Matchpoint Problem

[awm]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa9hqjt6da84c9752]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

RHO starts with a pass, I pass, and LHO opens 1♠. Partner passes, RHO bids 1NT (forcing). Now I double for takeout. LHO bids 2♣ and partner doubles (penalty). RHO corrects to 2♠. Now what? The auction so far is:

 

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - Pass

1NT! - X - 2♣ - X

2♠ - ??

 

Feel free to criticize the earlier calls if you like. Keep in mind that the scoring is matchpoints.

[luke warm]

what would you expect in clubs for partner's double? also, what would 2nt by you show after 2♠? if 2nt is scrambling type, i'd bid that.. i voted other :lol: ... i'd not pass 2♠ at matchpoints

[pbleighton]

I won't criticize the initial pass - if you play soundish openings, then that is what you play.

 

The first double was fine NV at matchpoints.

 

I pass now. I have nothing else to tell pd.

 

Peter

[awm]

what would you expect in clubs for partner's double? also, what would 2nt by you show after 2♠? if 2nt is scrambling type, i'd bid that.. i voted other :lol: ... i'd not pass 2♠ at matchpoints

We haven't really discussed it in detail, but I expect at least three clubs. Probably at a minimum three clubs to two honors or four clubs to one honor.

 

Since I'm a passed hand, I can't really imagine what 2NT would be other than scrambling. Again, it's undiscussed.

 

Also, I'd expect a modicum of general values for the double. Something around 9-10 points would be a minimum.

[Winstonm]

I've told my story so have no need to tell it again. With the expected spade lead we should do well defending 2S and I see no reason to compete to 3C. If partner doubles 2S, I'll sit for it.

[mikeh]

The most likely explanation of the auction is that partner is 4=3 in the blacks, and that RHO has a weak hand with 2=2 in the blacks. Partner may hold something like K10xx xxx Kxx AJx... altho he need not be quite that strong. He didn't need long ♣ to double 2♣, but he does need decent black card strength.

 

So I double, showing a good defensive hand for my auction to date... after all, he may be unable to double 2♠ after I made a takeout double of ♠ at my second call: how can he place me with A9??

 

My second double cannot be takeout.. how many takeout doubles can a passed hand make?

 

I have no trouble with the original pass: for me it is clear unless the hand fell within my 1N range (which it does in most of my partnerships... 10-12, 11-13 or 11-14)

[han]

I double, suggesting to defend. I have an absolute maximum for my previous bids, and if partner was planning to pass out 2S then he shouldn't have doubled 2C. Surely I can't have more than 2 spades, so partner won't overestimate my defensive values either.

[helene_t]

I voted pass but Han's case is convincing. Partner will probably lead a trump, and thanks to the ace I can return trumps, thereby reducing the club ruffs in the dummy.

[Finch]

I double. I can't have a better hand for defence, and partner may not be able to double fearing I have a 1444 8-count.

 

Were I not a passed hand I would pass as I would be minimum for the actions to date. I would also pass at IMPs.

[kenrexford]

Not doubling the second time presumes that partner's initial double was wrong. I have Ax of spades (enabling use to pull dummy trumps and defend 2C). I have an outside second Ace, unexpected, and a great source of tricks in hearts. Defense will be easy. Why presume that partner's double of 2C was wrong?

 

Would you initially takeout with x-Kxxx-Kxxx-Kxxx? That is the hand for a second-round pass.

[Winstonm]

The most likely explanation of the auction is that partner is 4=3 in the blacks, and that RHO has a weak hand with 2=2 in the blacks. Partner may hold something like K10xx xxx Kxx AJx... altho he need not be quite that strong. He didn't need long ♣ to double 2♣, but he does need decent black card strength.

 

So I double, showing a good defensive hand for my auction to date... after all, he may be unable to double 2♠ after I made a takeout double of ♠ at my second call: how can he place me with A9??

 

My second double cannot be takeout.. how many takeout doubles can a passed hand make?

 

I have no trouble with the original pass: for me it is clear unless the hand fell within my 1N range (which it does in most of my partnerships... 10-12, 11-13 or 11-14)

I like Mike's idea better - I really want to play 2S and the best way to get that information across is double.

[Codo]

Okay, the second double has some merrits, no doubt. But there are strong downsides too: There is no way to believe, that 2 Spade will fail 2 or 3 times.

There is no clue, that we are even close to make 3 of a minor, so maybe the best contract for us is 2 Spade. So I will still pass even at MP.

[SoTired]

Other - 3C

partner's dbl shows clubs (and denies hearts). Treat it as if partner bid 2C. You have to show your 4-card support. This is a standard bid. Whenever partner advances over your t/o dbl, and RHO bids again, you raise partner with 4-card support.

 

Those who think Advancer's dbl is some kind of Responsive Dbl need to realize that Responsive dbls only occur when the intervening bid is not a new suit. Anyway, if advancer had hearts, advancer would just bid hearts.

[mikeh]

My expectation is +300 against 2♠ doubled. More importantly, my expectation is that in a mp field some pairs are going to be playing the hand our way, probably in 1or 2N making 120. Either I open (and anyone who plays the appropriate NT range will open) or partner has an 11 to 12 count with 4 ♠ and will open after LHO passes.

 

Partner HAS to have a good ♠ holding to double 2♣...nothing else is logical.

 

I would not double at imps to protect 120 when I expect 100 by passing... but only because I have a phobia about doubling 2M at imps: the analytical part of my brain says that the double would be a big winner at all forms of scoring.

[SoTired]

Partner HAS to have a good ♠ holding to double 2♣...nothing else is logical.

Mike, are you sure partner does not have something like xxx xx xxx AQJxx?

[whereagles]

I've told my story so have no need to tell it again.

I don't agree with this reasoning because it ignores that pard has invited you to enter the discussion when he doubled 3♣ for penalties. He probably has 4 clubs and cannot possibly know whether you're 2434 or 2443. So he doubles 2♣, hoping you can find a 3♣ bid with 4 cards.

 

Of course, this assumes pard's double is indeed "penalties", not just "cards".

[joshs]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa9hqjt6da84c9752]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

RHO starts with a pass, I pass, and LHO opens 1♠. Partner passes, RHO bids 1NT (forcing). Now I double for takeout. LHO bids 2♣ and partner doubles (penalty). RHO corrects to 2♠. Now what? The auction so far is:

 

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - Pass

1NT! - X - 2♣ - X

2♠ - ??

 

Feel free to criticize the earlier calls if you like. Keep in mind that the scoring is matchpoints.

Hmm. Your takeout x is a pretty tightly defined hand in terms of strength. The main variable is the number of spades you have. I usually play a second x as less spades not more spades, but after the x of 2C I think x should be a maximum with good defense. If I was 2443 11, I would x here. As it is, I am just passing. Its white vs white, and you don't get rich xing low level contracts in that situation. (Down 1 xed is still worse than 3C making 3) If partner x's 2S holding an 11 count, I will be thrilled....

[mikeh]

Partner HAS to have a good ♠ holding to double 2♣...nothing else is logical.

Mike, are you sure partner does not have something like xxx xx xxx AQJxx?

YES!

 

Consider the logic of the auction: listen to what all the bidders are telling you.

 

LHO opened in 3rd seat, so may be light.

 

Partner passed, but that merely limits the upper end of his hand.

 

RHO DID NOT RAISE ♠'s: he bid 1N, non-forcing. No way does he have a genuine ♠ raise.

 

You doubled, showing a near-opening, classically 1=4=4=4.

 

LHO bid 2♣. He had no need to bid if he were balanced, and he would have bid 2♠ if he held 6 of them. He will almost always hold 4+♣

 

Partner doubled 2♣: he was entitled to rely on you to hold ♣ length... see the meaning of your double of 1N. Thus he does not need and will almost never have a ♣ stack.

 

RHO pulled: he must prefer ♠ to ♣, yet we know that he lacks a true ♠ fit. At the same time, he did not run to a red suit. Were partner to have your hand, AQJxx of ♣, then RHO holds either a void or a stiff ♣, and lacks ♠ support, so he will have either 5-5 in the reds or a 6 card red suit. He would bid a 6 card red suit if he had one, and might well bid a 5 card suit (probably 2♦) with 5-5.

 

So the most logical construction is that LHO is 5=4 in the blacks and that RHO is 2=2 or 2=1 (unlikely) in the blacks. That in turn means that partner is 4=3 or 4=4 in the blacks.

 

Furthermore, it is illogical for partner, with short(ish)♠ to make a penalty double of 2♣ after you have shown shortness in ♠'s. He KNOWS that the opps have a big ♠ fit and will find it shortly, especially after he doubles.

 

While it is foolish to pretend to be able to construct an exact hand or layout based on this kind of auction, it would not surprise me to see that LHO has made a typical 3rd seat opening with Q108xx Ax xx KQxx.... who wouldn't open 1♠ and rebid 2♣?

 

And it would not surprise me to find partner with KJxx xxx Axx AJx... and RHO with xx Kxxxx QJxx xx

 

On the marked low trump lead (marked if we double 2♠) we score 3 trump tricks, 2 ♣ tricks and some red tricks.

 

Obviously, this is only a typical layout, and the details will vary, but I would expect to have hit the approximate layout with this example.

 

I love this hand, and the posed problem, because it illustrates, so well, one of my main beliefs: many auctions provide a wealth of information to the players, a wealth of which the majority remain unaware because they may hear the auction but they do not LISTEN to it.

[cherdano]

Partner HAS to have a good ♠ holding to double 2♣...nothing else is logical.

Mike, are you sure partner does not have something like xxx xx xxx AQJxx?

YES!

 

Consider the logic of the auction: listen to what all the bidders are telling you.

 

LHO opened in 3rd seat, so may be light.

 

Partner passed, but that merely limits the upper end of his hand.

 

RHO DID NOT RAISE ♠'s: he bid 1N, non-forcing. No way does he have a genuine ♠ raise.

Mike, I know almost noone plays 1N by passed hand as forcing, but it was explicitly stated as 'forcing' in the problem description. I see no reason to rule out RHO having a weak raise to 2♠ with three of them.

 

If 1N is indeed non-forcing, then double is clear, I agree. If they might have a fit, I am not optimistic about getting 300.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

mikeh, your inferences about 1NT and 2♣ are ok only if opps know what they're doing :)

 

By the way, why can't pard pass with spade length and some cards? With that hand, the acution seems like a misfit and you'll probably score ok if they go down anyway.

[awm]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sxxxhkxdkxxxcaqtx&w=skqjtxhadqjxckj8x&e=sxxxhxxxxxxdtxxcx&s=sa9hqjtxdaxxc97xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The actual hand was something like the above (don't remember all the spots). Yes, the 1NT bid was forcing by passed hand. Whether this is a good treatment is unclear to me but it's what they were playing.

 

At the table, I passed over 2♠ and partner passed it out. Perhaps partner should balance, but I don't think partner can find a double with three small trumps, and 3-minor is somewhat touch and go. The end result was 2♠ down two on a trump lead and continuation.

 

In hindsight I think a double of 2♠ was called for. The trump holding is ideal for defending, and I definitely don't want to hear 3♦ (which is a possibility especially without some clear agreement about the meaning of a balancing 2NT here).

[mikeh]

Oh well: not for the first time it seems that I completely misread the meaning of partner's double. Frankly I think that he ought not to have doubled 2♣ with that hand, since he has to have expected the opps to run to 2♠ and now his partner might (if me, would) expect the kind of hand I described in my earlier posts.

 

Personally, I would have bid 2♦ :)

 

OTOH, even tho my reading of the hand was way off base, my choice of double would have worked (if partner were brave enough to leave it in and smart enough to lead a trump). Better to be lucky than good, sometimes :lol:

[kgr]

Interesting. 2 questions:

1. Is it clear/best that doubling again shows something in ♠ rather then a ♠ void? eg 0=4=5=4 (tolerance for all suits).

2. Should DBL of 2♣ really show good ♠? With good ♣'s you expect that opps will go to 2♠ anyway (with or without your DBL). Why not tell your partner then that you have good ♣'s? Maybe you can play 3♣?

[SoTired]

If you make a takeout dbl and partner bids, then subsequent dbls by t/o dbler are penalty. Although it may be right to dbl 2S, dbler can't make a penalty dbl of 2S on SAx. Advancer has made a penalty dbl of 2C. If Advancer also has a penalty dbl of 2S, dbler can pass 2S and allow advancer to dbl it. A 3C bid shows no extra strength and only confirms 4 card club support.

[neilkaz]

If you make a takeout dbl and partner bids, then subsequent dbls by t/o dbler are penalty. Although it may be right to dbl 2S, dbler can't make a penalty dbl of 2S on SAx. Advancer has made a penalty dbl of 2C. If Advancer also has a penalty dbl of 2S, dbler can pass 2S and allow advancer to dbl it. A 3C bid shows no extra strength and only confirms 4 card club support.

We agree. You need more than a maximum pass combined with Ax in spades to think that doubling is correct here. I pass and if PD doubles which should show cards after his penalty double of 2C I then pass. PD with a nice 12 HCP opposite your delayed T/O X really shouldn't sell to 2S undoubled, IMHO.

 

On this hand you were fixed by 1NTF. It happens, but it can also backfire. .. neilkaz ..