[kenrexford]

I got to thinking. That can be dangerous.

The joke is often that 1NT-P-P-? is forcing if white on white. Suppose that you take this as a given.

There is a potential space gainer with that assumption for direct seat. Direct seat after a white-on-white 1NT opening could switch the meanings of a double and a pass, where a double essentially says, "nothing to bid here." The obvious downsides are that we are now forced to enter the auction somehow, which might be a disaster, and that we give the opponents, in theory, another call (redouble). Another downside is restricting options for pass-out seat (he would have had more space after Pass-Pass). The upside, however, is that a forcing pass after a 1NT opening allows Advancer the option of doubling, which allows another important level of unwind for the direct seat forcing passer. That one small level is extremely powerful.

I have not taken any time to imagine what kind of unwind after a forcing pass might have merit, as I just now conceptualized the idea. But, this might in theory be interesting to develop.

The same principle could be applied to other sequences, like a white-on-white bid and raise of a major.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-04, 07:33, said:

The joke is often that 1NT-P-P-? is forcing if white on white. Suppose that you take this as a given.

I think that this would be a significant advance in bidding science, so long as you fail to disclose your methods to the opponents.

A couple decades back, there was a guy at the MIT bridge club nick named Binkly.
Binkly would balance over a 2M opening on a wing and a prayer.
He'd NEVER let you play in 2♠

One day, white on red, I heard partner open 1S. Binkly passed in direct seat, and I had to chose a bid holding something like

♠ Ax
♥ KQxxx
♦ KQx
♣ KQx

I decided to have some fun, and bid 2♠, which got passed over to Binkley.
Sure enough, Binkley balanced with 2NT. And I started doubling.

I suspect that any system that forces a double in the balancing seat can be easily exploited.

[ggwhiz]

A similar situation happened to me when an opponent had announced at the bar the night before that after 2nt - p - p double was mandatory at MP's and we had that auction with my partner (who was also at the bar) passing my 2nt with a flat 9 count.

By all means flesh it out and I think we can demonstrate a half life of about 1.

[Free]

Back in the days when I played penalty doubles after 1NT intervention, we played against a pair that never passed out 1NT. Partner opened a weak NT (12-14) and I passed quickly with 14HCP. LHO bid something (they played DONT, and even with a 4333 they would bid 2 something) and got hammered. One week later it was the first time I've seen them pass out 1NT

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 07:44, said:

I think that this would be a significant advance in bidding science, so long as you fail to disclose your methods to the opponents.

A couple decades back, there was a guy at the MIT bridge club nick named Binkly.
Binkly would balance over a 2M opening on a wing and a prayer.
He'd NEVER let you play in 2♠

One day, white on red, I heard partner open 1S. Binkly passed in direct seat, and I had to chose a bid holding something like

♠ Ax
♥ KQxxx
♦ KQx
♣ KQx

I decided to have some fun, and bid 2♠, which got passed over to Binkley.
Sure enough, Binkley balanced with 2NT. And I started doubling.

I suspect that any system that forces a double in the balancing seat can be easily exploited.

I agree, this is a most amusing suggestion. Many years ago there was a comic article in TBW about precisely such an occurrence.

[Fluffy]

I've had this hand 2 times, 4432 with 3 aces and out. Partner opening 1♦ precision and raising my 1♥ response to 2♥ showing a balanced 11-13 with 4♥. I quickly passed and doubled them in 2♠ to collect 200 and 500.

[ahydra]

Against a weak NT, I'd be quite interested in seeing if there's any merit to doubling a bit lighter (say 13 HCP) after 1NT-p-p. Probably only good when opps are green though.

ahydra

[CamHenry]

ahydra, on 2014-March-05, 04:21, said:

Against a weak NT, I'd be quite interested in seeing if there's any merit to doubling a bit lighter (say 13 HCP) after 1NT-p-p. Probably only good when opps are green though.

ahydra

Matt and I have, for a long time, played that a balancing double of 1NT is 11+. This sometimes means we miss out on a huge penalty when 4th seat has a 20-count, but I think it's a net positive especially at MPs.

[Zelandakh]

How many opponents who do play an obligatory double in cases like that described by ggwhiz actually alert the forcing pass? I have certainly never seen it and the problem is that until it comes up they can do it without ever being detected. And when it does come up it almost never gets reported so it continues.

[barmar]

I think any system where players always do something in response to particular opponent actions can be exploited. Where this most often comes up in discussion is when people suggest that you should always double in the auction 2NT-P-P. It's true that when responder has a legitimate pass, the contract usually doesn't make. But if you know the opponents will double, it becomes automatic to psyche a pass with a good hand.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago there was a strong pass system named Marmic. All strong hands were "opened" with a pass in 1st and 2nd seats, and the partner of the strong pass player had to open the bidding regardless of the strength of his hand.

It is my understanding that the demise of the Marmic system came about when players started making trap passes over the forcing pass and inflicted some significant penalties when 3rd or 4th seat opened the bidding.

[WellSpyder]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-05, 09:29, said:

Many years ago there was a strong pass system named Marmic. All strong hands were "opened" with a pass in 1st and 2nd seats, and the partner of the strong pass player had to open the bidding regardless of the strength of his hand.

It is my understanding that the demise of the Marmic system came about when players started making trap passes over the forcing pass and inflicted some significant penalties when 3rd or 4th seat opened the bidding.

It sounds just as sensible as this strategy against Marmic, to make trap passes over a strong 1♣ and then seek to penalise when responder keeps the bidding open. Do you think Precision pairs would be seriously inconvenienced by this?

Some people do indeed pass over a strong 1♣ with a good hand, but that is to distinguish these hands from the rubbish they want to bid with straight away, not because of the chance of a worthwhile penalty.

[ArtK78]

WellSpyder, on 2014-March-05, 10:22, said:

It sounds just as sensible as this strategy against Marmic, to make trap passes over a strong 1♣ and then seek to penalise when responder keeps the bidding open. Do you think Precision pairs would be seriously inconvenienced by this?

Some people do indeed pass over a strong 1♣ with a good hand, but that is to distinguish these hands from the rubbish they want to bid with straight away, not because of the chance of a worthwhile penalty.

Except that, in Marmic, many hands which were non-openers also passed in 1st & 2nd seat. So, you could have a weak hand making a forcing pass in 1st or 2nd seat and his partner being forced to open the bidding.

[WellSpyder]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-05, 11:40, said:

Except that, in Marmic, many hands which were non-openers also passed in 1st & 2nd seat. So, you could have a weak hand making a forcing pass in 1st or 2nd seat and his partner being forced to open the bidding.

OK, that makes a difference! (I didn't appreciate this from your earlier description of the system.)

[helene_t]

I wonder what a double in balancing seat should mean. As I understand it, it classically shows a stronger penalty double than in direct seat, presumably because you are handicapped by sitting under declarer and by partner probably leading the wrong suit. But then I encountered some younger players that like to balanced with balanced 12-counts for some reason.

Maybe it should have an anchor suit so that partner knows what to lead if he chooses to leave it - but then again, showing an anchor suit also makes it easier for opener's partner to decide whether to run.