MrAce]

Free, on 2011-June-23, 02:32, said:

If you play sandwich, then you just have to pass the rest of the auction (pretty much always unless partner bids) with a strong balanced hand, under the philosophy that the most we can do is fight a part score battle and we don't have the unbid suits.

1NT overcall is slightly different than opening 1 NT, it has wider range. As much as people love to create formulas just like you wrote " a strong balanced hand has to pass the rest of the auction" in reality there are hands a strong balanced hand shd pass and there are hands it should make a move. Vulnerability will matter, scoring method will matter.

gszes, on 2011-June-22, 10:51, said:

bid 2d at IMPS

at MP I would hazard 2h if I needed a top
else 2d.

we constantly see this type of situation
and come to the conclusion that it is a
TOX type of hand that just wasnt strong
enough to take action 1st time around.

.....

While it is hardly impossible p could have
a hand where X wants to be penalty, the
% of hands where this is the case is surely
wayyyyyyy down there in the probablity scale
(any of you computer geniuses want to try
and do a hand comparison?)

.....

Although i agree with the theory you wrote about what this DBL shd be used for, did u look at this particular hand before you write all this ? Because if u did, u would see it doesnt need a computer genius to figure DBL in this particular hand can not be T/O.

You have 5 hcp and opponents settled in 1 NT, they did not even make a game try. Do the math, you will see pd has more than enough beans to make a direct T/O Dbl.

[Free]

MrAce, on 2011-June-23, 04:20, said:

1NT overcall is slightly different than opening 1 NT, it has wider range. As much as people love to create formulas just like you wrote " a strong balanced hand has to pass the rest of the auction" in reality there are hands a strong balanced hand shd pass and there are hands it should make a move. Vulnerability will matter, scoring method will matter.

Please give an example, because I can't see a hand that:
- has around 15-17 HCP
- has stops in both opps' suits
- wants to compete
- is unable to Dbl in the first round

[MrAce]

Free, on 2011-June-23, 05:24, said:

Please give an example, because I can't see a hand that:
- has around 15-17 HCP
- has stops in both opps' suits
- wants to compete
- is unable to Dbl in the first round

- 1 NT overcall is not 15-17 as i stated b4, it has slightly wider range and shape. Especially when u play it natural in sandwich position.

- Doesnt need to have stopper in both suits, especially in the minor suit which can be 2+ or 3+. But lets call this a style, some people wanna make sure they have stoppers some dont in the minor. But this goes against your claim if you require stoppers in both suits because then i have another reason to believe why pd could not overcall 1 NT at the first place

- 17/18 hcp with good spots, also in mp definetely wants to compete. It is pure losing strategy imo when someone has to pass and then pass all thru the auction with 17-18 hcp when opponents settle at 1 level.

-He doesnt have the unbid suits 4-4 or better. But nobody asking him to play slam or something , this is a partscore competition at 1 - 2 level.

- We started to hijack the thread so i am giving up here bro

[gnasher]

I think it should be flawed takeout, and playing that I'd bid 2♦.

I know lots of people think it should be penalty, but I've never been dealt one of those.

[Hanoi5]

So, with:

♠AKJ9x
♥KJ
♦Qx
♣Q9xx

What are you supposed to bid over 1♠ (1NT would have been sandwich) or over 1NT? What is a flawed takeout? Spades and only one red suit? Wouldn't it be better to bid that red suit over 1NT?

I always seem to get these wrong for I accept TO doubles in most situations but I think many call/indicate a penalty double, and this is one of them.

[MrAce]

Hanoi5, on 2011-June-23, 19:06, said:

So, with:

♠AKJ9x
♥KJ
♦Qx
♣Q9xx

What are you supposed to bid over 1♠ (1NT would have been sandwich) or over 1NT? What is a flawed takeout? Spades and only one red suit? Wouldn't it be better to bid that red suit over 1NT?

I always seem to get these wrong for I accept TO doubles in most situations but I think many call/indicate a penalty double, and this is one of them.

Although a penalty DBL seems to work great this hand, not everyone would DBL with pd' hand , this is what Andy is trying to say i believe. I am sure he is dealt with those as much as others but probably he doesnt qualify this type of hands good enuf for penalty DBL . After all give pd's ♣ A to them and they would still bid the way they did, and RDBL pd at the end, creating a game bonus from a dead auction in 1 NT.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on 2011-June-23, 19:06, said:

So, with:

♠AKJ9x
♥KJ
♦Qx
♣Q9xx

What are you supposed to bid over 1♠ (1NT would have been sandwich) or over 1NT?

I would have overcalled 1NT.

I missed the part in your original post where you told us that a 1NT overcall would have been artificial. I have never played such methods, but if I did, I would play the delayed double as showing a strong balanced hand.

Quote

What is a flawed takeout?

About opening strength, but not the right shape to double on the previous round. He could have any of a range of shapes - eg 4342, 3424, even 4414. If I bid something he's short in, he'll remove it.

With everyone vulnerable at matchpoints, he won't often be suitable for this type of action, but at other vulnerabilities it will often make sense to compete on balanced hands that were too weak for a natural 1NT overcall and the wrong shape for a first-round double.

Quote

I always seem to get these wrong for I accept TO doubles in most situations but I think many call/indicate a penalty double, and this is one of them.

If you already knew the answer to your question, why did you bother asking us?

[Hanoi5]

gnasher, on 2011-June-23, 23:17, said:

If you already knew the answer to your question, why did you bother asking us?

Actually, several people agreed with me in this topic, so my view wasn't so wrong.