[gwnn]

aguahombre, on Mar 3 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

So now that we have established that the double by opener is pretty much unanimous --- suppose you had to sit in for Opener who suddenly became ill after passing.

1S (P) 1NT* (3d)
P! (P) dbl (P)
??

This is not a Cayuga, and perhaps should have been in B/I, but I thought it was more appropriate for "interesting" because .... well just because.

4D now, uncertainty w.r.t. strain.

[Pict]

Well, I haven't shown my hearts. I'm a simple soul, so I'll bid 3♥.

[PhantomSac]

aguahombre, on Mar 3 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

So now that we have established that the double by opener is pretty much unanimous --- suppose you had to sit in for Opener who suddenly became ill after passing.

1S (P) 1NT* (3d)
P! (P) dbl (P)
??

This is not a Cayuga, and perhaps should have been in B/I, but I thought it was more appropriate for "interesting" because .... well just because.

4H

[aguahombre]

Scoring: MP

---

Hence, interesting hand. Everyone else in the room had a decision to defend 3C or declare 3HTS. Original statement that we could be sure no one else would be confronted with the same auction=true.

Whether we defend 3D doubled or not doubled, we get all the matchpoints. The double by opener on the second round is the easiest way to accomplish that on this hand. If Opener doesn't double, responder had better not; see expert answers to the second part.

[Codo]

I disagree with the others about the part whether south should double 3 ♦ or not.
If north passes with his hand over 3 ♦, they obviously play penalty doubles here and south should double. I would hate this style, but even more I would hate to play a different style then partner.

[Siegmund]

...and I hasten to add, there are still a fair few people out there who DO play penalty doubles after their own side has bid some number of notrump. I'm not surprised that a number of experts play it as takeout, but I was surprised by the unanimity in the thread.

[gwnn]

I am sure this is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy that I will write but stillI would like to say that I would not consider someone who plays "all doubles as penalty after any NT bids" as an expert. I mean I am really open minded and can see reasons for a penalty X after auctions like

1NT-2M-x
1M-1NT-2M-x

even though I would not be happy to need to agree to any of them. But

1M-p-1NT-3x
dbl

is absolutely unplayable as penalty and I think anyone who thinks otherwise needs to reconsider all the implications.

[aguahombre]

some, I guess would say that a forcing NT/1M is a notrump bid. They might argue that most of the forcing NT responses are notrumpish in nature.

But, others have a whole lot of unbalanced hands unsuitable for notrump mixed in. So, using the forcing NT as a case for making all doubles penalty is questionable.

Gwnn: unless you know the whole style of a pair who might consider a certain double penalty, as opposed to takeout --perhaps degrading them out of the expert category is a bit presumptuous. That said, the double of 3D under the given conditions is probably better used as showing a good hand, with plenty of places to play --rather than penalty, by either north or south.

[aguahombre]

Codo, on Mar 4 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

I disagree with the others about the part whether south should double 3 ♦ or not.
If north passes with his hand over 3 ♦, they obviously play penalty doubles here and south should double. I would hate this style, but even more I would hate to play a different style then partner.

This might not be true. Although North should have doubled, his failure to do so, with a tad less in values, shouldn't make a double by South penalty and doesn't necessarily mean that if North had doubled they treat it as penalty. Agree about hating that style, though.