[gwnn]

AJTx
xx
xxx
Qxxx

imps fav.

1♦-1♠-1NT-2♠
3♣-p-p-3♠
p-p-?

whether or not you double, what do you lead?

[Double !]

You rang?


DHL

[jillybean]

♦x

[gwnn]

hey don and kathryn so would you double?

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Aug 19 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

AJTx
xx
xxx
Qxxx

imps fav.

1♦-1♠-1NT-2♠
3♣-p-p-3♠
p-p-?

whether or not you double, what do you lead?

a minor with a slight preference for a ♣

[TylerE]

!C x, and no, I don't double. Partner saw me bid 1NT, didn't he? Reverse the clubs and hearts and it's closer.

[skjaeran]

I'm not doubling, sounds like there's quite a lot of distribution out there.

Trying to shorten declarer's trumps, I lead my longest side suit, hence a low club.

[Phil]

I don't double.

Club lead is clear. There's something called a 'tap' that all BI's should become familiar with

[Double !]

Csaba: 2 rules of thumb for imps that I've been told repeatedly:

1) When in doubt, avoid big swings as much as possible. You can tolerate small swings.

2) Avoid doubling the opponents into game as much as possible (i.e.: almost never), and do so only when you are absolutely sure: when you are reasonably sure that the contract to go down 2 or more tricks. Even then, rethink before doubling. Doubling for a 1-trick set, while often clear at match points, is risky at imps.

I would not double! I would either pass or raise to 4C.
I'm not even sure that you are beating 3SX or, if you are, it's not clear that it will be for more than a trick. The opponents, unless they are oblivious, see the vulnerability and have heard you already show stuff in spades by your 1NT response. Partner is 2-suited and, likely with 3 or less hearts and no spades and, i suspect, the opps have some distribution, too.

Club lead is my choice, too.

DHL

[Fluffy]

double fit I wouldn't even double 4.

tempted to bid 4 clubs really and I think I would at match points.

I'd lead a club

[jillybean]

gwnn, on Aug 19 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

hey don and kathryn so would you double?

I’d love to double, if the opps weren’t experts I would.

Phil, on Aug 19 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

I don't double.

Club lead is clear. There's something called a 'tap' that all BI's should become familiar with

Tell me more, perhaps in a new thread.

[vuroth]

I don't double.

Upon reflection, I despise 4♣. Partner is likely shortish in hearts, so they've got a nice double fit. I'd really rather not put them in any game at all if I can help it, because I think 5m will be awful.

I strongly believe that a club lead is right, but I'm in the dark on Phil's tip.

[quiddity]

Phil, on Aug 19 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Club lead is clear. There's something called a 'tap' that all BI's should become familiar with

Why do you think this is a tap hand and not a "stop the minor-suit cross-ruff" hand? Even if it is a tap hand, dummy bid 3S instead of passing out 3C. Isn't it reasonable to assume that dummy is ruffing clubs and that a diamond would be a better choice to tap declarer?

[Phil]

quiddity, on Aug 19 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 19 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Club lead is clear. There's something called a 'tap' that all BI's should become familiar with

Why do you think this is a tap hand and not a "stop the minor-suit cross-ruff" hand? Even if it is a tap hand, dummy bid 3S instead of passing out 3C. Isn't it reasonable to assume that dummy is ruffing clubs and that a diamond would be a better choice to tap declarer?

Yes you are right. We should lead a trump from this holding to stop the 'cross-ruff'.

[bid_em_up]

Phil's tip (tap) is the equivalent of playing a "forcing" game. This is where you "force" declarer to ruff in the long trump hand to make his trump length less than or equal to your trump length, so that eventually you can draw declarers trump and then cash your side suit winners.

quiddity @ Aug 19 2009, on 01:58 PM, said:

Isn't it reasonable to assume that dummy is ruffing clubs and that a diamond would be a better choice to tap declarer?

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. And if we are positive that partner is 5+♦ 4♣ I might agree with you. Unfortunately, partner may well be 4♦ 5♣ on this hand which makes clubs the most likely suit that a force will be available in. The other reason for still choosing clubs is that if partner is 5♦-4♣, I want to force declarer in our SHORTER suit, allowing more diamond tricks to be cashed after drawing trumps.

I double. I lead a club. It won't be the first time I've had a doubled part-score made against me, but the vulnerable penalty is just too juicy at IMP's to pass up. I expect to beat this by at least two tricks unless partner is yanking my chain with some 5-5 rule of 20 opening bid, and if he was I hope he has enough sense to complete his hand pattern by bidding 4C.

jmoo.

[Cascade]

Way too many minor cards for a double.

I lead a minor.

We have an honour in clubs and and partner should have five for her 3♣ so I lead a club.

With a double fit it could well be that we should have been bidding here. Although against that is the possibility that the opponents have 10 tricks.

[Cascade]

bid_em_up, on Aug 20 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

Phil's tip (tap) is the equivalent of playing a "forcing" game. This is where you "force" declarer to ruff in the long trump hand to make his trump length less than or equal to your trump length, so that eventually you can draw declarers trump and then cash your side suit winners.

quiddity @ Aug 19 2009, on 01:58 PM, said:

Isn't it reasonable to assume that dummy is ruffing clubs and that a diamond would be a better choice to tap declarer?

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. And if we are positive that partner is 5+♦ 4♣ I might agree with you. Unfortunately, partner may well be 4♦ 5♣ on this hand which makes clubs the most likely suit that a force will be available in. The other reason for still choosing clubs is that if partner is 5♦-4♣, I want to force declarer in our SHORTER suit, allowing more diamond tricks to be cashed after drawing trumps.

I double. I lead a club. It won't be the first time I've had a doubled part-score made against me, but the vulnerable penalty is just too juicy at IMP's to pass up. I expect to beat this by at least two tricks unless partner is yanking my chain with some 5-5 rule of 20 opening bid, and if he was I hope he has enough sense to complete his hand pattern by bidding 4C.

jmoo.

I think 3♣ pretty much shows 5/5. Maybe 6/4 is good enough.

[bid_em_up]

Cascade, on Aug 19 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

I think 3♣ pretty much shows 5/5. Maybe 6/4 is good enough.

Really? And X Axx AKxxx AJxx is supposed to do what? Pass? Double 2S*? Jump to 4C bypassing 3N? Bid 3N directly and miss a possible club slam?

Get real. It does not have to be 5/5 or 6/4.

*your methods may call for an X of 2S. However, this is the BIL forum and I would not expect this to be a standard treatment here.

[Cascade]

bid_em_up, on Aug 20 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 19 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

I think 3♣ pretty much shows 5/5.  Maybe 6/4 is good enough.

Really? And X Axx AKxxx AJxx is supposed to do what? Pass? Double 2S*? Jump to 4C bypassing 3N? Bid 3N directly and miss a possible club slam?

Get real. It does not have to be 5/5 or 6/4.

*your methods may call for an X of 2S. However, this is the BIL forum and I would not expect this to be a standard treatment here.

Obviously you need a partnership agreement.

I am not sure what is standard for double here. I would have thought takeout. If so I would be more than happy doubling with your example hand. That seems much more flexible than 3♣ which you are suggesting. With aces and partner having already shown a spade stopper a lucrative penalty seems possible and 3♣ gives up on that. Note that it is unlikely that partner will bid 3♥ our three-card suit in response to our takeout double since with a hand with hearts partner might have made a takeout double over 1♠.

Yes it is likely that we have a fit when they bid and raise spades although that is far from certain. Bidding a 5=4 hand this way in competition seems unnecessarily dangerous to me.

I assume since your example is only 16 HCP that 3♣ for you is not forcing. This seems sensible. We could easily have a part-score . A partscore for us is much more likely if we have extra distribution so I definitely want to be competing here with 5/5 hands with only moderate strength. I mean partner is hardly going to introduce a 3-card minor in the passout seat. With less distribution but the values to compete I am very happy making a competitive double rather than introducing a four-card suit.

The last time I remember my opponents introducing such a suit at the three-level on a similar auction with 16 HCP we carved them up for 1100 or 1400. They have probably done better since but it is less memorable. Nevertheless this is the danger that we subject ourselves to when we introduce weak suits at higher levels on unsuitable hands.

[neilkaz]

I pass here as each opp could be quite short in a minor so I want better chances to pummel them when doubling them into game at IMPs.