BBO Discussion Forums: PDI against high level preempts - BBO Discussion Forums

So we've been playing Pass Double Inversion after our strong club is preempted to 4H or higher. This means that responder can be doubling or bidding with a 0 count...although with many 0 counts, responder will pass and then convert a reopening double to penalty.

I know awm doesn't care for this agreement and I've had my doubts. Especially with 4N available to responder to show a 2-suited hand, it seems like we're giving up knowing whether responder has anything or not.

And 4M preempts are not uncommon.

What do folks here think about PDI starting at the 5-level? At the 5-level, it's more predictable to know that we can set them (responder can just pass and sit for a reopening double) plus we haven't a 4N bid available to show the 2-suited hands.

PDI replaces forcing passes to create more possibilities to describe one's hand. We use Berkowitz-Cohen's scheme described by Sabine Auken in her book: I Love This Game (pgs. 161 - 164).

The auction you describe: 1♣ (3♠ or higher by the opponent) is not a forcing auction and thus pass by partner is usually negative: No strength (otherwise he would X or bid). Thus, if responder passes, the 1♣ opener knows that responder does not have TO X strength, or suit strength (he would bid naturally). [Unless you have some exotic method to deal with pre-emption.]

PDI would apply in the following auction: 1♣ (p) any bid except 1♦ if playing all responses GF by responder (3♠ or higher by opponent: Now bids by the opener are complicated and depend how high the opponents have bid.

Example: 1♣ (p) 1♠ = natural & GF (4♥) ?

Pass = Asks partner to double (implies no fit)

I'd play pass as non-forcing over 4M, but forcing over higher preempts.

Vs 4H, pass then pull to show spades+minor is useful. Even over 4S, you could use the extra space to differentiate between good and bad 5X bids as well as two-suiters, so it's certainly not clear-cut.

BTW, to me the question, "should we play PDI here?" means, "it's obviously a FP sequence, but should we invert pass and double?". I assume that's not what you meant!

We've read about PDI from Auken's book and use it similarly, but most of our GF auctions follow a 1C-1D sequence (the 1D response is GF and many hands).

So PDI applies after the partnership is in a GF.

However, we've extended the idea to 4M or higher preempts after 1C (4M+) auctions. Obviously we haven't entered into a GF at this point and responder may have zilch. We've reasoned that usually responder will have something and that it's more important to get to the right strain than the right level. So we play PDI as if we were already in a GF.

I'm just starting to doubt this idea because 4M isn't all that high. I think I still like at at the 5-level. Maybe that's bad, too, but it is problematic when responder has a 2-suited hand.

Sounds to me like MickyB would play this at the 5-level, but perhaps not at the 4-level.

For all of my strong club partnerships, 1♣-(4M) is not a forcing pass situation, so PDI can't apply. Do you really want to have to take a constructive call on 0 opposite a hand that may only have a 16 count? If they have shape, they may well have slam on with all your sides high cards placed for them and there own 4M call has preempted them out of it. You should be able to pass naturally and let them cut themselves with their own two-edged sword. If partner is not minimum he still has a call coming. PDI is useful in situations where you are sure to want to bid or double--this isn't one of them.

 mikestar13, on 2012-June-28, 19:14, said:

Well, we've agreed to not start a forcing pass situation for 1C (4M). We're starting instead at 4N. So pretty much the 5-level. Think this is better?