[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2014-February-27, 05:11, said:

In my view it never happens and is actually a problem because partner's bid often preempt our slam try (if it's higher suit) or makes it impossible for him to make sensible decision in the first place (because he doesn't know what our pass means he just knows it's some good hand but doesn't know which).
You are aiming at very specific situation where partner bids not knowing which kind of encouraging hand you have and that this somehow helps you when you have a slam try. While it is possible for that to happen you are missing on much bigger target: partner not knowing what our pass means is unable to compete sensibly on hands he wants to compete.

Let me say that playing standard I very much support the view that a Forcing Pass at a high level is not encouraging (in the context of the bidding so far) but neutral.
It is only encouraging in the sense that I did not discourage further bidding with a double.
I leave the decision to partner whether to defend or go on.
All else being equal this should happen about 50% of the time since on average partner will be in at least as good a position to decide for the partnership than me, whether we should defend or go on.
Partner should never assume I have a slam try, because if that exists I will overrule him anyway.
So partner acts on the assumption I am undecided.
I understand when opponents preempt that there is guesswork, but partner should not have any doubt about the meaning of my pass.
It says I am uncertain what is best for us, maybe you do.
His decision should usually help me when I got a slam try.
If he doubles this should damp my slam aspirations. On the other side, if he keeps bidding so should I.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

In an auction where our possible actions distinguish between three ranges of offensive strength, we can play either:

Pass = medium or good
Double = bad

or

Pass = bad or good
Double = medium

In an auction where one of the actions offers a choice of strains, we can play either:

Pass = good or choice of strains
Double = bad

or

Pass = bad or good
Double = choice of strains

In both categories of auction, isn't the second method obviously better?

[Fluffy]

bluecalm, on 2014-February-27, 05:11, said:

The question is what is natural and what isn't.
I've never understood why say:
1H - p - 1S - 3C
dbl is for takeout but:

1S -p - 2H - 3C
dbl becomes penalty

etc.
Here is simple natural rule:
"If we didn't set trumps double is for takeout".
Meanwhile: "double is for penalty when pass if forcing but t/o otherwise unless we established a fit then it's penalty as well, oh and also, do you play 3C 3S 5C p as forcing partner (because meaning of the double depends on it)?" requires a lot of agreements and adjusting.
I would say that if anything "classical" agreements are source of misunderstandings. Playing my simple rule you can manage even if you don't know if pass if forcing (worst case scenario is that you lose a slam try).

Its because some people find easier to remember this other rule:

If pass is forcing, double is penalty.

This doesn't need to be better nor worse than your rule.

[bluecalm]

Quote

No, the worst cases are:
- You pass with a slam try, and partner passes it out because he thinks it was non-forcing.
- You pass thinking it's non-forcing, partner thinks it's a forcing-pass situation and doubles, you think that's for takeout and you take it out, partner thinks it's a slam try and bids slam.

There's no substitute for knowing your methods.

By "lose a slam try" I meant that if you are not sure you bid something and go along.
If you are not sure playing standard methods you are basically screwed as you really need to know if your weak hand doubles now or passes say in infamous:
3C - 3S - 5C - ? which many people play as FP situation when we are vuln and they are not.

Playing the inversion if you are not sure if it's FP situation you are way more comfortable because double always means the same thing.

Quote

Its because some people find easier to remember this other rule:

If pass is forcing, double is penalty.

Even world players often have misunderstanding if it's FP situation or not. It's the best to have clear rules about where P is forcing but people don't and/or exceptions arise. If you allow for possibility tha sometimes situation you didn't discuss arises and it's not 100% clear if he pass is forcing then standard agreements are very risky while inversion isn't.

Quote

This doesn't need to be better nor worse than your rule.

I gave arguments why it's worse theoretically and there is no argument against it so far other that sometimes you find it useful having a slam try that partner bids something (and didn't preempt your slam try in the process).
I also gave arguments why it's more risky if are not 100% sure that every FP situation is discussed.

Also there are a lot of low level situation where even the biggest followers of "FP is forcing dbl is for penalty" change agreements because there it's just way worse to play dbl = penalty, for example:

1H - dbl - rdbl - 2S
Here pass as forcing is just inferior agreement as you really want partner having t/o double as his hand is about always balanced and he will be struggling for a bid once it's passed to him.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-February-27, 07:29, said:

In both categories of auction, isn't the second method obviously better?

No, nothing is obvious here to me.
Rainer Herrmann

[MinorKid]

Do reminded me one hand that was easy but could be an example.

---

Easy? But what if North responded 2♣ instead of 2♦ with 4-4 minors?

[MrAce]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-26, 09:45, said:

You are missing the point Timo. I was talking about the inversion where passing shows either a hand that wants to penalise or a slam try. Doubling instead would be the way of asking partner to decide. This was answering Rainer's question about why the inversion is better.

My bad, sorry.