[jillybean]

---

Pairs

Opposite a precision pair, 2♦ explained as 12-16 hcp, 6♦ or ♦ and a M

[gordontd]

jillybean, on 2014-December-24, 12:45, said:

---

Pairs

Opposite a precision pair, 2♦ explained as 12-16 hcp, 6♦ or ♦ and a M

X

[PhantomSac]

X

[mikeh]

Double. Could lead to disaster but then so could getting out of bed in the morning. We have an opening hand, albeit a minimum, and short diamonds. It therefore behooves us to act

[neilkaz]

mikeh, on 2014-December-24, 14:10, said:

Double. Could lead to disaster but then so could getting out of bed in the morning. We have an opening hand, albeit a minimum, and short diamonds. It therefore behooves us to act

Agree with X.

[jillybean]

4/4 so far! I like you guys.

[akwoo]

Looking at just the hand and the bidding, before the explanation, assuming a weak 2, I was about to exclaim, "Are you crazy?" (knowing half (well maybe a third) of the forum would also be crazy )

Opposite 12-16, I double without thinking nonvulnerable at MPs. I might think about it a bit vulnerable or at IMPs.

[helene_t]

akwoo, on 2014-December-24, 17:18, said:

Looking at just the hand and the bidding, before the explanation, assuming a weak 2, I was about to exclaim, "Are you crazy?" (knowing half (well maybe a third) of the forum would also be crazy )

Opposite 12-16, I double without thinking nonvulnerable at MPs. I might think about it a bit vulnerable or at IMPs.

Interesting. Does it matter if it is weak or intermediate? I would balance a bit more aggressively against a weak two, maybe. And I might, by agreement, play WJO against an intermediate two. Maybe overcall lighter, especially if p is a passed hand. But should a direct seat t/o double be different?

[chasetb]

Double, whether it be Weak or Intermediate. If it were a Weak 2M opening however and I had a similar shape, then I would pass.

[akwoo]

helene_t, on 2014-December-24, 17:27, said:

Interesting. Does it matter if it is weak or intermediate? I would balance a bit more aggressively against a weak two, maybe. And I might, by agreement, play WJO against an intermediate two. Maybe overcall lighter, especially if p is a passed hand. But should a direct seat t/o double be different?

Yes - I firmly believe that direct seat actions, and especially doubles, against weak openings should be somewhat sounder, because partner needs to be able to make judgements about whether to invite or whether to bid a game (particularly if 3rd seat acts) more frequently and therefore needs a more precise idea of your strength. Also, balancing seat can act with a weaker hand opposite a weak 2, so you can pass slightly stronger hands knowing that partner will balance appropriately.

This is less important for overcalls because game in that case is likely to depend more on shape and less on strength.

Also, if your criteria for a double are the same against weak as against intermediate 2's, you'll be doubling a much larger percentage of the time against a weak 2, and that seems wrong on general principles of bidding system economy.

It's similar to the principle that direct seat overcalls against a mini or weak NT should be sound (no matter what defense you're using), whereas interventions against a strong NT are much weaker.

Of course this is only useful when you've actually explicitly agreed to this principle (of sound direct seat actions against weak bids) with your partner.

[jillybean]

---

(I've rotated the hand to the actual layout)

-100, next hand please.

[akwoo]

If it's a regular partner, you need to sit down and discuss this one. Either you agree that (a) West doesn't have a takeout double, or you agree that (b) East is only worth 3♠ invitational (keeping in mind that the Q♦ is worthless).

I think (a) is better against intermediate 2's and (b) is better against weak 2's, but any agreement is better than no agreement.

EDIT: Aargh - can't keep track of what I'm typing - see correction below - not correcting here since it would be confusing.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2014-December-24, 23:19, said:

If it's a regular partner, you need to sit down and discuss this one. Either you agree that (a) West doesn't have a takeout double, or you agree that (b) East is only worth 3♠ invitational (keeping in mind that the Q♦ is worthless).

I think (a) is better against intermediate 2's and (b) is better against weak 2's, but any agreement is better than no agreement.

I'm confused, your earlier post said you would double here without thinking about it but now you appear to be saying you think it is better to have an agreement not to double with this hand. Or I've misunderstood your post.

I will be discussing this with my partner.

[akwoo]

Deleted: misread previous post(s).

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2014-December-25, 00:09, said:

I'm confused, your earlier post said you would double here without thinking about it but now you appear to be saying you think it is better to have an agreement not to double with this hand. Or I've misunderstood your post.

I will be discussing this with my partner.

Sorry - I typed the wrong thing.

I think you should agree that East is only worth 3♠ when opponents are playing an intermediate 2.

I think you should agree that West is not worth a takeout double when opponents are playing a weak 2.

I won't correct my earlier post since that would be even more confusing.

[jillybean]

Thank you

[whereagles]

You might try "Lebensohl after a weak 2", in which case pard can bid 3♠ (forcing). What doubler would bid then is another story lol.

[jillybean]

whereagles, on 2014-December-25, 03:45, said:

You might try "Lebensohl after a weak 2", in which case pard can bid 3♠ (forcing). What doubler would bid then is another story lol.

This isn't a weak 2.

[whereagles]

I mean use the same convention you'd use if 2♦ were weak.

Not that it would solve you this particular problem, lol. It might get you off the moysian though.

[wank]

your partner's 4 spade bid is pretty bad. he only has 4 spades. one would think he might find some room between 2d and 4s to explore some other contracts, but it's unrealistic to except him to stop out of game (the Q of D is in no way 'wasted')