Come on, take it out, really?

[Fluffy]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa84h742daj7c9876]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W - N - E - S

3♥-X-ps-??[/hv]

[mr1303]

I really can't think of any good bid here. At least I have aces, not quacks, and I really have nowhere to go. I'll apologise to partner if it's wrong.

 

I pass, and blame Larry Cohen if I'm wrong

[han]

I pass this one.

[Halo]

Pass - even though I hate doing it.

[Guest Jlall]

Also a passer

[pclayton]

2 aces and a flat hand? We were born to defend with this.

 

Pass.

[ArtK78]

Did anyone notice that this is IMPs? And your LHO opened 3H vulnerable in 1st seat? And your partner is, presumably, short in hearts? And your trump holding is 7xx?

 

You will probably beat 3Hx about 6 or 7 times in 10 based on aces and kings. But 3 or 4 times in 10 you will be -730 (or, gasp! -930). Not only that, but if your partner is short in hearts, you should have a fit and possibly a game (or, gasp! slam). After all, partner did make a takeout double.

 

Some of those 6 or 7 times in 10 you beat 3Hx a trick or 2 you will have a game or slam.

 

I bid 4♣. Even if this is wrong (and it will occasionally be wrong) it will at least avoid destroying partnership harmony and possibly losing the match on this one hand.

 

By the way, Larry Cohen might note that the opponents rate to have a 9 or 10 card heart fit, so their contract is Law abiding. Whether you have an 8 or 9 card trump fit is questionable, but partner did double.

 

There is a quote attributed to Bobby Goldman. While playing with a client, in a competitive auction, the client, with a good hand but not much in the opponent's trump suit, made a penalty double. After the opponents made their contract, the client answered Goldman's question about why he doubled with "But I had a good hand!" To which it is reported that Goldman replied "With points you bid - with trumps you double!"

 

Here, by passing, you are effectively doubling for penalties. You have aces and 3 small trump. It may work, but I don't like it.

[Guest Jlall]

Did anyone notice that this is IMPs? And your LHO opened 3H vulnerable in 1st seat? And your partner is, presumably, short in hearts? And your trump holding is 7xx?

oh!

[jtfanclub]

I bid 3♠. And congratulate the opponents and apologize to partner after the hand.

 

Vulnerable and MPs, I leave it in. Vulnerable and IMPs, I should leave it in. My cojones just aren't big enough. Sorry.

[jdonn]

I bid 4♣. Even if this is wrong (and it will occasionally be wrong) it will at least avoid destroying partnership harmony and possibly losing the match on this one hand.

These are the types of comments I don't understand. How will 3♥X making destroy partnership harmony but not 4♣X down three?

 

Also, if you are going to mention Larry Cohen then the law argument would be to pass. You figure them for 9 hearts and you for 8 clubs (either could be off by 1 in either direction) which is not the sort of thing that would make LC recommend bidding 4 over 3.

[ArtK78]

And why are you getting doubled? You should have a reasonable trump fit and the majority of the strength on the hand. Why do you assume that you are getting doubled and going down?

[jdonn]

And why are you getting doubled? You should have a reasonable trump fit and the majority of the strength on the hand. Why do you assume that you are getting doubled and going down?

I don't. That's simply the bad scenario. Just like 3♥X making would be the bad scenario. You said one of those disasters would destroy partnership harmony and I'm just wondering why the other one wouldn't.

[han]

Careful jdonn, everything you say can and will be used against you in the appeal, and Art may be on the committee.

 

I hope partner didn't make a slowish double.

[ArtK78]

Is it possible to discuss a bridge hand without personal insults?

 

Maybe not for some.

 

Anything could be right on this hand. In my opinion, taking out partner's takeout double rates to be best in the long run if you don't have a strong holding in the opponents' trump suit.

 

I have some admiration for the 3♠ bidder. That call occurred to me, also, but I think that I should still bid my long suit, even if it is xxxx. In spades, partner is going to be tapped in the long trump hand, which can work out quite badly.

 

From discussions in other threads, some posters do not have a lot of respect for vulnerable preempts. Perhaps they are drawing from personal experience. In my experience, when a good player opens a vul 3♥ at IMPs in first seat he usually has a very good suit. Partner could easily have a 4045 hand (heart void, any 5 card suit) and make a takeout double. Partner might even have a 4063 or 4036 hand. You might still beat 3♥x, but you probably won't get rich. And 3♥x might make. Furthermore, you may be cold for a game or slam your way. I wouldn't want to return to my teammates' table with -730 when they are minus a game in one of the other suits. Equally disastrous would be +200 or +500 when you are cold for slam.

 

The passers may be right on this hand. But I don't think it is the right call in the long run.

[han]

I wouldn't want to return to my teammates' table with -730 when they are minus a game in one of the other suits. Equally disastrous would be +200 or +500 when you are cold for slam.

This is such a bad argument, my fingers begin to tickle again and I have to delete the insults that appear on the screen.

 

If you want to argue that passing is wrong, please don't use this "if it is wrong your teammates will be angry" crap.

 

And of course partner could have a heart void. Of course partner could also be 4-2-4-3, what else would she do with KQxx xx K10xx AKQ. Here you can't make much yet you will likely score +500 if you pass.

 

Those who posted before you think that passing is best in the long run, but they may be wrong. It is you who insults them by suggesting that they didn't understand the colors or didn't realize it was IMPs. They did, they don't like being in this position, but they think pass is the best call. You think bidding is best, no problem, bridge is a difficult game and the right call isn't always clear.

[ArtK78]

I never said that my teammates would be angry. I said that I would not want to bring that result back to my teammates.

 

And I did not insult anyone. I just find it hard to believe that so many would pass at IMPs under this set of conditions.

 

Could partner be 4243? Sure. But I am not going to base my bidding on that possibility. Even if that is true, it does not follow that we are beating 3♥x or that we won't make a partial. Still, if partner has that exact hand, then passing will probably work out best.

 

But there are so many other possible hands that are consistent with the auction on which passing will work out very badly.

 

The bottom line is that partner made a takeout double and I am going to take it out.

[jdonn]

I have no problem with any of your bridge arguments Art (not terribly impressed by the ending cliche though.) Your position is minority but reasonable. What I still don't understand at all is why bringing back certain disasters is more bothersome to you than other disasters, or why it would have any more damaging impact on partnership harmony. It's not as though pass is some wild unreasonable action, it is in fact the majority action, so partner would have no reason to be upset no matter what happens if you pass. That's all I'm trying to get at.

[skjaeran]

Add my voice to the (not unanimous) chorus of passers here.

[gwnn]

i have to admit i wouldnt pass this one, but it's probably just because i'm (still) a chikin and my defense is not very good (yet!). hopefully a year or so from now i'll pass these:)

[whereagles]

I pass, and blame Larry Cohen if I'm wrong

I'll sue for reparations. Definitely :rolleyes:

[Winstonm]

The a priori assumption proposed by Larry Cohen in The Law of Total Tricks is that partner is 4144 and proceed accordingly. This would give an estimate of 17 total tricks with the opponents' 9-card fit and our 8-card club fit. The flat hand would be a negative adjustment but would be cancelled out by the prime cards held and lack of wastage - ergo, 17 tricks would be the starting point.

 

The argument then is, according to Cohen, that if we can make 10 tricks in clubs then they should be able to make only 7 tricks in their best fit.

 

But Cohen in many examples has professed that he doesn't necessarily have the stomach for pass at imps in these auctions with these hands.

 

If we could know for sure the total tricks were 17, there would be a stronger case for pass. Not knowing this, both pass and bid hold risks.

 

I would tend to pass expecting a 1+ trick defeat, but would not be real happy about the choice and would not strongly fault a bid of 4C.

 

Blame the preemptor.

[Fluffy]

I wanted to make another post about what to do when partner cues 4♥ over 4♣, if 4♠ later would be cue or nat, because that is the problem my partner faced at the table, didn't see untill I was gonna post the hand, that he actually had another previous problem. I would had passed as well, but won't argue with success.

 

Partner's hand:

 

♠KQ103

♥A

♦Q9

♣AKQ1082

[han]

I bid 4C.

[whereagles]

Dbl was normal and so was pass. Sht happens. Preempts work.

[Codo]

I was on the minority, I had bid 4 ♣.

But I had never believed that pd can have this hand.

Double with a strong 4126 hand? Is this standard?

I had bid 5 Club at imps. Even if I find pd with Axxxxx,xxx,xxxx,- I may make it and if pd has diamonds, I won´t know what to do after a 4 or 5 Diamond bid from him.