[delmo]

---

As East, the bidding has gone as shown. What will you bid now?

[broze]

Welcome to the forums delmo.

It is 100% clear to pass now. You showed your hand well enough with a double and have no reason to expect the opponents will not make 4S.

[Manastorm]

I pass. I usually pass balanced minimums that's why I would consider passing 3♥ also, though I admit it is not easy to pass.

[ahydra]

Pass. (Double the first time might even be considered an overbid with only 13 HCPs and without a fourth spade.)

ahydra

[eagles123]

this has to be a ruling question surely

[billw55]

eagles123, on 2016-August-16, 06:00, said:

this has to be a ruling question surely

Perhaps normally, but here we have a first time poster. (welcome delmo!)

I rather suspect a "my partner criticized my choice and I want to check it" scenario.

For the actual hand, definitely pass. With spades this bad, you may have already overbid. For sure it is at most a minimum to double at the 3 level. So bidding again is far beyond consideration.

[The_Badger]

hi Delmo,

Welcome to the forum

The answer is pass (as everyone else has suggested.) But being a bit OCD - only a bit I hear everyone say - around the edges, I searched through the hand records (for completeness) and found the board this hand relates to.

Big Mmmm....

What happened at the table only you (and maybe the three other players) can say, but I bet my bottom dollar that someone wasn't a very happy bunny (in a manner of speaking) after the board was played, I surmise.

[ggwhiz]

billw55, on 2016-August-16, 06:53, said:

For the actual hand, definitely pass.

Ask yourself what partner would expect for the first double. At least this strength, probably better spades and better shape yet they passed 4♠.

Since my first double promised something in spades they could have doubled with values but didn't because they don't have any.

[neilkaz]

Very easy pass here.

[nullve]

Pass. (I don't play West's pass as forcing, if that's what you're indirectly asking about.)

[rmnka447]

It's an easy pass now. You've showed your hand with the takeout double over 3 ♥. You presumably showed an opening bid with at least 3 cards in any suit that partner might bid. Nothing has changed about your hand and that's exactly what you have. So making another call now commits a cardinal sin of bad bidding in rebidding what you've already shown. A further call should show extras either in distribution or strength beyond what you've already showed.

If anyone has to make a move over 4 ♠, it had to be your partner.

[MrAce]

PASS

[wank]

---

i think this hand shows the dangers of accusing people of cheating for successful actions. everyone except north is evidently clueless and welcome to the forum, east, delmo.


was this originally posted in the expert forum?

[delmo]

Thanks Wank for showing the whole board.
Yes, I bade 5♦, doubled, but got 4+ IMPs. I could alternatively bid 5♣ for the same reason.
There was 16 pairs to have played the board, and 5 pairs had chosen the same decision as mine.
My decision was as follows.
Since N already showed 7+♥, and S, presumably, also 7+♠, I had 3♠, then my partner should be very short in ♠, and at the same time, he should be very long in both ♦ and ♣.

[Cyberyeti]

delmo, on 2016-August-17, 02:08, said:

Thanks Wank for showing the whole board.
Yes, I bade 5♦, doubled, but got 4+ IMPs. I could alternatively bid 5♣ for the same reason.
There was 16 pairs to have played the board, and 5 pairs had chosen the same decision as mine.
My decision was as follows.
Since N already showed 7+♥, and S, presumably, also 7+♠, I had 3♠, then my partner should be very short in ♠, and at the same time, he should be very long in both ♦ and ♣.

So they didn't take you for the available but tricky 500 while you could have got 4♠ down by simply leading your stiff heart (4♥ is making which is why you scored OK).

And yes I'm with Wank, N's only questionable decision was playing with S, for the rest:

https://www.youtube....h?v=t0OVpyvey4U

[eagles123]

delmo, on 2016-August-17, 02:08, said:

Thanks Wank for showing the whole board.
Yes, I bade 5♦, doubled, but got 4+ IMPs. I could alternatively bid 5♣ for the same reason.
There was 16 pairs to have played the board, and 5 pairs had chosen the same decision as mine.
My decision was as follows.
Since N already showed 7+♥, and S, presumably, also 7+♠, I had 3♠, then my partner should be very short in ♠, and at the same time, he should be very long in both ♦ and ♣.

your decision should've been as follows: I've already made a dead minimum/below minimum takeout double and partner can also listen to the auction, therefore it is up to partner whether we bid on.

[The_Badger]

delmo, on 2016-August-17, 02:08, said:

Thanks Wank for showing the whole board.
Yes, I bade 5♦, doubled, but got 4+ IMPs. I could alternatively bid 5♣ for the same reason.
There was 16 pairs to have played the board, and 5 pairs had chosen the same decision as mine.
My decision was as follows.
Since N already showed 7+♥, and S, presumably, also 7+♠, I had 3♠, then my partner should be very short in ♠, and at the same time, he should be very long in both ♦ and ♣.

In a way I am glad Wank has now shown the whole board, too. I admit, Delmo, I do agree to a very small degree with your logic, but looking through the traveller - and that's a fun exercise in itself - for this board, the only other minor suit games have been bid by East/West, not by East alone

What it does illustrate perfectly - and this is instructional by itself - is that it can be a very dangerous exercise assuming partner has a certain-shaped hand (especially with limited bidding). I think most players will agree you got lucky this time, and probably made the opponents fume that you bid at the 5 level with a 4 card suit and a passed partner, and found the right result.

Equally, North could have been void in ♠, and South in ♥ and both could have had a 4 card minor suit in addition. Depending on the layout you may have been looking at a -500 or a -700 penalty instead!

[billw55]

Impressive handhogging by south for sure. I've seen failure to support but not quite like this.

[gordontd]

The_Badger, on 2016-August-17, 03:17, said:

Depending on the layout you may have been looking at a -500 or a -700 penalty instead!

-700 would take some doing!

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2016-August-17, 06:34, said:

-700 would take some doing!

Just turn the clock back 30 years