Frustrating Match - Hand IV

[Finch]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s1076hk93d1073c10874]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♦ P 3♥ x

3♠ P P x

P ?[/hv]

 

NB: you are at favourable, IMPs, long match.

2D was a multi (weak two in a major or strong in a minor)

3H was pass-or-correct

Partner's double of 3H is 'take-out', but it may transpire to be take-out of spades: you work it out from opener's next action.

Partner's second double is take-out of spades.

 

Partner could have passed over 3H and doubled 3S next round to show a lighter take-out double, but has a hand not prepared to risk 3H being passed out.

 

Does it make a difference if the auction is as it was in the other room, namely

 

2S P 3S Dble

P ?

[hotShot]

I expect partner to have something like 18+ HCP shortage in ♠ and 4441 or 5440 (maybee 5431) shape.

I cover one of his looser, so if he does not have a 4 looser hand we should not be at the 4 level.

But I'm balanced and partner is semi balanced and opener is imbalanced, so responder seems to be imbalanced too. This makes 3♠X= look makeable.

So I chicken out to 4♣.

[whereagles]

Pard seems to have a rock-crusher and no particular shape. Pass, lead a trump.

 

Thank the multi for helping us getting two shots at the cake. Opposite the weak 2 auction, pard might be doubling on a rather weaker hand and THEN I'd be in real trouble deciding whether to pass or pull to 4♣.

[mike777]

4C

[bid_em_up]

I'm inclined to say, bid 3N like a man and pray I dont get doubled :)

 

3N minus 3 undoubled is still better than -730 or whatever 3S x'd making is. Then if I do get doubled, run to 4C.

 

However, I'm a mouse, and pass and lead trump. :)

[luis]

Pass, balanced hand and I have a trick.

 

Luis

[paulg]

4♣ - would like to pass but lack the nerve.

[mikeh]

4♣

 

Take out takeout doubles.... especially those that double the opps into game.

 

Yes, I may be trading +200 for -50 (and lose those precious 5+ imps we are hunting for) but I would never pass..... this is an area where I am beginning to have second thoughts, but I am not yet at the pass stage. I think I tend to pull these 3 level doubles a bit more than I should.

[inquiry]

I am not taking 3Sx= back to the other table. The opponents knew they were RED versus white when they bid like this and my hand holds no surprises. I will bid 4♣, I suspect (pray?) that this can not be hurt too badly, and I simply am not ready to risk the down side of 3♠X making.

 

At matchpoints, I would pass 3♠x without a problem. I think we will set it more often than not. But the frequency gain at matchpoints is no consolation for the size of the swing when we are wrong at imps.

[jdonn]

I had a thought that there is a sense in which this problem is not analagous to 2♠ p 3♠ x, because here you know dummy is expected to have some heart length. I think that mildly increases the expected club length in partner's hand, maybe by between .25 and .5 clubs, and 4♣ here may be slightly less dangerous than normal.

 

I'm not so sure you are trading +200 for -50. It could be +500 on a good day. Or it could be -300 on a somewhat bad day, or -500 on a worse day. I mean obviously if -50 was the worst likely downside, you would have to be freaking insane to pass :( I consider this really close, so I guess I will test out the above inference by bidding 4♣. I might as well back up my big mouth.

[luis]

It's hard to construct a hand that matches the bidding where 4♣ leads to something better than 3♠x

But well we'll see :-)

[jdonn]

It's hard to construct a hand that matches the bidding where 4♣ leads to something better than 3♠x

But well we'll see :-)

Seriously?

 

x QJTx Axx AKQJx

 

I'm not saying such a hand is likely, or that you couldn't construct many hands pointing the other way. But it wasn't that hard to construct this one, I did it in about 15 seconds :(

[luis]

It's hard to construct  a hand that matches the bidding where 4♣ leads to something better than 3♠x

But well we'll see :-)

Seriously?

 

x QJTx Axx AKQJx

 

I'm not saying such a hand is likely, or that you couldn't construct many hands pointing the other way. But it wasn't that hard to construct this one, I did it in about 15 seconds :(

I think your construction has a flaw.

I'm based what I say in the description of Frances about style.

The hand in question knows for sure that opener has a weak 2 in spades so 3♥ is not going to be passed out therefore you can double 3♠ for takeout later.

A hand that "needs" to double 3♥ and can later double 3♠ has to be in my view either balanced and strongish or a superbomb.

 

Luis

[jdonn]

It's hard to construct  a hand that matches the bidding where 4♣ leads to something better than 3♠x

But well we'll see :-)

Seriously?

 

x QJTx Axx AKQJx

 

I'm not saying such a hand is likely, or that you couldn't construct many hands pointing the other way. But it wasn't that hard to construct this one, I did it in about 15 seconds :(

I think your construction has a flaw.

I'm based what I say in the description of Frances about style.

The hand in question knows for sure that opener has a weak 2 in spades so 3♥ is not going to be passed out therefore you can double 3♠ for takeout later.

A hand that "needs" to double 3♥ and can later double 3♠ has to be in my view either balanced and strongish or a superbomb.

 

Luis

You are assuming methods the original post never mentioned.

 

"Partner's double of 3H is 'take-out', but it may transpire to be take-out of spades: you work it out from opener's next action."

 

That means partner's double is takeout of whichever major opener next shows. It has indeed transpired to be takeout of spades, as we were warned it might. Perhaps they play passing then doubling 3♠ is a lighter takeout, who knows.

[luis]

The original poster specifically said:

 

"Partner could have passed over 3H and doubled 3S next round to show a lighter take-out double, but has a hand not prepared to risk 3H being passed out."

 

I think the construction you make is a hand that has no problem with 3♥ being passed out because that won't happen.

A balanced 22 count for example with 2-3 in the majors is an example of a hand that is not prepared to risk 3H being passed out.

 

Luis

[jdonn]

You could easily make the case that x QJTx Axx AKQJx doesn't mind 3♥ getting passed out, but you could also argue the opposite. You could easily have 3NT also if partner has a moderate hand with spades, like KJTxx x Kxxx xxx, hardly an obvious hand to balance when 3♥ comes back, but very likely to make 3NT especially on the likely heart lead.

 

You are certainly right that if this auction is agreed or construed to show a very big hand with takeout of spades, that shifts the odds toward passing.

[whereagles]

Yeah.. I also feel pard has either a big take-out double of spades or some big balanced hand with no stopper.

[han]

I am not taking 3Sx= back to the other table. The opponents knew they were RED versus white when they bid like this and my hand holds no surprises. I will bid 4♣, I suspect (pray?) that this can not be hurt too badly, and I simply am not ready to risk the down side of 3♠X making.

 

At matchpoints, I would pass 3♠x without a problem. I think we will set it more often than not. But the frequency gain at matchpoints is no consolation for the size of the swing when we are wrong at imps.

Ben, not everybody has as much respect for the vulnerability as you do. I'm passing, but consider it very close.

[han]

You could easily make the case that x QJTx Axx AKQJx doesn't mind 3♥ getting passed out, but you could also argue the opposite. You could easily have 3NT also if partner has a moderate hand with spades, like KJTxx x Kxxx xxx, hardly an obvious hand to balance when 3♥ comes back, but very likely to make 3NT especially on the likely heart lead.

 

You are certainly right that if this auction is agreed or construed to show a very big hand with takeout of spades, that shifts the odds toward passing.

I think that at favorable you wouldn't mind at all to have 3H being passed out.

[MickyB]

Pass for me. 3♠ X making isn't the end of the world, I expect to find myself on the right end of a smallish swing a fair bit more often than I am on the wrong side of a slightly bigger swing. From the bidding, I suspect that hearts are 4333 around the table which strongly encourages me to pass.

 

I'm going to lead a heart. I'm not likely to get in more than once in which case I shall not be able to play three trumps at them - I'll start setting up our tricks in case dummy has a suit that can be developed for a discard.

Edited May 3, 2006 by MickyB

[sfbp]

I don't play (or play against) the multi - so i have never had to reason this type of sequence before. Thanks for the problem!

 

Could partner have 5 hearts? It seems to me that his second double tends to confirm that he doesn't. What do I know?

 

In that case if spades are 4-1 we are toast in 3 spades - but I don't think so.

 

I place the ♥K on the table before I change my mind. Then I pick up the bidding cards.

 

Stephen

[pclayton]

I think there's a good chance that spades are 6331. Pass might work but I hate passing because I don't have an attractive alternative. So Ill content myself with 4C.

[Finch]

At the table I bid 4♣ with no confidence in it being right. Passing would have been way more successful - it doesn't matter what you lead as long as it isn't a diamond. At the time, I missed the inference about partner's likely heaviness in high cards from the auction (aren't you lucky you get it spelled out in the problem posting?) as I spent the first few minutes working out what double-then-double actually meant in our methods!

 

 

Partner has

A

AQx

J9xx

AQJxx

 

and you get +500 from passing; +130 or -50 from bidding (nobody tried 3NT, which makes).