tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7181380552290465298.post1780655407604514846..comments2024-03-14T18:02:56.265-04:00Comments on Robin's Bridge Blog: Penalty Doubles (part 1)Phasmidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09870140728729031615noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7181380552290465298.post-54109441393657575852012-04-17T16:40:30.370-04:002012-04-17T16:40:30.370-04:00Thanks for the kind words. And isn't "th...Thanks for the kind words. And isn't "the good Doctor" just a great guy, not withstanding your minor disagreement?<br /><br />I like the idea of the gamble double. I'm a sucker for gadgets. One double that really needs to become standard in my opinion is the double of a splinter. Not much point in having that suit led. So the scheme of higher/lower suit makes sense. Trouble is which is which? And does your partner do it the same way?Phasmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09870140728729031615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7181380552290465298.post-76721186696036960112012-04-17T15:32:49.058-04:002012-04-17T15:32:49.058-04:00Robin,
Had it been me at the table, a 2S card w...Robin,<br /><br /> Had it been me at the table, a 2S card would likely have hit the table. I was given the hand as jury and executioner by the guy who WAS at the table in the questionable seat. As I argued at the time, the occcurences of declarer having one or no (admit, we've all seen it happen) stopper and a non-running long suit crop up considerably more than having a stack in one of the other two suits (a heart stack is barely possible) and using a double for that RARE occasion. Plus, the double has to be successful, besides lead-inducing. And this from somebody who wrote up a little idea for Bridge World last century that a direct double of a cue-bid of my bid suit specifically means I have a specific defence (shortness on the side, usually) in mind that includes NOT leading my suit. (GAMBLE DOUBLE, back in the 70's, can't remember specific issue). And I've actually talked about this kind of situation with the good Doctor and he and I disagree on this issue, even though I think it's open and shut my way. 'Course, a lot of words spent on a once-a-decade situation reveals something about bridge players. Don't know what, but something.<br /><br />Please continue with your fascinating series. There's a book somewhere in the future. An EBook. Please.Gary Mugfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12373692715883477861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7181380552290465298.post-1772941426778563172012-04-16T13:21:26.155-04:002012-04-16T13:21:26.155-04:00This is probably the most interesting and controve...This is probably the most interesting and controversial lead-directing double situation, and not explicitly covered above, where I only address suit contracts. [I thought I'd covered doubles of 3NT way back in one of these blogs but I couldn't find it.] "Standard" treatment of double says "lead my suit anyway, partner," and that's clearly what's right here. George Rosenkranz and others suggest the opposite meaning, however: "I never got the chance to bid the suit I really like (clubs in this case) - so please lead one of them." That meaning would of course only prevail after an explicit agreement.<br />On general principles, it seems clear that partner is close to bust on this auction so there can't be any other sensible lead other than a spade anyway - you're the only one with any chance of setting up and enjoying long tricks. At IMPs, anyway, I think a spade lead should be automatic but admittedly it might not be right at MPs. That's why there's so much room for debate.<br />BTW, you might have helped partner out a bit with a 2S bid at your second turn.Phasmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09870140728729031615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7181380552290465298.post-85694470547988035062012-04-16T02:42:00.718-04:002012-04-16T02:42:00.718-04:00Robin,
In light of your comment about experts ...Robin, <br /><br /> In light of your comment about experts invoking a rule to use double to deny leading your previously bid suit, I wonder if you feel that should carry on in the following situation:<br /><br /> Everybody's a decent player in this club duplicate game. You're playing with somebody for about the third time. The other pair are good and have a bit of a reputation as operators. Young punks in other words. BUT, you aren't sure your partner knows that. You're first to speak with everybody white and bid 1S. The action then goes ...<br /><br />1S 2D P 2H<br />P 3N P P<br />?<br /><br /> Whatever meaning would the following bids have at this point in the auction:<br /> X?<br /> P?<br /><br /> Accepting the negative-lead implications of a double against a suit contract is one thing. Against a 3NT call? I wonder if there are differences, especially here with declarer having a long suit and a stopper. Probably.<br /><br /> For sure, not having an agreement beforehand is going to lead to an unhappy result for a wrong guess. But the secondary result of invoking the agreement outlined above is, what suit should partner lead assuming he knows which of X and P represent commands to lead a non-spade suit?<br /><br /> For the record, opener had six spades to the KQJ10xx KJ A 9832.Gary Mugfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12373692715883477861noreply@blogger.com