Good opposition, East is one of your regular partners and you know him to be aggressive.
What went wrong?
#1
Posted 2015-November-10, 18:12
Good opposition, East is one of your regular partners and you know him to be aggressive.
#2
Posted 2015-November-10, 18:31
#3
Posted 2015-November-10, 18:46
broze, on 2015-November-10, 18:31, said:
It could also be scattered balanced values, pass over 2M is non-forcing.
#4
Posted 2015-November-10, 22:44
So, it is not the agreement, it is South's judgement that went wrong.
Side note: This might have been a good hand for South to plan a pass followed by an unusual 2NT. We happen to have that tool as a passed hand even if it is Partner who opens 1M.
#5
Posted 2015-November-11, 02:50
George Carlin
#6
Posted 2015-November-11, 03:17
I do not mind opening such hands, but if you do, you should not leave your partner in the rain.
This is what you see all the time. People take initial aggressive action and then chicken out, like passing forcing sequences etc.
I think also that North doubles are typical.
You can name them as you like, but in the end they show cards. The best description of doubles after opponents (jump)raise each other is Power doubles.
This is what North had and what he wanted to describe.
Penalty?
How often will you hold a big trump stack after such bidding?
Rainer Herrmann
#7
Posted 2015-November-11, 03:35
The agreement "Penalties of at least one suit" would be awful if that's what the agreement was, but I'm not convinced that anyone plays that in reality. If someone claims to play this method, ask them what they'd do with Qxx xxx AJx KQxx.
#8
Posted 2015-November-11, 04:49
On a related note, I can strongly recommend the agreement that if responder passes over the cuebid and then doubles a suit on the next round it is strict penalties. This gives them an option on hands that really are stacked in the opponents suits and playing this double as t/o doesn't make a lot of sense.
#9
Posted 2015-November-11, 05:22
South would certainly not double with a singleton hearts and often not with a doubleton. So it's not like his pass suggests zero defense.
Now North is saying that we can defend if South has a somewhat suitable hand. He hasn't so he must pull.
North doesn't have 5-5 in the majors. If he had, he would have passed initially, as Aqua says. I suppose 3-5 is possible, in that case it is bad luck.
#10
Posted 2015-November-11, 07:11
#11
Posted 2015-November-11, 08:20
gnasher, on 2015-November-11, 03:35, said:
The agreement "Penalties of at least one suit" would be awful if that's what the agreement was, but I'm not convinced that anyone plays that in reality. If someone claims to play this method, ask them what they'd do with Qxx xxx AJx KQxx.
Well I play this method, but I play the the next double is t/o not pen. So on a hand like this south should dble (for t/o) if he is happy to sit 3Hx, and so his pass would tell north that he had no interest in in 3hx. If north dbled it would be t/o or values.