[1eyedjack]

I should be interested in the thoughts of others concerning the meaning of South's Pass in the following scenario (my own thoughts follow):
West....North....East....South
1{suit}....X..........XX........P

I suppose that there are any number of artificial meanings that might be assigned to the Pass, but the two alternatives of immediate interest to me are
(1) "YOU pick a suit, partner", or
(2) "I fancy defending 1{suit} redoubled, and I would certainly have passed without the XX".

In choosing between these options I have thought of the following factors which might be relevant.

A) Vulnerability. I have discounted this factor as insignificant, at least in comparison with other factors. Feel free to disagree.

B) Position of dealer. This could be highly relevant if N, E or S are already passed hands, but for the purpose of this exercise I limit the conditions to dealer being opener. I might consider variations of this condition later.

C) Meaning of Redouble. I know that some expert partnerships employ odd uses of XX by East in the above scenario, such as the start of transfer sequences. For this purpose I only wish (for now) to consider the simple standard use of XX, which basically announces the balance of the strength for the opening side and (thus far) no great trump fit with opener or anything else special to say. Generally, it says that a low-level penalty may be in the frame.

D) Type of scoring. This could well be relevant. In particular, if disaster strikes and they make 1S redoubled into game, that would likely be proportionately more disastrous at IMP than at MP scoring. At least, the effect of the redouble would be more significant at IMP. If they are allowed to make 1S doubled (but not redoubled) that is going to be close to a zero at MP. The redouble just converts a close-to-zero to an actual-zero. That said, letting them make a redoubled contract, game or otherwise, is not going to be a great result at any form of scoring. Likewise, walking into a doubled contract your way when defending their redoubled contract was your last chance to go plus is not going to be a great score either, at any form, or at least will be a considerable missed opportunity.

E) Choice of suit opened (and definition). This seems to me to be the most relevant factor considered so far, particularly against 5 card major systems where, in the extreme, 1C might be a doubleton. It will certainly have a bearing on the frequency with which you will be dealt a hand with which you might regret not having the penalty pass available, which is to say highly infrequent v 1S but perhaps not so v 1C (or v 1D precision). I can understand how a partnership might vary the meaning of Pass by South depending on suit (and opponents' system). Against Acol, where each suit promises 4+ in length it would have less of an impact, although even then individual partnerships may vary in their policy of which of two 4 card suits to open, which could have a bearing.

F) Frequency. I tend to view with suspicion arguments that say that a method is inferior simply because it lacks frequency. Frequency alone is not an aim in itself, and we must not lose sight of the fact that our goal is to maximise our long term result. Frequency can be a factor, however, and if (say) a "penalty pass" hand type were never going to arise in practice then it would appear non-optimal to assign a totally redundant meaning to a low level call.
Factors E and F are related, but even disregarding factor E, there is no doubt that you are far more frequently going to be dealt a hand of category (1)("pick a suit") than you are of category (2) ("penalty pass"). The question is, is category (2) so vanishingly unlikely as to render it futile to cater for it?

G) Definition of alternative calls. Of some relevance might be the question, what is your next best alternative call? By which I mean, if you assign category 1 to the meaning, what do you bid with a category 2 hand, and vice versa? you might reasonably take the view that if category 2 hand is sufficiently infrequent then you can take a policy decision simply to leave that hand type unbiddable and just accept a substantial loss on the rare occasion that it arises, which loss will (you suppose) be more than offset by a large number of small gains accruing from the alternative use of the Pass. But if you decide that you would like to try to cater for both, then factor E (choice of suit) assumes additional importance. Over 1S-X-XX, you MIGHT decide to discard a natural use of 1N in favour of using that bid to say "YOU pick a suit, partner", on the grounds that most of the time you expect 2{suit} doubled to score at least as well as 1N doubled (playing in 1N undoubled being an unlikely scenario) and when 1NX is actually superior there is a fair chance that you will not have enough information in order to make that assessment. This would free up Pass to be a penalty suggestion. By contrast, after 1C-X-XX, you certainly do not want to bypass all the suits in favour of 1N simply to ask partner to pick a suit, so in that regard having Pass as a penalty suggestion is less affordable even though it may be more frequent.

H) Discipline. Of some relevance might be the discipline with which you double in the second seat. If you (virtually) promise either a rebid or at least 3 cards in each unbid suit, then use of Pass to show hand type (1) ("YOU pick a suit") assumes a reduced importance.

I) "Last Guess" principle. It is generally good practice to put the opponents to the last guess in the auction, and that as soon as possible. If you use Pass to mean "Notice to all at the table, we are scrambling to find our best misfit for you to double", then do not be too surprised if, wherever you land, you land doubled. If, on the other hand, South immediately chooses a suit, which may be a balanced hand with no distinct preference, but equally could be a 5 carder and genuine preference for playing there, then it places on the opponents greater stress (and fewer bids) in deciding whether to double for penalties, perhaps at the 1 level, notwithstanding the earlier "XX" primer. This factor tends to argue in favour of South making a fast choice, and thereby freeing up the Pass to suggest playing there.

J) Keep opponents honest. If you use Pass as hand type (1) ("YOU pick a suit"), then it allows responder (East) to make a fairly safe psychic redouble, secure in the knowledge that it will not get passed out. The principle is similar to the popular use of South's double as penalties in the situation
West....North....East....South
1{suit}....X..........1{suit}......X
If East can be relied upon never to psych, then the optimum use of South's double might not be to show East's suit.

I can't think of anything else for now. My observation at the table is that the vast majority of pairs play Pass to show hand type (1) "YOU pick a suit", but having thought of all of the above factors I am coming round to the view that hand type (2) "Suggest defending this" might have more legs than its popularity dictates. At the end of the day, at least the "penalty pass" is not a unilateral decision: Doubler still gets a chance to pull, unlike after South's penalty pass if East were to Pass instead of XX.

I guess my questions to the group are: (1) have you a preference, (2) does your preference vary by initial conditions (suit doubled, scoring, position etc) and (3) do you see both methods in use in high level competition?

[Codo]

I prefer the "pick a suit" because I do not remember a single hand where I had a good pass after this auction AND noone else ran.

Of course it is not so common that you will hit a bad fit either if you just name your first suit. But if we belive anybodies bidding, we have a real weak hand. So we need a real long suit in their opened minor to make it a good idea to sit for the XX. And most pairs who play short minors do have a way to run after you announced length in their suit.

[1eyedjack]

Codo, on 2012-October-22, 06:23, said:

And most pairs who play short minors do have a way to run after you announced length in their suit.

Interesting point this, that goes to the heart of game theory. At least it would in a world of perfect information, which of course is not a world that we frequent.

If the opponents have a way to cope with our methods, then our methods are redundant, so we need not employ those methods, and so there is no need to adopt a defence to those methods, and so ... hang on a minute.

Point being, that as a defender, I would rather that declarer ran for fear of my holding length than that he feel that he can safely pass because my pass is forcing.

The reality (which is why it is not a world of perfect information) is that no matter how well prepared we are for the opponent's system, it is likely to be low on the list of priorities for system discussion to cater for both defensive methods. In all likelihood, our system dsicussion will be based on the assumption that our opponents are playing what 99% of the field play here, ie that Pass is forcing, whether it is in fact or not.

[Codo]

I doubt that this ithe game theory is the point:

At least I would ask you about the "pass" and if this shows length in my minor, I would run quite easily after a prepared minor opening with shortness in that suit. There is no need to have a system for that beyond: everything is forcing till 2 NT or the like.... my partner more or less denied the ability to raise and I am short too. How likely is it, that a 2-3 fit is our best spot?
I learned that the hard way after 1♣ (polish) X XX all pass.

[ArtK78]

I have always played that if the opening bid that is doubled and redoubled is at the one level, the direct pass is "pick a suit partner." However, if the opening bid that is doubled and redoubled is at the 2 level or higher, then the pass is a penalty pass.

The rationale for the treatment at the one level is that fourth seat should have a way of expressing no preference when he does not have a long suit of his own. Assuming that the bids are real, fourth seat is nearly broke. Having said that he has no preference, the doubler should be in a position to make a reasonable decision. Besides, a penalty pass at the one level is very rare. I would rather have fourth seat express a "no preference" than cater to his having a penalty pass.

But at higher levels, and with the opening bidder showing less than an opening bid, the chances that responder has a penalty pass are much higher. One should not permit the intervening redouble to prevent fourth seat from converting the double to penalties. The redouble does not prevent fourth seat from making any call he would have made had there been no redouble. I don't find that the "no preference" alternative has the same merit at higher levels that it has at the one level.

[PhilKing]

You can do better than "GTO".

In the Europeans a few years ago, Gold/Townsend had the auction 1♣-X-XX-All Pass, which they took one off with the opponents cold for whatever they wanted. The opponents got it overturned on appeal, because they did not alert the first pass, which as far as I can see was natural and non-forcing!

[SteveMoe]

Looking at the minimums for an opening bid (12+) and the standard interpretation of redouble (10+), we have at best 45% of the available strength. I bid if I hold a 5 card suit in an unbid strain. I also bid a 4 card major if at the 1 level. I can't see that playing pass as penalty helps, because it will cause me to bid when I really don't want to commit our side.

Holding xxx xxx xxx xxxx and the auction is 1♣- Double - Redouble, if pass is penalty I have to manufacture a ♦ bid when it's clearly superior to let partner both choose strain and declare.

I like pass to show no clear direction.

I think transfers over minor suit redoubles might have a lot going for them.

[1eyedjack]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-22, 20:31, said:

Holding xxx xxx xxx xxxx and the auction is 1♣- Double - Redouble, if pass is penalty I have to manufacture a ♦ bid when it's clearly superior to let partner both choose strain and declare.

Superior, possibly. "Clearly" so, in my view is in overbid. I have no problem bidding 1D with that hand. It is unlikely, I know, but there is a chance it might not get doubled. If it gets doubled I can redouble for SOS and play in partner's better major, which is highly unlikely to be inferior to 1D.

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-22, 20:31, said:

I like pass to show no clear direction.

At the risk of repetition, I quite like the idea of concealing from the opponents whether or not I have no clear direction.

[Mbodell]

I had a related decision this weekend in a Swiss Teams match (IMP scoring) against an inferior team. Here, favorable with me as dealer, the auction went:

1♦-2♣-P-P
X-XX-P-P
?

And I held a 17 count with xx of clubs (a strong nt hand in a weak nt concept).

I hadn't discussed with partner what pass meant here. I think the best meaning is penalty, but it could be very costly if you are wrong with IMP scoring and pass. I took it out to 2♠, partner bid 3♥ and I raised to game and we took 11 tricks for +450. 2♣XX would have very likely been down 2 with an outside chance at down 3. Opponent had AK-fifth of clubs and an outside K under partner's A.

[awm]

This is one of the places where I think conventional wisdom about bidding is wrong. I very much believe that passing the redouble should be to play.

It's actually not unusual to have a hand that wants to defend, especially if opponents play a style where redouble denies a fit (common), and especially if they are opening a suit that could be four cards or even shorter in length. When advancer holds such a hand, typically it's a pretty bad misfit (doubler and responder both short in opener's suit, etc) with things breaking badly. You really don't want to be the side declaring on such a hand, and passing the redouble will often be your last available plus score. If pass is "scramble" on these hands you are often going for quite a number when opponents double you in your seven-card fit!

Of course, hands where you want to scramble are potentially more frequent. But how much do you lose by not having pass available here? If the opponents bid one of a minor, they will often not hit you when you make a one-level call (in which case you are fine) and if they do double you can sometimes work out whether to run based on their tempo. In fact, passing to say you have no real fit sometimes makes opponents more likely to double your partner's runout because it's obvious you are scrambling.

What if opponents open 1M? Here it seems like pass as "scramble" might be good, both because you are less likely to want to penalize (especially if they play five card majors) and because the two-level is more dangerous. However, you have a very nice scrambling bid of 1NT available on these hands... this call has no real natural meaning, because you cannot really want to play in 1NT on a hand where opponents have opened and redoubled. And of course, you might want to penalize if the opponents open a four-card major (possible in third seat even if their system is "five card majors") or make a straight psych (you never know).

One of my regular partners looked through a bunch of vugraph hands where the auction started 1X-Dbl-Rdbl and found that using pass this way seemed a lot better. We've been playing the style for several years now, and we haven't had a single time where we got a bad result due to lack of "scrambling pass." We did have three times that we passed to defend: 1. Opponents bid 1♣-X-XX-All pass. They went two down for -1000 and a top to us. 2. Opponents bid 1♦-X-XX-Pass-1♠ after which they got to their normal partial. Average board, but 1♦XX was going down so at least opener had to judge right. Anything we bid would go down. 3. After three passes, 1♣-X-XX-All pass. This was a fascinating play/defense problem which declarer got right and he scored up 1♣XX making one, for about an 80% board for him. However, anything we bid over 1♣ would go for at least 500, giving him an even better board! The choice to double on my 4450 nine-count was apparently not duplicated throughout the room (or some people opened weak notrump, or some opponents let them off the hook rather than doubling for 500 at the one-level).

[nigel_k]

I live in Acol-land where it is less frequent that you will want to pass one of a minor redoubled, so I have no real opinion about that.

But I definitely think passing one of a major redoubled should not be to play. They have half the deck or more with five trumps over you. I also disagree that you cannot really want to play in 1NT. Two of a minor could be very poor if partner and RHO are both short in opener's suit, and you have to take an extra trick. With something like QJxx Jxx Jxx xxx and it goes 1S-X-XX, I really want to be able to bid 1NT and play there unless partner has a five card suit. This is not uncommon.

Re MBodell's example, the pass of a redouble should be to play when the auction is higher than one of a suit. This is something I would always agree with a new partner.

[1eyedjack]

Been thinking back about the opportunities for a psychic redouble. Superficially it appears safe-ish, on the understanding that pass by next hand is forcing: you certainly do not expect to play in that redoubled contract. But it does rather ignore the likely future development of the auction, which is that opener is not likely to let the opponents subside in an undoubled contract. Indeed subsequent passes by redoubler may themselves be systemically forcing. It is all very well if redoubler is later in the pass-out seat, but even that assumes that opener hasn't gone and doubled in front of him. Which is probably why I have not seen it happen much in practice.

So then I got to thinking. Forget the psychic redouble. Make it systemic. So, after

West.....North....East
1{suit}....X.......??

By East, Pass would show about 5-9 and a misfit, and redouble would show a misfit and either the classic strength of 10+ or at most a 4 count (and subsequent passes are non-forcing). No suggestion of concealment of methods. All alerted and above board.

Now, what is South going to do, after
West.....North....East...South
1{suit}....X.......XX.....??

Suddenly it becomes not beyond the realms of possibility that he has a hand suitable for a penalty pass.
You can imagine his thought process:
"Darn. I would have passed for penalty had East passed instead of XX. And judging by my holding and the other two bids I am pretty sure he has the weak option of the two. But unfortunately pass by me is forcing, so there is no way to play here".

Well, I can imagine what all y'all forcing passers will say to that: "Playing against such a systemic XX changes the whole system dynamic, and against THIS method we WOULD play a penalty pass".

In which case, to that I say "Job done". If you find yourselves forced to adjust your method in light of the conventional XX, then it is a change that has been imposed upon you under some duress. Clearly you would have liked to have a non-committal "pick-a-suit" pass, and this system has denied you that choice.

I can envisage other benefits to this method. A Pass (instead of XX) shows a hand which under standard methods would have bid 1N. So we have (a) denied the opponents the opportunity to defend 1N, which they may well have preferred given the choice, and (b) freed up 1N for altnernative use, if desired, such as the start of a transfer chain.

[Zelandakh]

The opponents are going to be awfully upset about having this method "imposed" on them when you go off in 1suitXX or 2suitX instead of 1suitX. By the same logic, a weak/mini/kamikaze NT is "obviously" better than a strong NT against any pair that does not play a penalty double against the latter but does against the former; we are "imposing" their weak NT defence on them. You can pretty much use this sort of logic with most conventions if you want to. They could say that their playing pass as "you choose" has imposed the change to your methods too. The whole chain of logic is just silliness.