[Hanoi5]

---

3♠ being a pre-empt, how do you feel about the double? What could it show?

Say West had:

♠9xxx
♥x
♦QJTx
♣Qxxx

Do you agree with the bidding? Wouldn't it be better to give a simple raise?

♠AKJxxx
♥KQJTx
♦x
♣x

Would you pass partner's double? Would it be different if you were playing imp's or mp's?

[Cyberyeti]

I can live with 3♠, I'd have bid 4♥ over 4♦ to ensure not doubling with a big double fit, then I'd respect partner's double.

[rmnka447]

Partner is weak, but found a double over their 5 ♦ bid. Normally, you'd expect partner to just pass or perhaps bid on with distribution. Partner must have a reason for doubling. So, it's best to trust partner and pass.

[cherdano]

Hanoi5, on 2014-March-20, 15:16, said:

---

3♠ being a pre-empt, how do you feel about the double? What could it show?

Lightner, hoping partner will guess right to find my void.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on 2014-March-20, 16:45, said:

Lightner, hoping partner will guess right to find my void.

It won't be me, but somone could say that the void is inside your head since you are on lead

[MrAce]

I agree with the bidding. But i would have chosen to bid 4♥ by E

Vs a preemptive 3♠ as East i would be concerned about losing 3 aces at 5 level. But i would still bid 5. Pd may hold an ace, or if he does not, our chances of defeating them is reduced by a lot, especially if pd does not have ♥ shortness. I would be more comfortable with passing the double, had i shown hearts previous round.

[uhhlv]

The double in this situation means 2 things:
- I ve 1 or 2 defence tricks (more defense tricks are unrealistic with a weak hand).
- I m not interested (to defend) in 5 ♠

Because of reason 2 the 3♠ bidder should always double in this situation, when he has 1 or more Defense tricks.

So at MP passing the double is clear.
At IMPs it is much more difficult. Maybe we can manage 5 ♠. Maybe partner doubled with only 1 defense trick and it is very ambiguous, if I ve 0 (worst case), 1, 2 or even more defense tricks, especially if partner has more than a single ♥.


Yes: It would be better to bid 4 ♥ the round before. Then I could pass the double even at IMPs with a clear conscience.

[helene_t]

I thought it was a common agreement that double by peemptor suggests a sacrifice rather than discourages one? Is this situation different because it is not clear who is sacrififying?

Anyway, I agree with 3♠. Close to 4♠ than to 2♠. Maybe E should have bid 4♥ but he doesn't really want a heart lead.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2014-March-21, 03:06, said:

I thought it was a common agreement that double by peemptor suggests a sacrifice rather than discourages one? Is this situation different because it is not clear who is sacrififying?

Anyway, I agree with 3♠. Close to 4♠ than to 2♠. Maybe E should have bid 4♥ but he doesn't really want a heart lead.

4♥ is not about the lead: it is about describing the hand. On this hand, it describes a major 2-suiter, willing to play in 4♠ based on the quality and length of the majors, and strongly implies no defence in the minors. Once he has done this, if partner doubles, he can pass with assurance that partner made a well-informed decision. The posited 4=1=4=4 with minor cards is exactly the hand on which you want partner to make a penalty double. IOW, 4♥ is intended to help partner, whether that be by bidding on (say he held Qxxx xxxxx xxx x) or by doubling with the actual hand, or by passing when neither bidding nor doubling seem appropriate: say Qxxx xx Qxx J10xx.

With the actual big major hand, I would expect to bid one more unless partner doubled, and then I'd sit for it.