[gnasher]

han, on 2013-March-11, 14:30, said:

I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't want to play it that way. What you are saying is probably close to "I'd like to bid on unless you want to defend", but less constructively formulated. I would like to play this double for penalties though.

I probably didn't explain it very well. I meant that the message would be "I was going to bid game to make (or maybe show a strong invitation), I think we have the high card strength to beat this, and I don't know whether we should bid on or not." That's probably the same as an "Ownership" or a "DSIP" double.

LallDonn said:

How would you define the situation in which this agreement applies?

How about this rule: it applies whenever the doubler is unlimited, it's possible for us to have game on, we're not in a forcing pass, and the double isn't defined as something else.

PhilKing said:

I'm going to guess Andy plays it as an 79, where that reflects the percentage of the time partner will leave it in.

That seems like a reasonable number. (By the way, have you inverted your classification method? I thought you defined them in terms of frequency of being taken out.)

The actual hand was approximately:

---

which is remarkably close to one of PhilKing's constructions (though he didn't mention ♣9, which might be important against very good defenders).

I bid 5♥ which made on a black-suit squeeze. Afterwards I commented that I if I'd doubled that would just have said we were making 4♥, and partner would have pulled because of his high ODR. Everyone nodded wisely, but they didn't look completely convinced.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 03:10, said:

I bid 5♥ which made on a black-suit squeeze. Afterwards I commented that I if I'd doubled that would just have said we were making 4♥, and partner would have pulled because of his high ODR. Everyone nodded wisely, but they didn't look completely convinced.

For a start it is non-trivial to make a double in tempo at the table - I'm sure most of us gave this hand some thought that probably exceeded ten seconds.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2013-March-12, 03:55, said:

For a start it is non-trivial to make a double in tempo at the table - I'm sure most of us gave this hand some thought that probably exceeded ten seconds.

Isn't that another argument for playing it as non-penalty? A slow "DSIP" double doesn't convey as much UI as a slow penalty double.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 04:19, said:

Isn't that another argument for playing it as non-penalty? A slow "DSIP" double doesn't convey as much UI as a slow penalty double.

Isn't a slow DSIP double really showing han's penalty double

[lalldonn]

I want to know how gnasher would define it. i'm genuinely curious since it is an idea that may have merit.

[lalldonn]

Oh sorry on my phone i didn't see all the replies. I guess I just don't want to be barred from doubling if I don't have support is the problem.

[jeannief]

What to do if opps bid 6D over 5H.

[dake50]

"Who is righty? What methods do they play?" --PhilKing

*** Who is partner? Does 2H in a 2-suits forcing auction
show 1xS +6+H +no honor save DA under 1D bid? So, C-stuff?
If he is that disciplined, 5H is near to making on our
double fit with crissed shorts.

"I've talked myself into 5♥."

*** Me too.