What's your call?

[awm]

This hand come up at a local sectional tournament.

 

The story is much like Justin guessed: the double of 2♥ was lightning fast (less than one second) whereas the double of 2♠ was after some consideration (something like 7-10 seconds). The double was pulled to 3NT.

 

Partner has:

 

♠JTx

♥Kxxx

♦K9xx

♣xx

 

3NT is definitely not the field contract, nor is it by most measures a particularly good contract. But the clubs are QJx onside and declarer guessed the diamond jack, so 3NT rolled home (630 actually, on a reasonable but non-best lead, but 600 was always available). The most likely result in 2♠X is down two (300 for N/S) although down three (500) is possible on best defense.

 

The director ruled that "south was always going to bid 3NT" and which seems a strange reason to make a forcing pass. E/W attempted to appeal this ruling, but the director decided (apparently without asking very many people) that a committee would "inconvenience the players" and therefore no appeal would be allowed. The matchpoint difference is admittedly small (difference between 0 and 1 on a 12 top I think).

[jdonn]

I would not bid 3NT if partner tanked before doubling :)

 

I'm glad to see my inferences worked out, that 3NT would probably play well, and that we probably were getting a good score here no matter what we did.

[Echognome]

I wonder how many posters have clear agreements as to the degree to which our sequence demands/shows trump strength/high card strength? Phil clearly does, and his agreements about subsequent doubles echoes mine. I suspect that Justin does as well... his objection is, I take it, that partner could be as light as 7 or 8 hcp.. and I agree.

 

I think this is a good point. I can only say that I played in the EBU for over four years and faced a weak NT often. My regular partners and I had very clear agreements for what was a fairly common auction. We did not treat our doubles of the mini any different than a weak NT. That is to say, that a double showed around 15hcp or more with a suitable hand for defense.

 

1. My double of 1N established a force through 2♦ by them: they cannot play 2♣ or 2♦ undoubled...if we can't double, we must bid.

 

Well I'm not quite sure whether you mean partner's pass of your double created the force, or if your double created the force, but I suspect the former. For better or worse, we play that partner has to immediately bid over up to 2♦ if he cannot cooperate in doubling. That is for (1NT) - Dbl - (2♦) - ?, pass is forcing, but for (1NT) - Dbl - (2♥) - ?, pass is non forcing. Some play that the penalty double is stronger and partner won't pull with nothing, but we want to allow for weaker (in the sense of 15+) hands so that we can get involved in the auction easier. You make your tradeoffs.

 

Thus, for me, partner's pass at his second turn created a force to fit.

 

4. Having said all of that, for me, my pass of 2♠ invites partner to double with Hxx. I am known to hold at least 2♠s and maybe 3.. but not 1 or 4. With 1, I'd never allow him to defend, with 4 I'd double.

 

He knows that we have their side suits controlled.. he'd expect me to lead a trump.. and for us to be able to lead trumps at least once more, and probably twice more, before they score any ruffs. So he SHOULD double with Hxx.

 

Well, this is up to your own agreements. We also play takeout doubles, so the auction would be slightly different (and perhaps longer), such as ...

..(2♣) - P - (P) - Dbl

(P) - P - (2♥) - P

(P) - Dbl - (P) - P

(2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

 

And it would be up to partner whether to leave it.

 

Regardless, we would tend to have 4 trumps for leaving it in. However, even in this case where you've agree Hxx or better, does Jxx count? I mean if partner has Kxx, they are getting killed.

 

5. As far as I am concerned, if we need partner to hold 4 trump to double, we are going to be waiting a long, long time... especially if we need 4 ourselves!. We may well have them exactly in the hoped-for 4-3 fit and be unable to double because we are 3-3 in the suit!

 

I don't understand this. What do you mean if we need 4 ourselves? But to answer your other question, I agree that sometimes the opponents wriggle out because we are 3-3 in their suit. I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

 

I also have no doubt that playing double dummy is helpful. But I want to add that we are overruling partner on this decision if we pull to 3NT. What is it about the hand that suggests this is the right thing to do? Do we not trust partner's judgment on this? Partner *knows* either of us will play it double dummy as well. Partner also sees the vulnerability. Partner may not be sure 3NT is making (and remember that partner expects about as much as we have for the double and yet is suggesting that we should defend). So why are we overruling him?

[un6c]

As awm's partner in the event where this hand occurred, let me add one point that no one has touched upon so far. Those of you who are saying you would pull to 3NT did not comment on the second part of the question "Do you agree with the auction so far?" I think this is really the key: If you are going to pull to 3NT after partner doubles 2♠, why did you pass 2♠ in the first place? Did you learn anything from partner's X of 2♠? Would any action by partner (except an impossible pass) prompt you to not reach an eventual contract of 3NT?

[Gerben42]

I tried to but agree 100%. You pass to see if partner doubles, then he doubles and you... run? This is inconsistent. BTW I agree with the actual auction and taking a plus in 2♠x.

 

The director ruled that "south was always going to bid 3NT" and which seems a strange reason to make a forcing pass. E/W attempted to appeal this ruling, but the director decided (apparently without asking very many people) that a committee would "inconvenience the players" and therefore no appeal would be allowed. The matchpoint difference is admittedly small (difference between 0 and 1 on a 12 top I think).

 

The director got this one backward. 3NT was demonstrably suggested by the hesitation and is therefore not allowed. Roll back to 2♠X. But it gets worse. The director does not have the power to DISALLOW an appeal. He can suggest if you appeal or not but not disallow it. While the first part is just bad directing, the second part is enough to suggest to the ACBL to kick this director out of their database.