3Sx Assign the blame

[Poky]

MatchPoint. All vul.

 

Opener:

♠-

♥AK9x

♦QJ9xx

♣J9xx

 

Responder:

♠J9876

♥QJxx

♦x

♣10xx

 

1♦ 1♠ pass 2♠

Dbl 3♠ Dbl pass

pass pass

 

3♠x= -730

[mcphee]

The dble of 2S for t/o was a very poor choice I think, with minimum values and at best 2 defensive tricks. Surely the opening hand should appreciate partner may pass this double.

 

I have to assign some blamd to the dble of 3S, which I consider to be a bit hungry although influenced no doubt when partner hit 2S which responder was likely passing out.

[mikeh]

Opener 100%.

 

Opener failed to listen to the auction. He may have heard/seen it, but he didn't listen to it. What kinds of hands did he think partner held? Sure, there will be hands on which 3♣ or even 3♥ will be good places to play, and where partner will be passing out 2♠.

 

But that has to be a small family of hands compared to the other, nightmarish scenarios that could develop.

 

The double of 3♠ was completely normal. Give opener a decent hand: void Axxx AKxxx Axxx and 3♠ has no play. void Kxxx AQJxx AQxx is a minimum (altho not a rock bottom minimum)and still 3♠ is down at least one on any but freakishly unlucky distribution.

 

I think that the double is clear at imps.... and it has been years since I doubled a making partscore into game at imps... I am one of the most conservative doublers around. But this is matchpoints with vulnerable opps: I'd have to be dead not to double.

[Apollo81]

Responder's double seems pretty clear to me: can't passout and take the +100 against the likely (on the bidding) +140 in 3♥.

 

-Noble

[cherdano]

Opener doesn't understand that there is no need to protect partner on this auction. If partner had a penalty pass of 1S, he can make a penalty double of 2S. Also, responder is quite limited by the failure to bid over 1S. So the takeout double has to show extra values.

 

(Compare this to 1D-(2S)-P-(P)-?: Here a reopening double would be much more reasonable, depending somewhat on partner's style.)

 

Arend

[awm]

I'd actually blame responder here. I don't think the double of 2♠ shows substantial extras, unlike some of the previous posters. There are many hands where responder has 4-5♣ or 3♦ and we'll benefit from competing for the partscore.

 

While responder is happy to defend 3♠, there are only perhaps two defensive tricks in his hand. The heart length is also a negative feature. I would pass again and wait for opener to double 3♠ (which surely shows extras, having already doubled 2♠) and then convert. Surely with prime values like - Axxx AKxxx Axxx opener will find a double of 3♠ as well (note that he can almost beat this in his own hand!).

[Finch]

What mikeh said.

Double of 2S in that auction shows a pretty good hand, and opener didn't have a pretty good hand.

 

Doubling 2S also gave the opponents the opportunity to defend 3Hx on a trump lead, which would not have been much fun for declarer.

[Guest Jlall]

Opener can't seriously X with that... his partner passed over 1S! If he has a trap pass he can X himself, if he has just a weak hand then we don't need to be involved in this auction.

[pclayton]

I'd actually blame responder here. I don't think the double of 2♠ shows substantial extras, unlike some of the previous posters. There are many hands where responder has 4-5♣ or 3♦ and we'll benefit from competing for the partscore.

 

While responder is happy to defend 3♠, there are only perhaps two defensive tricks in his hand. The heart length is also a negative feature. I would pass again and wait for opener to double 3♠ (which surely shows extras, having already doubled 2♠) and then convert. Surely with prime values like - Axxx AKxxx Axxx opener will find a double of 3♠ as well (note that he can almost beat this in his own hand!).

I'll join Adam in the minority opinion. :(

 

I don't think a double here shows substantially extra, simply shape. The spade void makes up for the lack of high cards the hand has. I'm not worried about nailing them, but effectively competing for the partial. Selling out to 2♠ when they have an 8 or 9 card fit at MPs doesn't feel like good bridge to me. You could convince me that a opener's double at IMPs should show a stronger hand; and responder's pass makes more sense in that context.

 

Just because pard didn't act over 1♠ doesn't mean there aren't some playable hands; most don't have hearts or diamond support. I'm mostly concerned about something like: xxxx, xx, x, AQxxxx where we rate to get locked out of the auction. Should partner take a call over 3♠ with that if I pass?

 

Responder's double looks pretty hungry to me. If Opener has the hand everyone is looking for - a 0454 with at least another Ace, we might belong in 4♥.

[mikeh]

I greatly respect Adam and Phil (I almost always agree with them or learn a new perspective when we disagree), but think they have really missed the boat on this one.

 

The argument that we may need to bid 3 minor to get a good score is deceptively plausible, but close examination reveals that we are catering to a very small family of hands.

 

Bear in mind that our pass of 2♠ does not bar partner. If he holds long ♣, with or without ♦ tolerance, there is an excellent chance that he can balance over 2♠.... not every opp is going to bid 3♠ should we pass.

 

Further, on those hands on which we should be in 3m, the vast majority of the time the opps will succesfully compete to 3♠.... and our partner may well make a close double, given that they are vul at matchpoints.

 

And the argument that, on the given hand, responder can pass 3♠ because opener will reopen with a second double is mind-boggling. I hold void Kxxx Axxxx AKxx and, having doubled 2[sP ]on an auction in which we may have zero fit and few hcp in dummy, I have to double 3♠???!!?!?!? Really????

 

I very much doubt that either Adam or Phil would even think of a second double with that hand at the table. Opposite some typical hand for partner of xxxx Jxx xxx xxx, just which zero do you want?

 

As for Phil's very carefully constructed xxxx xx x AQxxxx, it seems to me that he is not passing 2♠ with this ...although he may and probably will pass 3♠.

 

That layout is not exactly the prototypical hand we can expect for the pass of 1♠ :( So I doubt the wisdom of designing our methods to cater to this while hunting zeros when our partner, having bid as if he has nothing, has nothing.

 

Finally, since I think we all want partner to double on his given hand when opener holds an above minimum in hcp, with 0454 shape, maybe the answer is (surprise!) that the first double should show an above minimum in hcp with 0454.

 

It is increasingly old-fashioned to have one's values when inviting partner to the dance, but sometimes old-fashioned works.

[whereagles]

Opener is a bit light, but at matchpoints you have to act on distributional hands. This actually low-risk because responder is weak and can hardly do anything but responding to the double. Responder was a bit greedy by doubling, but it's normal given opener might be stronger.

 

I do not think N/S have any direct blame here. Both their actions seem reasonable. The blame goes to opponents. Once they guessed right in taking the push to 3♠, they reached their par and N/S were bound to get bad score no matter what they did (dbl or no dbl).

 

If you wanna blame N or S, go ahead. But I just think that's a bad evaluation of the situation. Not to mention it will annoy one or both players... lol

[awm]

Well okay, I confess that if opponents somehow know that their suit is breaking badly in my hand and partner's, they can choose to drastically underbid and attempt to stop in 2M with 25-26 high card points. In these cases when I have some weakish hand with extreme shortage in the opposing suit, I will generally balance... and they can generally nail me at the three-level. However:

 

(1) Most opponents don't bid like this.

(2) If they do bid like this, they take the risk that all of our points are in the hand with long trumps, or that trumps are 3-2 in our two hands, and in either case they likely miss a cold game and play 2M.

 

So I'll take the opponents bidding at face value. One opponent made a one-level overcall (no power double). His partner made a single raise. If overcaller has a big hand, a lot of the time he'll make a game try whether I double or not. I think partner has something in this auction. The actual partner hand is very much at the lower end of the range. I'd be surprised if partner had some 4333 1-count with me holding 11 and the opponents going nowhere, wouldn't you?

 

Also keep in mind that I'm a big advocate of not making borderline negative doubles with length in the opponents suit. There are many hands with 4♥ and 6-9 hcp which I would pass over 1♠ (typically these hands involve 4♠, but they are not penalty passes).

[cherdano]

Well okay, I confess that if opponents somehow know that their suit is breaking badly in my hand and partner's, they can choose to drastically underbid and attempt to stop in 2M with 25-26 high card points. In these cases when I have some weakish hand with extreme shortage in the opposing suit, I will generally balance... and they can generally nail me at the three-level. However:

 

(1) Most opponents don't bid like this.

(2) If they do bid like this, they take the risk that all of our points are in the hand with long trumps, or that trumps are 3-2 in our two hands, and in either case they likely miss a cold game and play 2M.

 

So I'll take the opponents bidding at face value. One opponent made a one-level overcall (no power double). His partner made a single raise. If overcaller has a big hand, a lot of the time he'll make a game try whether I double or not.

They haven't stopped at the 2-level yet, they may easily have 26 hcp (17+9). Now you give them the option of doubling you at the 3-level instead of playing 4S on the 5-0 split.

 

Arend

[mikeh]

Well okay, I confess that if opponents somehow know that their suit is breaking badly in my hand and partner's, they can choose to drastically underbid and attempt to stop in 2M with 25-26 high card points. In these cases when I have some weakish hand with extreme shortage in the opposing suit, I will generally balance... and they can generally nail me at the three-level. However:

 

(1) Most opponents don't bid like this.

(2) If they do bid like this, they take the risk that all of our points are in the hand with long trumps, or that trumps are 3-2 in our two hands, and in either case they likely miss a cold game and play 2M.

 

So I'll take the opponents bidding at face value. One opponent made a one-level overcall (no power double). His partner made a single raise. If overcaller has a big hand, a lot of the time he'll make a game try whether I double or not. I think partner has something in this auction. The actual partner hand is very much at the lower end of the range. I'd be surprised if partner had some 4333 1-count with me holding 11 and the opponents going nowhere, wouldn't you?

 

Also keep in mind that I'm a big advocate of not making borderline negative doubles with length in the opponents suit. There are many hands with 4♥ and 6-9 hcp which I would pass over 1♠ (typically these hands involve 4♠, but they are not penalty passes).

Actually, if they have 25-26 hcp, they will not bid 3♠: they will redouble. Now partner, with the 4=3=3=3 1 count has to choose his zero at the 3-level. So your sarcasm, altho enjoyable (I mean that :) ) missed the point.... as did (I admit) my earlier post.

 

The main point I was trying to make remains valid. To double and double again on hands like void Kxxx Axxxx AKxx invites disaster in an effort to cater to a magic hand. To double the first time should deliver extra strength: of course, refusing to double merely because the opps might have 25 hcp is silly: but surely it is not silly to suggest that a bid that forces partner to choose to defend a suit in which we are void or to go to the 3-level with no suggestion that we have a viable fit should deliver more than 11 hcp, given that we have opened the bidding?

 

Yes, passing the first time MIGHT miss a good partscore: but just as passing out of fear is silly, so is ignoring the odds in favour of finding partner with the magic hand.

 

Now, you tried to increase the odds in your favour by retroactively insisting that responder could (in your style) hold hands that I am morally certain would NOT be possible for the vast majority of players: a 8-9 count with 4 ♥!

 

Yes, I can see hands of that nature on which I would pass 1♠, but they all involve short ♦. With 4=4=2=3 and no ♠ stopper but 8-9 points I and (I think) 99% of good players would negative double. Clearly, if you think pass is right here, then the odds shift in favour of opener doubling with minimums.

 

But consider the nightmare problems that your approach generates.

 

Say LHO bids 1N p p to you? Surely double shows a penalty double of 1♠??

 

Say LHO bids 2♣ and it goes either P P or (more common since I think most play 2♣ here as one round force if LHO has not passed previously) P 2♠.

 

Now what?

 

Or even if it goes P P x P to you: how do you distinguish between 4=4=2=3 9 count and 4=4=2=3 4 counts???

 

Sorry, as always I enjoy your arguments, but (unlike some other posts) you have yet to persuade me :)

[Guest Jlall]

These are all nice arguments about what the opps have and everything but for my money...

 

partner passed. He has spade length or is broke or has long clubs or a hand with like 7 points unsuitable for X, raise, or 1N. In the latter 2 cases he can balance (with 3C or 2N) if the opps pass it out. In all cases I am fine with passing, if he is broke I don't want to give them a fielders choice or help them play 4S double dummy. If he has spade length I don't want to endplay him into passing 2S X without much values, and if he has a real X of 2S he can make it himself. Even if the opps end up in THREE spades they might well play it a trick better because of my X. Bidding just makes no sense to me, partner is still in the game and it really is looking like its not our hand.

[awm]

Well some of this is the difference between MPs and IMPs. As has been mentioned before, most of my best results are at MPs whereas mikeh is more of an IMP star....

 

There are plenty of examples of hands partner could have:

 

xxx

xx

Kxx

AQxxx

 

xxxx

Qxx

Kx

ATxx

 

xxxxx

QJxx

x

Axx

 

I wouldn't bid over 1♠ on any of these hands. In no case does responder have enough for a 2/1 bid, nor a spade stopper for a 1NT call, nor a good enough diamond fit to raise. I'm sure some people negative double on the last hand, but this is quite likely to put partner in a bind when he has something like a 2353/2344 hand (pretty common on the auction) and has to guess whether to bid 1NT on no stopper, or 2♣ on the balanced hand, or 2♦ on five, or 2♥ on the 4-3. If we actually pass out 1♠ on the third hand, we'll generally do just fine (if opponents want to play in 1♠ when we have a majority of the strength, less than game values, and a majority of the spades, best of luck to them...)

 

Another point here is that I have zero spades. Opponents have shown eight. They have 18 remaining cards between them. Partner has 13 cards. What are the odds that all five of the spades opponents haven't shown are in partner's hand? I think not very high. Do I expect partner to balance with some 6-9 point hand including four spades? Not usually. Basically doubling on a minimum 0454 wins when partner has some 6-9 with spade length and wouldn't balance. It may also win when partner has a lesser hand with only 3-4♠ and we push the opponents up a level. It loses when partner has a bad hand with five spades (if partner has only 3-4, usually the opponents will do better by bidding and making 4♠ than by doubling our likely nine card fit at the three-level) but even then the opponents must judge to double and defend rather than competing higher. Of course, it also loses when partner decides I need a prime 15-count for my call, but this is a partnership issue and has nothing to do with the merits.

 

As for some of the arguments made about negative doubles, my approach is that I'm usually willing to allow the opponents to play a 6 or 7-card fit at the two-level on a partscore deal. Yes, occasionally it will be the case that we have an 8-card fit and they have a 7-card fit, and that bidding our 8-card fit will be a superior result to defending the 7-card fit. However, I feel that this is less likely to be the case when one of the side suits is breaking badly (i.e. RHO has 5 decent spades, I have 4 bad spades, partner has 2-3 spades, opponents decide to play 2♣ in a 7-card fit and we have a 4-4 heart fit. I feel that 2♥ may not play well here because of the bad spade break plus their spade values behind ours).

[HeartA]

These are all nice arguments about what the opps have and everything but for my money...

 

partner passed. He has spade length or is broke or has long clubs or a hand with like 7 points unsuitable for X, raise, or 1N. In the latter 2 cases he can balance (with 3C or 2N) if the opps pass it out. In all cases I am fine with passing, if he is broke I don't want to give them a fielders choice or help them play 4S double dummy. If he has spade length I don't want to endplay him into passing 2S X without much values, and if he has a real X of 2S he can make it himself. Even if the opps end up in THREE spades they might well play it a trick better because of my X. Bidding just makes no sense to me, partner is still in the game and it really is looking like its not our hand.

Completely agree with Justin. While the logic is so simple to me, I don't understand the dbl...

[HeartA]

Well some of this is the difference between MPs and IMPs. As has been mentioned before, most of my best results are at MPs whereas mikeh is more of an IMP star....

 

There are plenty of examples of hands partner could have:

 

xxx

xx

Kxx

AQxxx

 

xxxx

Qxx

Kx

ATxx

 

xxxxx

QJxx

x

Axx

It is true that pd could pass holding these hands. With Hand 1), pd would bid 3C or 2NT (or x, whatever is take-out or minors). For hand 2), pd would balance (2NT, for example), knowing opener is short in S, we must have fit for other suits (mostly minors). While for hand 3), I double over 1S (but pass is fine). If pd pass with that hand, I am OK with it. With trump lead, we wouldn't make many tricks.

[pclayton]

I've given this one a lot of thought and I've been converted (hallelujah :D ).

 

Here are the advantages to doubling:

 

1. It gives us a better opportunity to compete, but only if pard has one of the unusual hand types that can't make a negative double, and also can't balance if it happens to go, pass - pass.

 

2. It allows us to find a sac in 5♣ over 4♠ with some of the #1 hands above.

 

Here are the advantages in passing:

 

1. We are likely getting outbid here and any noise I make will only help the spade bidder pick up the trump suit as JL mentions. Unless declarer has a deaf ear, pard's J-4th and QJ-4th becomes very vulnerable and even J-9 5th under dummy's QT8 for instance. At MPs, this is a very serious concern.

 

2. We might go for a number, even if that number is -200. Frankly, I think we have significant LAW protection here (i.e., a likely 18 TT meaning if they kill us at 3♣ for -200/-500, they have +620; it was all vul right?), but it will be easy for them to saw it off, as the overcaller has an auto redouble, and the auction will develop a doubling rhythm. And if the TT is more like 16, the 3 level will be really ugly for us.

 

Its item 1 that I'm most concerned with at MP's.

 

Sorry Adam, you're on your own here :rolleyes:

[inquiry]

I've given this one a lot of thought and I I've been converted (hallelujah :rolleyes: ).

Welcome back from the darkside... :-)

[cherdano]

I've given this one a lot of thought and I've been converted (hallelujah :D ).

 

 

Here are the advantages in passing:

 

1. We are likely getting outbid here and any noise I make will only help the spade bidder pick up the trump suit as JL mentions. Unless declarer has a deaf ear, pard's J-4th and QJ-4th becomes very vulnerable and even J-9 5th under dummy's QT8 for instance. At MPs, this is a very serious concern.

 

2. We might go for a number, even if that number is -200. Frankly, I think we have significant LAW protection here (i.e., a likely 18 TT meaning if they kill us at 3♣ for -200/-500, they have +620; it was all vul right?), but it will be easy for them to saw it off, as the overcaller has an auto redouble, and the auction will develop a doubling rhythm. And if the TT is more like 16, the 3 level will be really ugly for us.

 

Its item 1 that I'm most concerned with at MP's.

 

Sorry Adam, you're on your own here :rolleyes:

Welcome, Phil! :)

 

I think you missed advantage number 3: Passing with hands like this one means that a double shows a stronger hand. So in those cases where it is more likely to be our hand, responder will know when such is the case and can act accordingly. These cases are more important to get right than those where we have 18 hcp and may push them from 2S to 3S in their 9-card fit.

 

That's the biggest gain IMO.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

Bidding just makes no sense to me, partner is still in the game and it really is looking like its not our hand.

If you don't dbl, there's a good chance opps will end up in a quiet 2♠ which is bound to score well for them. Doubling might push them to 3♠ or leave you play 3x, both of which are probably good for you. I think passing is too passive at MPs.

[awm]

It seems those who don't double expect partner to balance with a bunch of small spades. For example several people suggested that with:

 

xxxx

xx

Kx

AQxxx

 

Partner should balance 3♣. I'd submit that this makes you extremely vulnerable to a four card overcall. After all, partner will never bid with a minimum opening regardless of whether he has 2 spades, 1 spade, or 0 spades since his double shows something like 15+ which he probably doesn't have. So do you balance? If the answer is yes, then what if partner has a 2443 hand? Despite the mild fit in clubs, you're quite likely to go for a number. What if partner has 2452 (even worse)? Usually it's not hard for opponents to double this either. If you won't balance, what if opponents have 8 or 9 spades between them? If partner has a minimum 1444 or even 0454 your result defending 2♠ is likely quite poor. I think the risk of being forced to decide whether to balance on these hands, where your only real hope to get it right is to trust the opponents bidding is a lot worse than the risk of going for a number opposite no game when the short hand doubles.

 

As for the opponents picking up trumps, sure there's a risk. But with length behind length it's fairly often the case that they can't pick up trumps. And I think the general strategy of "don't compete for partscore hands because it might help the opponents figure out the play when they outbid us" is a very poor strategy.

[whereagles]

some suggested with:

 

xxxx

xx

Kx

AQxxx

 

Partner should balance 3♣.

Well, that's an obvious 1NT or 2♣ to me, not a pass of 1♠ :P

[Codo]

I gave opener 100 % too, but not for the double, but for his opening bid without spades and with few and soft values. If the bidding had been

pass (1 ♠) pass (2 ♠)

 

this had been an easy take out double.

 

Responders penalty doble is a no brainer at any form of scoring. Well maybe not if you are leading by 9-12 imps and this is the last board....