[NickRW]

Antraxxx, on 2010-November-05, 08:21, said:

About the second pass:
I was taught to overcall only with a decent suit, even at 1 level, because if the opponents have the points, then my overcall would end up lead directing, and I really don't want P leading into my K8765 spades unless it's no-trump, no?

Well, that is a reasonable argument in favour of doubling rather than calling 1♠ at your second opportunity.

Quote

As for the double, I was worried because my AK are in the opponents' suit. So if my partner doesn't have a good suit of his own, we are going to have a bad combined trump holding.

Well it is true that partner is unlikely to have a decent five card major here - but he might have 5 smallish cards - or a reasonable 4 card suit. And it is also true that I'd like some of those ♦ points in one of my majors - but lady luck usually deals you rather more borderline cases than the hands you see in textbooks.

Quote

I'm probably too timid,

I don't think so. It takes quite a while to cultivate judgement - especially in competitive auctions.

Quote

I just try to adhere to what I was taught until I understand enough to know when to diverge. So this is one case where I had to diverge, but how could I have known that?

You have not just 8 but 9 cards in the suits they are not bidding and almost opening values. It is true that once in a blue moon partner has the minors and you can get murdered for poking your nose in - but this is quite rare.

Quote

I indeed have a maximal hand for a first seat pass, is that what a double tells partner? I admit I'm sometimes at a loss when a passed hand suddenly enters the bidding, I always wonder what's kept them until now if they really have a good suit and/or points.

Just hang in there. In this situation double, to me, says at least 4-4 majors (or better) and a reasonable hand in the context of my first round pass.

Nick

[inquiry]

mcphee, on 2010-November-05, 06:46, said:

I would consider myself lucky he left. Double of 3C is just ridiculous imho.

+1

[bucky]

Antraxxx, on 2010-November-05, 02:10, said:

Seeing as he was advanced and I am not, I'm guessing he's right, but how could I have known in advance?

Sorry, I don't see the logic here. Just because he rates himself as advanced, doesn't mean he IS advanced. In fact the self-rating can be so inaccurate that people have coined a new word called BBO-expert.

[Antraxxx]

bucky, on 2010-November-05, 15:26, said:

Sorry, I don't see the logic here. Just because he rates himself as advanced, doesn't mean he IS advanced. In fact the self-rating can be so inaccurate that people have coined a new word called BBO-expert.

Yeah, I've been lurking on these forums so I'm aware of the controversy about self-classification. But even if he's full of himself and he's just an experienced beginner, it's still better than I am at this stage. And even if he's not better, for most part it's beneficial to assume he (everyone) is - even if on this particular hand I did semi-okay, I still learned a lot from your answers, that I got by assuming I did something wrong. So thanks everyone!

[1eyedjack]

There are a few situations in bridge which you will find are guaranteed to make your partner's blood boil, if his blood is at all volatile (and will make your blood boil if he does it to you). Top ranking among these is when one member of the partnership makes (what he considers to be) a penalty double of a failing contract, and the other member converts that plus score into a minus by pulling the double. And, importantly, it does not matter how ill-judged the penalty double was, the steam will still emit from the ears. Hot on the heels of that situation is when one partner makes a take-out double which his partner reads as being for penalty and sits it, allowing the opponents to play in a 10 card fit at the 2 or 3 level. Although irritating, this tends to cause a bit less friction because it is more obvious that the double was simply misunderstood. In the first example (pulling the penalty double) there is a suspicion that partner read it correctly as for penalties but did not trust that it was failing, and this suspicion above all is the source of most irritation.

This is one reason why I recommend that a high priority point of discussion between new partners is when doubles are take-out v penalty. Regardless of how sanguine are the partners, left undiscussed it is a rich source of pickings for the opponents, and there are a lot of situations in which there is more than one "standard" interpretation.

This thread illustrates that even among good players there are styles which would prefer this double to fall either way. That the double is questionable even if agreed as for penalty is I think the lesser issue.

In a face to face game, when this happens you just have to simmer down and try not to let the pressure cooker blow its top. A hand or two later normality is restored. Online, BBO offers something of a luxury to the hot-tempered: You can just up and leave. You may be flagged black by the deserted partner (and indeed his opponents), but the chances of meeting them again are slight. Note that I am NOT advocating this course of action. It is highly discourteous. Just pointing out that it happens.

[Bbradley62]

Should beginners generally play in the Relaxed Bridge Club, where partners might have better attitudes than in the Main Bridge Club?

[nige1]

Partner may have lost connection to BBO. If that is the case, he should apologise when he logs in again. Otherwise, I suggest that you classify him as an enemy (adding a comment to explain why) so that he can't waste your time again. All of us suffer from such renegades. One reason for the popularity of bridge is that debacles are always partner's fault

The meaning of partner's double is a far less important issue. To me it is logical that it is penalty, Partner failed to take any action immediately after the 1♣ opening, so is it likely that he wants me to start bidding at the three-level? Especially as opponents may have a misfit. Hence, with partners, whom I've indoctrinated, I play it as penalty.

But many play almost all low-level doubles as take-out. And there is a big memory advantage in having simple blanket rules.

[Antraxxx]

I always play in the relaxed club. Not that it spares me my fair share of bad partners (my best bad beat story so far has to do with an impatient partner conceding a slam with me holding the trump A for the setting trick - and the declarer accepting for whatever reason), but I hope it means people are less mad at me when I make mistakes.
In any case, one thing that seems to be in the consensus is that you don't start competing when the opponents have worked their way up to the 3 level (not by preemption, that is). So I should've doubled back on the 1 level and partner's double is more likely to be for penalties because if he was short in clubs he would've doubled immediately. What I'm missing here is why not consider that partner would also need points, either to penalize or to TO after 1♣ at first. 3♣ rebid by opener means he has at least 15, I'm looking at 11. That leaves 14 points. E doubles after 3♣ and S passes, suggesting his hand is weak - he doesn't have great clubs as he removed to diamonds before, he doesn't have 10 points or something near that or he'd have gone to 3NT, so odds are he has something like 2-3 clubs, 3-5 diamonds and something like 3-3 in the majors (I'm assuming he'd have said 1M with a four-card major). So partner has at most four clubs and probably around 7 points, which is not something he wants to penalize with, does he?
Could I have drawn the right conclusions from the bidding somehow? Where is the mistake in my thinking?

[hotShot]

If your partner makes a TO dbl at the 3-level should he be stronger or weaker than making a TO dbl at the 1 level?

Since you need 2 extra tricks for a contract at the 3-level, is seems logical that he is stronger.
This logic makes it hard to imagine a hand that is to weak to act over the 1 level bid, but is strong enough to ask for a TO at the 3 level.

You have passed twice and opps have shown their strength, this should allow your partner to estimate your potential strength quite accurate, since he has data from 3 hands. If your partner expected you to understand his dbl as penalty, than he can expect you to accept his decision and pass. That would allow him to include his estimate of your strength into your sides final bid.

[Bbradley62]

Antraxxx, on 2010-November-08, 05:23, said:

Could I have drawn the right conclusions from the bidding somehow? Where is the mistake in my thinking?

You've concluded that partner has a random 7HCP and wants to make your side play at the 3-level, even though he "knows" that you don't have 10+ with 4+4+ in the majors, because that hand would have done something over 1♦. That should tell you that something is wrong. Basically, you're believing your opponents' bids and deciding that your partner is off his rocker.

Being at a table with 3 strangers makes it hard to count things so clearly as you have tried to do here. I wouldn't encourage it, but there are some Souths who might bid 1♦ with a 4450 yarb, figuring they'll pass whatever North bids next. (The actual South hand was along these lines though not so extreme.) That would leave partner with more points and more clubs than you've given him credit for. He thinks he's getting 5 tricks on defense, and expects you to take 1 with your (expected) 7-9HCP, so he wants to collect a big penalty.

[luke warm]

it's obviously been too long since i've played (or even thought about bidding), but i'd have x'd the 1♦ bid and it would never have entered my mind that p's x of 3♣ was for t/o (since he didn't x 1♣)

[Antraxxx]

luke warm, on 2010-November-11, 12:21, said:

it's obviously been too long since i've played (or even thought about bidding), but i'd have x'd the 1♦ bid and it would never have entered my mind that p's x of 3♣ was for t/o (since he didn't x 1♣)

Should he double 1♣ for TO with 7 HCP? Shouldn't he try to find a part-score game when from the bidding it's obvious we have a good fit in at least one major and points split around the lines of 18-22 between the partnerships?

[campboy]

Antraxxx, on 2010-November-12, 01:51, said:

Should he double 1♣ for TO with 7 HCP? Shouldn't he try to find a part-score game when from the bidding it's obvious we have a good fit in at least one major and points split around the lines of 18-22 between the partnerships?

Neither of these things is obvious by the time the double is made. Both opponents are unlimited; with reasonable assumptions about their style 22 is about the minimum they will have. They haven't shown a fit in either minor, so there is no reason to think we have a fit in a major. On the actual deal your side had 14 cards in the majors; why couldn't each be a seven-card fit?

[gwnn]

edited out.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2010-November-12, 04:51

[Scoti]

To answer the lead Question, he has bad manners or was experiencing poor impulse control and did not want it to get worse. imo Your P had 3 certain club tricks and probably 4 if he scores in singleton suit, thus relies on you for 1 trick at most. With your hand, the Set is certain. How to know it was Penalty ... a number of ways.

1) He should never pass then call a TO dbl at 3 level. Nor even a Neg X as his entry to an auction only ops have bid in & you both passed. Not likely anyone calls for a sac suit vs 3 clubs too!

2) It came after an op jump, in an unconfirmed suit as well. And ops P did not elevate the bid, after bidder Claimed he could go higher if his P has even 2 clubs and min pts. (A) Does That sound a LIKELY Make, knowing your pt holding and your P had enough pt to dbl, no matter what kind of dbl, & that ops P refused to Game or even Step the bid ?? ( So where are the rest of the Clubs?! aha

3) The initial bids of your side should tell you both that, you hold less than 13, & P holds less than 12 needed for a 3rd seat Open. 12 & 11 = 23 pt MAX. Knowing it can take(non-Goulash anyway)22 pts with great fit, & up to 25pts (hcp + dist)to Make a 3-of-Suit contract, is it likely P gambles you will give him at least 11 pts if he even holds the full 11, AND provide him with a new suit where the 2 of you will hold 8 or more in suit ??! Hopefully your P doe Not make such bids. lol.

Personally I play TO Dbl at 1 level, NEG at 2, Penalty starts at 3 ... BUT you must be sure you can Set if ever DBL 3-MAJ for it gives them Game if you fail, for only scoring 3 trks. So to dbl 3 Maj I will hold the entire Set in my own hand and not ask an unbidding P for any of it. VS 4-MAJ I will have need of no more than one trk from P, and hold 4 or more "factors" in hand. EG's: # 0f Quicktrick Honors (A,A+K etc), Void, Singleton, Doubleton with Ace, 4+ Trumps, HCP combined over 14 (They need to hold 27pts to Make 80 % of the time at 4 level, tho 26 might do) , or I Lead not my P, etc. So estimate how many Factors your P may have too, for deciding if its Pen.

[straube]

Antraxxx, on 2010-November-08, 05:23, said:

I always play in the relaxed club. Not that it spares me my fair share of bad partners (my best bad beat story so far has to do with an impatient partner conceding a slam with me holding the trump A for the setting trick - and the declarer accepting for whatever reason), but I hope it means people are less mad at me when I make mistakes.
In any case, one thing that seems to be in the consensus is that you don't start competing when the opponents have worked their way up to the 3 level (not by preemption, that is). So I should've doubled back on the 1 level and partner's double is more likely to be for penalties because if he was short in clubs he would've doubled immediately. What I'm missing here is why not consider that partner would also need points, either to penalize or to TO after 1♣ at first. 3♣ rebid by opener means he has at least 15, I'm looking at 11. That leaves 14 points. E doubles after 3♣ and S passes, suggesting his hand is weak - he doesn't have great clubs as he removed to diamonds before, he doesn't have 10 points or something near that or he'd have gone to 3NT, so odds are he has something like 2-3 clubs, 3-5 diamonds and something like 3-3 in the majors (I'm assuming he'd have said 1M with a four-card major). So partner has at most four clubs and probably around 7 points, which is not something he wants to penalize with, does he?
Could I have drawn the right conclusions from the bidding somehow? Where is the mistake in my thinking?

The mistake in your thinking is looking at your hand. You've concluded (I gather) that because you're looking at 11 points, this makes it more likely that partner's bid means one thing or another. Instead, you need to look at the sequence and determine what the double means in that particular sequence.

I can tell you that Mike Lawrence states that 1C-1D, 2C X is penalty....even though some partnerships may play that takeout for those rarer 4-4-1-4 hands. Now at the 3-level, there is even more likely need for it as penalty because offering 4-4 at the 3-level is suicide, especially against a strong auction such as this.

Partner didn't have his bid (he needs more strength as well as good clubs) but he lucked out that you had the balance of high cards. The double was penalty. Be happy you can help.

Btw, 1-eyed jack wrote a great post.

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2010-November-23, 09:07, said:

Btw, 1-eyed jack wrote a great post.

Impossible, it has a rating of only 0.

[chebfarid]

Don't worry too much of your p's "disgust", happens to meet badly educated players in bbo - fortunately you find much more gentle people to play with
As the others pointed out, X is a call which strongly depends on partnership agreements, imho there are no standards to treat them, though sometimes you catch the meaning using your logic.
I also agree that with your cards I'd not have passed twice: if X in the second round or 1♠ again depends mostly on partnership agreements, without them I think 1♠ works fine anyway.

Cheers
Farid

[han]

I think the double of 3C should be a penalty double.

I would have overcalled 1S with the given hand.

[Antraxxx]

I though you generally overcall with better suits than this, because partner is likely to lead my suit and it's not really a suit we can develop unless he happens to have a bunch of honors in it. No?