[gnasher]

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

[stuff]

I'm going to have one more go at trying to talk about bridge.

Did you intend to say that doubling 2♥ with poor hearts risks that LHO will pass, suggesting playing in 2♥, and RHO will pass it out? (If you didn't mean to say that, I really have misunderstood.)

I don't think this is a serious risk: almost nobody would play that pass as showing hearts; partner probably has two hearts, which reduces the chance that this will be a playable fit; and if I have bad hearts my high cards are likely to be usefully placed for defence over RHO's strength, so even if they do make five trump tricks they're unlikely to get many more.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Apr 27 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

I doubt that is what the preceding posters meant, and I don't think your method is sound. It seems clearly better to make a pass more often than a double on these sort of auctions, as double gives opponents with good agreements various extra chances to exchange information. In fact I always thought the whole point of double-pass inversion in an auction such as
1S (X) 2S (P)
P (3C) P (3S)
?
is to double less frequently.

True, but it's also important to have a simple agreement. What's probably best is to invert pass and double when double would be lead-directing, but not when it would invite partner to bid. That, however, is a lot more error-prone.

[hanp]

What you just outlined seemed the natural way to play it to me so I don't think it is error prone.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Apr 27 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

[stuff]

I'm going to have one more go at trying to talk about bridge.

Did you intend to say that doubling 2♥ with poor hearts risks that LHO will pass, suggesting playing in 2♥, and RHO will pass it out? (If you didn't mean to say that, I really have misunderstood.)

I don't think this is a serious risk: almost nobody would play that pass as showing hearts; partner probably has two hearts, which reduces the chance that this will be a playable fit; and if I have bad hearts my high cards are likely to be usefully placed for defence over RHO's strength, so even if they do make five trump tricks they're unlikely to get many more.

Yes that's more like what I meant to say. I disagree that almost nobody plays pass (or redouble) by LHO as showing hearts, in fact I would be shocked if a strong pair doesn't play one or the other. I agree it's not a likely occurence, I even mentioned it as a secondary consideration, but it would certainly be costly if it occured so I expect you would want to be gaining something to compensate for playing pass and double that way around. I don't think a memory aid is a good enough reason. I also feel the distinction about whether you are doubling for lead direction or competition is very important, which it now appears is what han was getting at.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I disagree that almost nobody plays pass (or redouble) by LHO as showing hearts, in fact I would be shocked if a strong pair doesn't play one or the other.

Let me shock you, then. I believe Frances plays pass as fit for clubs, and XX as fit for diamonds (or the other way round).

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Apr 27 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I disagree that almost nobody plays pass (or redouble) by LHO as showing hearts, in fact I would be shocked if a strong pair doesn't play one or the other.

Let me shock you, then. I believe Frances plays pass as fit for clubs, and XX as fit for diamonds (or the other way round).

Now that you mention that I do recall that, I think I even said it sounded like a good idea (after a direct seat Michaels I think, although maybe she only said she played it if double was penalty oriented?) Maybe shocked is too strong of a word, but I'm quite sure there are plenty of pairs capable of ending in 2♥ doubled or redoubled on that auction.

[Fasteddy]

While it may be possible to come up with a superior agreement about what a double should mean here, isn't it reasonable and effective to play that it shows something like a strong notrump hand (ideally something like KQx Axxxx KJx Ax), especially if you wouldn't open 1NT with such hands? This lets pard do whatever he thinks is right at his next turn.

I guess I could double with a holding that has more shape (say KQx Axxxx AKJx x), but then I'd be worried about leaving in pard's double of 3C or even of 2S, or of his competing to 3C over 2S.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Apr 27 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

What you just outlined seemed the natural way to play it to me so I don't think it is error prone.

It's error-prone if you don't have clear agreements about when it's lead-directing and when it's bid-directing. There's a fair amount of crossover between "bid this suit" and "lead this suit", but none at all between "bid this suit" and "don't lead this suit".

[Codo]

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

That's aside from the fact that if you hold a minimum with bad hearts and your opponents are capable, it may go X P P back to rho and HIS good hearts...

So the difference is that LHO with strong hearts has a trap pass and wants to play 2 HEart in his 6-0 fit opposite an unlimited partner with a spade/minor two suiter. How frigthening.

Maybe we can ask Ben to look in his database if this ever happened.

What is your guess: 1 time out of a million hands? I guess it is less often.

I still think the difference between the approaches is marginal at best and that Hans statement was a gross overbid.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Apr 28 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 27 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

That's aside from the fact that if you hold a minimum with bad hearts and your opponents are capable, it may go X P P back to rho and HIS good hearts...

So the difference is that LHO with strong hearts has a trap pass and wants to play 2 HEart in his 6-0 fit opposite an unlimited partner with a spade/minor two suiter. How frigthening.

Maybe we can ask Ben to look in his database if this ever happened.

What is your guess: 1 time out of a million hands? I guess it is less often.

I still think the difference between the approaches is marginal at best and that Hans statement was a gross overbid.

I certainly don't deny that against over 99% of the bridge players on earth, or on bbo, it will never happen. But what happens against most such players really doesn't concern me. Anyway I think I'm done with this thread, the points have been made.

[dake50]

I would inject 2H psych overcall here, with a runout. How to handle that odd call?

[Phil]

dake50, on Apr 28 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

I would inject 2H psych overcall here, with a runout. How to handle that odd call?

I don't know. Why don't you ask pard after they sac with 4♠?

[dake50]

Look at my hand. Greater than 3 DT Dbl; extra offense 3H. No unexpected message pass.