[gwnn]

1m-p-2m-(2M)
X

does it matter if there were passes before the opening bid? what the suits are?

late edit: 2m was inverted, denying a 4cM

[jtfanclub]

I'm used to this being reverse strength, not particularly takeout or penalty.

We'll see what standard is.

Edit: I posted before the late edit.

[jdonn]

Penalty

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Sep 4 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

Penalty

I would says it's PENALTY. (Note I didn't use big letters, just capitals.)

[pclayton]

Cards-->penalty.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Cards-->penalty.

What is this, meaning approaches penalty as cards approach infinity? Now we have to take calculus to know how Phil plays his doubles

[mikeh]

penalty

I can't see the upside of any other treatment, given that we know that responder isn't making a pure penalty double when we pass, and that pass by us is forcing... why not express our strong view, and strong holding, now? If pass by us were not forcing, then an extra-values no clear direction double makes a lot more sense. As it is, we can pass with that hand.

We don't want to pass when loaded for bear: there will be some hands on which we can sting them opposite as little as a stiff x in partner's hand, and yet he won't reopen with double since his double would invite our passing on lesser defensive holdings.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Sep 4 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Cards-->penalty.

What is this, meaning approaches penalty as cards approach infinity? Now we have to take calculus to know how Phil plays his doubles

Or statistics.

--> is pretty vague. I'll defer to the mathematicians for what the accepted definition should be, but I can think of:

X --> Y as a mapping
X --> Y as converging (in probabilty, almost surely, in distribution, etc.)
X --> Y as a limit (Josh's interpretation?)

Maybe it's a direction? Cards if East or RHO, penalty otherwise.

[Lobowolf]

Echognome, on Sep 4 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

--> is pretty vague. I'll defer to the mathematicians for what the accepted definition should be, but I can think of:

X --> Y as a mapping
X --> Y as converging (in probabilty, almost surely, in distribution, etc.)
X --> Y as a limit (Josh's interpretation?)

Maybe it's a direction? Cards if East or RHO, penalty otherwise.

Quote

--> is pretty vague.  I'll defer to the mathematicians for what the accepted definition should be, but I can think of:

X --> Y as a mapping
X --> Y as converging (in probabilty, almost surely, in distribution, etc.)
X --> Y as a limit (Josh's interpretation?)

Maybe it's a direction?  Cards if East or RHO, penalty otherwise.

Playing it as purely cards eliminates all amibguity, and puts the endplay squarely on partner, where it belongs.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 4 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Cards-->penalty.

What is this, meaning approaches penalty as cards approach infinity? Now we have to take calculus to know how Phil plays his doubles

You need to think of more creative ways to win the post-mortem Josh.

Indecipherable signals in your definitions of treatments is a good start

--> means "through" by the way.

[skjaeran]

Penallty, I think we've nailed them!

[brianshark]

Once we've found our fit, double tends to be penalty-oriented. Should have 4 decent cards in their Major, suggests pard pass unless very shapely.

[mike777]

"Once we've found our fit, double tends to be penalty-oriented"





Such a simple statement but I bet for many nonexperts filled with wisdom with all of these confusing doubles.

[firmit]

I would also say this is neither this nor that. With a pick up partner, I would probably say penalty.

In my partnership, the most aggressive bid opener's got, when not pulling his arm (read:when forced ) - is PASS. Double tends to show a minimum hand suggesting penalty if partner's gotten some values - asking him to double. However, I am thinking that this position should be penalty - how else do you show interest and values in their suit?

Also - I like mike777's quote! (sorry - bad at remembering names)

[P_Marlowe]

X is penalty, since pass is forcing.

The forcing nature of pass gets a little bit problematic /
is open for discussion, if the inv. minor raise was made
by a passed hand.
Because now you can argue, that the inv. raise does not
force the partnership to play at least 2NT / 3m, but I think
that those are finer points, ... I wont discuss those points
with partner unless we have already solved our major
issues.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on Sep 4 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

1m-p-2m-(2M)
X

late edit: 2m was inverted, denying a 4cM

This is penalty, given that pass is forcing. (Unless you have special other agreements on forcing pass sequences.)

Quote

does it matter if there were passes before the opening bid?

There are two ways to approach this:
1) Double is 'even clearer penalty' since not only has a fit been established, responder has also limited his hand and opener is captain of the auction.

2) An inverted minor by a passed hand shows a good hand, but is not forcing. (By definition, a passed hand cannot force the bidding on a minimum opener.) You could then play that a pass of 2M is not forcing. Then double would show extra values, with no direction, suggesting a penalty. (Feel free to call it "Cards-->penalty" )

Quote

does it matter what the suits are?

Hardly.

Rik

[Trinidad]

It looks like I should start playing with Marlowe.

Rik

[pclayton]

gwnn, on Sep 4 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

1m-p-2m-(2M)
X

does it matter if there were passes before the opening bid? what the suits are?

late edit: 2m was inverted, denying a 4cM

I didn't see the note about inverted. Should have known it was coming from Csaba, in spite of the late edit.

Agree then with penalty. This is no different than doubling someone with the audacity to step into our 2/1 sequence.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Sep 5 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

I didn't see the note about inverted. Should have known it was coming from Csaba, in spite of the late edit.

Was a much better question before the edit.

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 5 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

I didn't see the note about inverted. Should have known it was coming from Csaba, in spite of the late edit.

Was a much better question before the edit.

LOL yeah - then I still go with the 'cards' interpretation.