[bigbenvic]

Sounds like partner Doubles and -870 later...

[JLOGIC]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-22, 17:10, said:

3S just seems super routine.

If you play double as responsive, why would you not double? You have 4 spades and 5 clubs.

[JLOGIC]

bigbenvic, on 2011-November-22, 17:26, said:

Sounds like partner Doubles and -870 later...

Yes, looks like it's cold even if you lead a double dummy jack of clubs rather than the ace of clubs.

[jdeegan]

It is against my religion to argue against players like Justin who are so much better at the game than me, BUT this time I think there is some basis for Pass, esp. if the opps are stronger. You may lose 5 or 6 IMPs, but you won't go for a number. It's like taking out an insurance policy, although clearly gutless.

[Yu18772]

jdeegan, on 2011-November-22, 21:32, said:

It is against my religion to argue against players like Justin who are so much better at the game than me, BUT this time I think there is some basis for Pass, esp. if the opps are stronger. You may lose 5 or 6 IMPs, but you won't go for a number. It's like taking out an insurance policy, although clearly gutless.

They hardly miss game 1 out of 3 times in 1H-P-P auction, so if people are willing to take insurance policy not to loose 10 IMPs (870 vs 130) that costs 5 or 6, it is no wonder that insurance companies are so rich........

[gnasher]

I'm surprised that whereagles has such detailed agremeents about such a rare sequence.

I wouldn't make a responsive double, because of the risk that it would be left in. Responsive doubles aren't usually that shapely, and partner will expect something closer to a 4324 shape.

3♠ seems a bit feeble with so much playing strength, so that leaves 3♥.

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-22, 20:08, said:

If you play double as responsive, why would you not double? You have 4 spades and 5 clubs.

A responsive double doesnt promise 4 spades, in fact it normally denies it. I mean, what would you do with a 12-14 count and 3424 shape?

[whereagles]

gnasher, on 2011-November-23, 03:36, said:

I'm surprised that whereagles has such detailed agremeents about such a rare sequence.

It's not a specific agreement. Rather, it's our meta-agreement about doubles and responses thereto. I can assure you me and pard were in the same wavelength with respect to this particular double

[whereagles]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-23, 04:18, said:

1. A responsive double doesnt promise 4 spades, in fact it normally denies it.
2. I mean, what would you do with a 12-14 count and 3424 shape?

1. Maybe, but in this particular situation, the responsive dbl would definitely show 44 blacks.
2. Probably pass, as clubs are the only possible fit and I sure ain't gonna play 4 of them

[whereagles]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-22, 20:16, said:

Yes, looks like it's cold even if you lead a double dummy jack of clubs rather than the ace of clubs.

The 'oracle' (dbl dummy analyzer) says it's cold, yes.

[whereagles]

gnasher, on 2011-November-23, 03:36, said:

I wouldn't make a responsive double, because of the risk that it would be left in. Responsive doubles aren't usually that shapely, and partner will expect something closer to a 4324 shape.

3♠ seems a bit feeble with so much playing strength, so that leaves 3♥.

You're quite right. Pard thought 3S was feeble, so he bid FOUR SPADES. That went back to opener, who doubled. His pard wiggled a bit, but ended up passing. They led a heart and when the smoke cleared, pard was -1100 down.

Pard: "you should pass 1H. It's a lousy hand."

Me: "huh? Gimme me a spade more and a heart less and you're STILL -500 opposite a textbook dbl. Maybe YOU should bid 3S only, no?"

Pard: "get real. You'd pass 3S too often when 4 is on."

Me: "there's no need to overbid. A balancing dbl might be weaker than a direct one and I myself will bid 4 with extras. But how about dbl then? If you hear 3S across, then you might take a shot, knowing I have a 4 card spade suit. But even that is risky, as it's likely spades don't break."

Pard: "I thought of dbl, but was afraid you might pass it out and it makes."

Me: "that might be an issue if YOU were at my seat (he's trigger-happy). You know me: if I pass they'll be dead and buried. In this particular hand you'll hear 4C and you'd pass."

etc
etc
etc

Draw your own conclusions

[Fluffy]

pass is a great choice because it doesn´t let partner make any more bad decisions in the bidding.

[Phil]

whereagles, on 2011-November-23, 05:52, said:

etc
etc
etc

Draw your own conclusions

That I wouldn't want to sit next to the two of you during a long flight.

[aguahombre]

Double of 3D on the auction might be something other than penalty-oriented, but I frequently have problems with the use of names or labels, and this is certainly no exception.

Responsive doubles occur when a suit has been raised by the opponent, not when the same opponent is the only one who has bid. I have no problem if someone (everyone) wants to use the double as some kind of action treatment; but it is not a Responsive Double.

Edit: Having said the above, my preference for the double of 3D would be penalty of hearts, tolerance for penalty of diamonds; if I want to compete with a fit for one of partner's suits, I will bid one of partner's suits.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-23, 11:08

[jdeegan]

Yu18772, on 2011-November-23, 02:09, said:

They hardly miss game 1 out of 3 times in 1H-P-P auction, so if people are willing to take insurance policy not to loose 10 IMPs (870 vs 130) that costs 5 or 6, it is no wonder that insurance companies are so rich........

You may be miles ahead of me on this one, but I have to point out there is a lot more to this decision than whether or not the opponents have a game. They rarely will. What concerns me is that I am vul looking at a 3-2-4-4 hand with 9 HCP and three small ♠.
Passing costs a few IMPs mainly when the points are split and they can make 2♥ and we can make three of a minor (pard did not overcall 1♠). This should be a fairly common result, so at MP's reopening looks more attractive than at IMPs.
Bidding costs when they have a biddable game, AND when we go for a number (the result on the actual hand), AND when we double them out in a makable contract (one possible result on the actual hand). Of course, most of the time it won't matter if I reopen or not.
Finally, there is the psychological blow of giving up a double digit IMP swing, esp. to a stronger or equal team. This is, indeed, one reason why insurance companies do make money.

[benlessard]

the first X is obvious for me and i think passing is poor. Over 3D i would bid 3S since I dont like pure takeout X when partner has showned lenght in the opps suit. 4S by north is a joke since you are in face of a balancing X and not a direct X also the 3D rather than 2D suggest the suits will break badly.

[Yu18772]

jdeegan, on 2011-November-23, 15:43, said:

You may be miles ahead of me on this one, but I have to point out there is a lot more to this decision than whether or not the opponents have a game. They rarely will. What concerns me is that I am vul looking at a 3-2-4-4 hand with 9 HCP and three small ♠.
Passing costs a few IMPs mainly when the points are split and they can make 2♥ and we can make three of a minor (pard did not overcall 1♠). This should be a fairly common result, so at MP's reopening looks more attractive than at IMPs.
Bidding costs when they have a biddable game, AND when we go for a number (the result on the actual hand), AND when we double them out in a makable contract (one possible result on the actual hand). Of course, most of the time it won't matter if I reopen or not.
Finally, there is the psychological blow of giving up a double digit IMP swing, esp. to a stronger or equal team. This is, indeed, one reason why insurance companies do make money.

I am probably way behind -I dont argue with your hand evaluation, you are right that there are serious drawbacks to that hand (which were discussed already in several posts), and it is a minimum for the balance if at all, but imo it is still a hand for balance (again for the reasons discussed in some other previous posts). I was merely trying to say that the potential swing is less of a consideration, imo. Taking double digit swings personally is not good for your health .....they are inevitable evil of playing bridge, even if you are very solid. As long as they occur rarely, and partner is on the same wavelength about this there is no reason to worry. If you never get large penalties in this situations, that means you are not competitive enough - and probably loosing in the long run. I think the most insightful thing, conveying similar idea, was said by mikeh (one of the very very best players here) about performance of his team in the Bermuda Bowl - "we didn't fail in any slam, which shows how badly we bid them!".

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2011-November-23, 05:52, said:

In this particular hand you'll hear 4C and you'd pass."

I think you are resulting and if your pd doubles you should pass with your hand. If you are going to panic and bid 4♣ , dont balance at the first place. Some of us agreed with your balancing double, i am one of them, but i never thought it is a bid that wins each and everytime. We all knew it had risks but believed in the long run this is the correct action.

They can be the ones who are in 1100 zone. I can easily construct a lot of hands that your pd may hold where raising to 4♣ is losing bid. You do not need to defend your balancing bid to your pd by saying things that may cost you more in the future.

It is ok to be imperfect Nuno.

whereagles, on 2011-November-23, 05:52, said:

You know me: if I pass they'll be dead and buried.

I don't think even the world's greatest players can claim such a thing. It is neither possible nor profittable. And if my memory serves me correctly you made doubles in the past just because you felt lucky that day (your own words)

[whereagles]

huh?? Timo, for all I know opener can very well have a 6-5 with solid hearts. You can argue anyway you want, but there's no way I'm going to pass if pard dbls.

I usually only pass take-out dbls when all other options are bad. That's not the case here: I have a perfectly normal 4C bid if pard dbls. I would pass if I had 3253, but that's a whole different ball game.

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2011-November-24, 07:39, said:

huh?? Timo, for all I know opener can very well have a 6-5 with solid hearts. You can argue anyway you want, but there's no way I'm going to pass if pard dbls.

I usually only pass take-out dbls when all other options are bad. That's not the case here: I have a perfectly normal 4C bid if pard dbls. I would pass if I had 3253, but that's a whole different ball game.

Nuno...

There are a lot to be said about responsive DBL promising exactly 4 or more ♣ but lets say it does for the sake of argument..

-You are scared of opener being 6-5 then you know ♣ wil split 4-1 or 5-0 even if you always have a ♣ fit and never need a DBL without 4 card ♣ in this auction(not playable but i will accept this for you)

In 4♣ you are giving 2♥+2♠+at least 1♣ so your meter starts from -500 at this point.

- You say you have a "perfectly normal" 4♣ bid. I wonder what would you bid if you had KQx xx Jxxx KQxx or something similar. So you naively expect your pd to understand that you raised to 4♣ with a lot of wasted ♦ hcps and expect him to pass easily 4♣.

Maybe he will pass 4♣, or maybe he should or maybe not. My point is it is not as easy as seeing 4 hands. After all pd has almost a 1 opener hand 4405 with 2 aces, we doubled and now we dont want to let opponents play doubled in one of our implied suits and he is void in that suit also looking at ♥xxxx in his hand, the suit we are supposed to be short !

There is no perfect bid if pd doubles. You will have to live with the consequences of your first choice. They were about to play 1♥, now you see -500 as a rescue bid. Funny thing is, if you change 1 biddingwise unimportant card from dummy to pd, you still give 500 in 4♣ while defeating them in 3♦.

-And why pd can not be something like Andy or Justin predicted, a weak NT hand or similar 11-13 hcp 3523 or 3424 or 3433 ? Why is this double only about ♣ suit ? Are we gonna just throw other hands that has values but can not bid directly so that we can rescue ourselves in the forum from a making 3♦ doubled contract ?

Cmon now