[RSClyde]

MPs

---

Our agreement is that the first double is support and the second penalty. I'm willing to accept that this is perhaps not the best treatment, but let's roll with it for now.
The question is does west have the right to pull? My partner did and I claimed that this could not exist.

I think his position is more intuitive so I will explain mine:
He has already failed to compete to 3♠, my hand is certainly poorer for offense/ better for defense now, so how can a delayed 3♠ be right? We are now less likely to make 3♠ and more likely to beat 3♣.

He had a hand which was very borderline for bidding 3♠ immediately, 5 spades, no clubs and pretty weak. I have no quarrels with doing it or not doing it. But I claim that once you pick one you have to live with it. It's just too much to live in fear of reopening the auction when you simply want to penalize the opponents.

We fought so much about this that we had to stop talking about it and we rarely disagree on things.

[helene_t]

I think West's bidding is consistent with a very weak hand with six spades, assuming that WJS was not available and 3♠ in the previous round would ave shown some values. And also assuming that even though the double is "penalty" it doesn't show a trump stack, rather some balanced 18 count.

E has to double with a 3433 without a club stopper.

So yes, W can pull it.

[nige1]

RSClyde, on 2013-August-23, 07:06, said:

MPs Our agreement is that the first double is support and the second penalty. I'm willing to accept that this is perhaps not the best treatment, but let's roll with it for now.
The question is does west have the right to pull? My partner did and I claimed that this could not exist.
I think his position is more intuitive so I will explain mine:He has already failed to compete to 3♠, my hand is certainly poorer for offense/ better for defense now, so how can a delayed 3♠ be right? We are now less likely to make 3♠ and more likely to beat 3♣.
He had a hand which was very borderline for bidding 3♠ immediately, 5 spades, no clubs and pretty weak. I have no quarrels with doing it or not doing it. But I claim that once you pick one you have to live with it. It's just too much to live in fear of reopening the auction when you simply want to penalize the opponents.
We fought so much about this that we had to stop talking about it and we rarely disagree on things.

---

Like Helene_t, I feel that your partner's pass on the previous round doesn't constrain his present judgement.
e.g ♠ Q J x x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x x ♣ x ?

[RSClyde]

helene_t, on 2013-August-23, 07:15, said:

I think West's bidding is consistent with a very weak hand with six spades, assuming that WJS was not available and 3♠ in the previous round would ave shown some values. And also assuming that even though the double is "penalty" it doesn't show a trump stack, rather some balanced 18 count.

E has to double with a 3433 without a club stopper.

So yes, W can pull it.

We are using a different definition of "penalty". If double shows a balanced 18 count, then I call that "cards". I am fully willing to agree that this is perhaps the best treatment (what else would you do with that hand, whereas with a real penalty, I can just pass and live with it). However when we discussed it, he was not under the impression that it could be that and thought that it was just based on having a reasonable shot at us taking 5 defensive tricks.

If our poor agreement about the meaning of the double is an insurmountable hurdle then I suppose I choose the wrong example to illustrate my question.

I guess I should also allow for the fact that partner's pass could be based on a hand so weak that he was afraid that the opponents had a game and was hoping to go quietly, (if he claimed that I won't object (though not with the hand he had)

[RSClyde]

Let's try this example instead:

---

Let's assume that this double is just penalty. Now west is still allowed to have a variety of possible hands as he has yet to have a chance to act over 3D. My claim is that west can pull this to 3♠ only if he intended to bid 3♠ if east had passed instead. That is, the penalty should never "encourage" bidding.
I claim the following:
There are hands with which west should bid 3♠ whether east doubles or not.
There are hands with which west should pass whether east doubles or not.
There are perhaps, hands with which west should bid 3♠ without the double however he may cancel this plan and sit instead.
However there cannot be a hand which intended to pass 3♦ undoubled, but that wants to run to 3♠ now. 3♠ over 3♦ simply has to look worse now than without the double.

[straube]

I think your partner is right. Especially in balancing seat I think your double should be more cards and with a hand that can't bear partner running you probably should just pass. But even if your agreement is penalty your partner has a fifth spade you don't know about and he's only removing to the 3-level when your support double effectively committed you to the 2-level. This is obviously very different from

1C P 1S (2C)
dbl (3C) P (4C)
dbl

where partner declined to bid 3S and now would have to remove to 4S. This would be a breach of partnership trust. So maybe a rule of thumb is that a double is cooperative/cards if partner can remove one level.

[billw55]

In general I don't believe in absolutes or in barring partner from using his judgment. So in principle, yes he can pull, although he should need a good reason if your agreement is penalty.

[RSClyde]

straube, on 2013-August-23, 08:57, said:

I think your partner is right. Especially in balancing seat I think your double should be more cards and with a hand that can't bear partner running you probably should just pass. But even if your agreement is penalty your partner has a fifth spade you don't know about and he's only removing to the 3-level when your support double effectively committed you to the 2-level. This is obviously very different from

1C P 1S (2C)
dbl (3C) P (4C)
dbl

where partner declined to bid 3S and now would have to remove to 4S. This would be a breach of partnership trust. So maybe a rule of thumb is that a double is cooperative/cards if partner can remove one level.

Assuming that the double is just penalty, which I've admitted is probably the wrong agreement, I'm still not seeing how 3♠ can look right now but not without the double: that's backwards. My hand simply got worse for playing spades and better for defending clubs.
If 3♠ is making then we should bid it right away.
If 3♣ is making and 3♠ is a good save then we should bid 3♠ right away.
If 3♣ is going down then we should definitely pass now.
All that leaves is: 3♣ is making and 3♠ is going down too many. But it's still going down too many. How many matchpoints can be left at this point if we bid? So we need to bid 3♠ so we get -200 instead of -670?
So that out of a 10 top we get a 1 instead of a 0? How can it be right to play for such a disastrous scenario?

[aguahombre]

Another philosophical question. Was the OP question really a question?

[straube]

RSClyde, on 2013-August-23, 14:08, said:

If 3♣ is making and 3♠ is a good save then we should bid 3♠ right away.

I don't think this is right. Partner could be very weak and want out of the auction. As far as he knows, the opponents could be on for 5C. In fact in this particular deal (them bidding your opening suit), you made a support double taking the opponents out of your opening suit instead of passing and hoping partner would double back in...so this limits just how good your clubs really are.

If he had competed to 3S (confirming an 8-cd fit) then you would have been empowered to bid 4S...either to make or as a "good save". So from his point of view letting the opponents play and make 3C might be an acceptable proposition.

After your balancing double...which I think you admit should include value-showing doubles as well as penalty doubles (otherwise what do you do with those hands with values and no clear direction?) he fessed up to having a fifth spade and no defense for a club contract.

I think most people (and your partner) are seeing this differently than you. Good luck wrestling with it and have the last word if you like.

[cherdano]

RSClyde, on 2013-August-23, 08:40, said:

Let's try this example instead:

---

Let's assume that this double is just penalty. Now west is still allowed to have a variety of possible hands as he has yet to have a chance to act over 3D. My claim is that west can pull this to 3♠ only if he intended to bid 3♠ if east had passed instead. That is, the penalty should never "encourage" bidding.
I claim the following:
There are hands with which west should bid 3♠ whether east doubles or not.
There are hands with which west should pass whether east doubles or not.
There are perhaps, hands with which west should bid 3♠ without the double however he may cancel this plan and sit instead.
However there cannot be a hand which intended to pass 3♦ undoubled, but that wants to run to 3♠ now. 3♠ over 3♦ simply has to look worse now than without the double.

I think your logic just doesn't make sense.

Let's say your agreement is that double is penalty, and can never be pulled.
Now partner will make a penalty double whenever he thinks playing 3♦X gives better IMP odds opposite your range of hands than passing, or than trying for game, or than competing to 3♠.
Now you look at your hand, and find ♠QJx, a diamond void, and no values outside. What you should do is figure out whether 3♠ or 3♦X is a better contract opposite the possible penalty doubles partner can have. Just because partner decided that 3♦X is the best choice opposite your possible range of hands, doesn't mean it is best opposite your particular hand, when that hand is very unusual for your possible range of hands.

I also don't agree with your logic that the prospects in our suit are worse when partner made a penalty double - sometimes partner has a lot of values and thinks the penalty is the best shot he has.

[ggwhiz]

I don't play support doubles and hate them but when the opps are trying to play at the 3-level in the suit your partner opened passing the double is a no brainer.

A club void is a big plus on defense (partners trump stack) and a big minus on offence and pulling it is an insult that needs to be saved until after they make it. You can pull such a double to game on some different scenarios but you need to make it or apologize.

[gnasher]

I think your first example was better than your second. Bridge is a partnership game, and I don't like concepts like "not having the right" to bid, but your argument that at matchpoints 3♠ doesn't exist seems reasonable.

In the second example, responder has a much wider range of hands, so it's possible to imagine hands where trying to make 3♠ is a better bet than trying to beat 3♦x.

[RSClyde]

I think that both Cherdono and Gnasher both misread my second example: I didn't say that 3♠X couldn't be pulled, rather that it can only be pulled by a hand that intended to compete to 3♠ had partner passed instead of doubling. So with, say, a 4th trump or 3 spades and a stiff diamond, you would bid 3♠ anyway. If anything, it might cause you to choose to defend when you would have otherwise bid, but never conversely.

[RSClyde]

cherdano, on 2013-August-23, 15:06, said:

I also don't agree with your logic that the prospects in our suit are worse when partner made a penalty double - sometimes partner has a lot of values and thinks the penalty is the best shot he has.

Perhaps I use terminology differently than others, I call that a card showing double, though it may contain 5 top tricks conceivably, the hand is flexible in function. Versus a pure penalty which contains very inflexible cards and just expresses the view that the opponents made a mistake. I meant that we played it as the second kind. So by that double I'm more likely to have more clubs and stronger clubs, which has to decrease the total available tricks.

[cherdano]

Say your agreement is that a double of a 4♠ opening is penalty. RHO opens 4♠. You hold xxx AKx AKx AKxx. Your bid?

[RSClyde]

cherdano, on 2013-August-23, 17:45, said:

Say your agreement is that a double of a 4♠ opening is penalty. RHO opens 4♠. You hold xxx AKx AKx AKxx. Your bid?

Everyone doubles with that, your agreement just dictates much latitude partner has. Clearly when I hold such a hand I want to express flexibility whereas a hand that is good for defense and nothing else is rare and the double perhaps less important.
That's why I don't describe that double as penalty. Against high level opening preempts doubles are "cards".
There is a clear distinction between that hand and QTxx Axxx xx Axx. If you are doubling with the latter hand then I assume that partner sits with virtually any hand, I don't think that's a wise way to do it, but that's what I assume "penalty" means. If we're not doubling with the hand that I gave then we simply aren't playing the double as penalty but rather as cards or takeout.
If you're claim is that card showing doubles are more important in X situation, I may well agree. However my initial post was assuming that the double was just penalty and not cards.

[cherdano]

BUT EVEN IF YOUR PARTNER SITS WITH ANY HAND, IT IS STILL BEST TO DOUBLE WITH xxx AKx AKx AKxx!
But nothing to worry about, I certainly won't reply to your posts again.

[RSClyde]

cherdano, on 2013-August-23, 19:40, said:

BUT EVEN IF YOUR PARTNER SITS WITH ANY HAND, IT IS STILL BEST TO DOUBLE WITH xxx AKx AKx AKxx!
But nothing to worry about, I certainly won't reply to your posts again.

I'm pretty sure that my post started "Everyone doubles with that, your agreement just dictates much latitude partner has."
Does that not count because it's not in all caps?

[barmar]

If you can double with either xxx AKx AKx AKxx or QTxx Axxx xx Axx, what is partner supposed to do with void QJxxx Qxxx QJxx? It's practically a cold grand opposite the first hand, so he'd better not leave the double in, but requires two finesses to make 5♥ opposite the second.