[helene_t]

Double is just penalty. If you play support doubles, the situation is similar to the more common one in which a new suit was bid in the sandwich: If a reverse is not forcing, GF hands have to make a cue-bid or something like that. If you don't play support doubles but use double to show general strength, it's not so obvious how to handle an overcall in repsonder's suit.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

Double is just penalty. If you play support doubles, the situation is similar to the more common one in which a new suit was bid in the sandwich: If a reverse is not forcing, GF hands have to make a cue-bid or something like that. If you don't play support doubles but use double to show general strength, it's not so obvious how to handle an overcall in repsonder's suit.

I find this reasoning unconvincing - how can I make a penalty double in a suit in which my maximum holding is 3 cards? Pard's bid shows at least 4 and the natural overcall shows usually 6. If pard's holding is xxxx and doubler's is xxx, we won't get rich against overcaller's AKQJxx. It's just a frequency issue - penalty double in this sequence should be so rare as to be on the endangered species list.

When my opponent shows he has more of my partner's suit than does my partner, I really don't see the need for a support double, either. Although they may be on my card, support doubles are not mandatory - common sense still prevails. 4/3 fits with 6/0 trump breaks don't usually fare too well.

Provided that the 4th seat overcall is natural in partner's suit, the only definition of double that makes sense to me is non-penalty, some type of value-showing bid. And this also allows partner to convert with a decent trump holding and no good fits, something that could not be done with a reverse.

When the opponents' actions give you a third option that did not exist prior to their action, it seems unreasonable not to utilize it.

Quote

I can't see having to 'double' with the 2nd hand to create a force. What is pard supposed to do with: xxx, Axxxx, Qxx, xx?

If you define the X as 100% forcing and takeout, you could then use 2N as Lebensohl or if you wanted to retain the natural 2N then just bid 3D.

There are only 2 hand types to consider, actually - the one that is so strong that it must force to game opposite a minimum response and all others. If the hand is not strong enough to force to game, there is no need to create a force - maybe I overemphasized it with 90% - maybe more like 98% forcing, in that unless there is a compelling reason to pass, consider it forcing 1 round. A game forcing hand can always double, jump shift, or cue bid, depending on pattern. If not, then it probably was a 2C opener to begin with.

The advantage to this thinking is that you can compete with the somewhat lesser hands and not be forced to the 3-level if partner has a non-fitting dog.

[helene_t]

No, of course support doubles don't apply in this situation. Let me clarrify:

If you otherwise play support double, it means that a double on another sandwhich overcalls has a specific meaning and cannot be used to show general strength.

Since I assumed that a double in this situation is also used for something specific (namely penalty) you cannot use it as showing general strength either.

But maybe you're right that a penalty double is not a good agreement here.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

No, of course support doubles don't apply in this situation. Let me clarrify:

If you otherwise play support double, it means that a double on another sandwhich overcalls has a specific meaning and cannot be used to show general strength.

Since I assumed that a double in this situation is also used for something specific (namely penalty) you cannot use it as showing general strength either.

But maybe you're right that a penalty double is not a good agreement here.

Sorry....I knew you were way too bright to use this as support - but I didn't understand your meaning...thanks for clarifying.

You are right about my only real point here - with what is virtually always 10 cards between pard and opp, to use double as penalty to me makes little sense. I just am saying let's assign a better usage to double - I was actually surprised to see that so many considered it penalty as it didn't occur to me that opener could possibly want to penalize in this sequence.

[han]

I think 2S is clearly forcing, and I think I would have passed.

I would not pass 1D-1H-1S or 1D-1H-2S.

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Mar 4 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

I think 2S is clearly forcing, and I think I would have passed.

I would not pass 1D-1H-1S or 1D-1H-2S.

If 2S is clearly forcing, how can you pass? It must only be 99% forcing? Maybe a better way to put it is 2S is intended as forcing but may be passed under extreme conditions. But if you pass, Justin passed, and I pass, I don't think the bid can be considered 100% forcing - I've never passed a forcing 2C opener in my life - now that's a forcing bid. Maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but to me if a bid is forcing then pass is not an option, no matter what you hold.

Many play 1D-1H-1S as non-forcing, and whether it is better to pass 1S than try to improve the contract is debatable. Being in the frying pan at the 1-level somehow appeals to me more than being in the fire at the 3-level.

However, 1D-1H-2S is 100% forcing and cannot be passed.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Mar 5 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 4 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

I think 2S is clearly forcing, and I think I would have passed.

I would not pass 1D-1H-1S or 1D-1H-2S.

If 2S is clearly forcing, how can you pass? It must only be 99% forcing? Maybe a better way to put it is 2S is intended as forcing but may be passed under extreme conditions. But if you pass, Justin passed, and I pass, I don't think the bid can be considered 100% forcing - I've never passed a forcing 2C opener in my life - now that's a forcing bid. Maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but to me if a bid is forcing then pass is not an option, no matter what you hold.

It's not really semantics, we all know what the word 'forcing' means. You are simply interpreting the word as a rule imposed on responder, whereas you would be better served in this case considering it as an expectation placed on responder.

I think the main reason this hand is a good candidate for passing a forcing bid is the combination of a total misfit, and of something happening in the auction to make your hand not worth its previous bidding. The 2♥ bid decreases the value of the heart king to the point that the hand is no longer worth the original response, which is what makes pass viable to me.

I frankly think I would have bid 2NT at the table, but like pass better upon hearing about it.

Also, a 2♣ opening bid is completely artificial (whereas this 2♠ a forcing NATURAL bid) and completely unlimited (unlike this hand limited by the failure to open 2♣ in the first place). Hardly a fair comparison.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 5 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

Maybe I'm arguing semantics here,

Yes I think so.

Quote

However, 1D-1H-2S is 100% forcing and cannot be passed.

You've never passed a jumpshift before? I don't see how under your definitions this can be 100 % forcing, partner is limited by his failure to open 2C.

Forcing means partner expects you to not pass. Forcing bids can be made with game in their own hands, including 2S on the given auction. Passing 2S in the given auction is no different than passing a jumpshift, they have the same upper limit.

Either a bid is forcing or it isn't, I don't think a bid can be defined as 90 % forcing, but again we're getting back to semantics.

My whole point in this discussion is that if you want to make a guaranteed, 100% never to be passed forcing bid then why not use double, jump shift with distributional hands, or cue bids?

If you consider the hand types, there are the 19-22 5431 and 4441 patterns that could use double; there are the strong 2-suiters that are 5/6 that could jump shift; and strong; I don't know what would use a cue bid.

The point being that if you use double as a more meaningful bid than penalty, which would be rare in this sequence, then you allow a free bid to be less than that and if it is less than game force it should not be forcing, but invitational.

To my thinking on this sequence, I'd like to be able to bid 2S on a hand such as:
AKxx, x, AQJxx, Qxx and have my partner be able to pass with xxxx, Kxxx, xx, Kxx.

So in essence my argument has not been so much about the forcing nature of 2S but of the poor choice (IMO) of using double as penalty - when double is freed for a better usage, 2S is not needed as a forcing bid.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

You've never passed a jumpshift before? I don't see how under your definitions this can be 100 % forcing, partner is limited by his failure to open 2C.

I ain't winstom, but I ahven't ever passed a jump shift without opposition, and 2 suiters don't open 2C below 25 HCP .