Classic Takeout For Once

[kfay]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sxh9xxxdak10xcaj10x]133|100|Scoring: MP

(2♠)-X-(3♠)-X

P-?[/hv]

 

Excited that you finally have classic takeout double shape you double 2♠ (agree??...) and partner makes a responsive double. What's your move now?

[pclayton]

4 card suits up-the-line is the normal protocol for answering responsive doubles and I see no reason why this isn't the case here.

 

4♣ for me.

[han]

4C.

[kfay]

No one's saying if they agree with the takeout of 2♠.

[han]

Yes Kevin, I agree with the takeout double. :)

 

This hand is quite minimal but I can't imagine passing.

[jdonn]

4 card suits up-the-line is the normal protocol for answering responsive doubles and I see no reason why this isn't the case here.

 

4♣ for me.

Sounds good to me. I don't think pass is ridiculous with opponents vul at mps, but I can't bring myself to do it.

[Winstonm]

The double is bare minimum, but O.K. I would pass this double at matchpoints.

Keep in mind that the higher the bidding the less "pure" become this responsive double and the more "card showing" it becomes - somewhat of a "too much to pass" bid than a re-takeout.

 

I would take partner to have too much to pass, around 10-11, and because of my good quick tricks would try for the magic +200 here. It sounds like partner holds 3 spades so we are unlikely to have better than an 8-card fit.

 

At imps, I'd take some insurance and bid 4C, although pass is probably the right call there, too, on average.

[Codo]

1. Clear cut double. perfect shape and 12 HCPs.

 

2. It is mps and they are red, I pass, because I won´t get rich in 4 club anyway. If pd has enough for this (or even for 5 Club) to make, we will get a great result defending 3 Spade. If pd had Axx,x,Qxxxx,KQxx I apologisze.

[Guest Jlall]

I would pass all day, surprised by all the bidders. We have 3 quick tricks and no clear game etc.

[Edmunte1]

4♣ for me, pass is for the young and the restless

[whereagles]

Easy 4♦, to follow-up with 5♣ eventually, should things develop in that direction. If pard doesn't have diams, he'll have hearts and will correct.

[Fluffy]

No one's saying if they agree with the takeout of 2♠.

I wouldn't had doubled.

[P_Marlowe]

No one's saying if they agree with the takeout of 2♠.

The t/o was fine, given your shape,

you may even remove the Jack and

your 10s and I still would do it, so the

t/o is min, but it still could be worse.

 

And you can assume, that if the t/o would have

been terrible, you would have read some criticism,

so the silence is positive.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

The LOTT suggests bidding a minor: 18 tricks and 4m= is worse than 3SX-1 but 5m= is better than 3SX-2 and 4m-1 is better than 3SX=.

 

Not sure which minor, though.

[Winstonm]

The LOTT suggests bidding a minor: 18 tricks and 4m= is worse than 3SX-1 but 5m= is better than 3SX-2 and 4m-1 is better than 3SX=.

 

Not sure which minor, though.

Helene,

 

I don't see where you find 18 total tricks - the raise to 3S suggest 3-card support, which leaves parter with 3 spades, makings a 3244 more likely.

 

On this basis, there would be 17 total tricks; if we can make 10 tricks in a minor, LOTT suggests they can make only 7 tricks; however, most likely we can make 9 tricks while they can make 8 - and on a bad day 9.

[helene_t]

My bad, I was thinking of p having 2344, but if opps can be trusted you're right.

 

So I suppose pass is best choice at matchpoints.

 

Now Larry Cohen agrees with Winston, they must be right then :)

[whereagles]

If pard is 3244 (likely), we got an SST of 3 and all it takes is 19-21 WPs to make 4m. I got 15 and pard rates to have at least 5, probably 8-9. Heck, this is closer to bid 5m than to pass 3♠X.

 

Of course, mike lawrence can be wrong... lol.

[Winstonm]

If we can make 11 tricks, LOTT would suggest they can only make 6-7 tricks.

+800 or +500 would be better than +400, even if we make.

[helene_t]

Lawrence can be right but the SST/WP argument is hardly relevant because you need to know if 3♠ will make against our 4m-1, and how much 3♠ will go down against our game. I suppose you could apply SST/WP if you were willing to estimate the SST/WP of opps as well.

 

It's a misconception that SST/WP is an alternative to the LOTT. It has a completely different scope.

[Halo]

Pass.

 

I think partner probably is 3244 or 2344. I don't like my chances at the five level. I do have reasonable defence.

[whereagles]

1. Lawrence can be right but the SST/WP argument is hardly relevant because you need to know if 3♠ will make against our 4m-1, and how much 3♠ will go down against our game. I suppose you could apply SST/WP if you were willing to estimate the SST/WP of opps as well.

 

2. It's a misconception that SST/WP is an alternative to the LOTT. It has a completely different scope.

1. Ok. Let's see it from opps point of view then.

 

Their SST rates to be 2, unless the minors are mirrored (less likely than unmirrored). Suppose now we got 0/4/5 WPs in S/H/minors. They'll have respectively 10/6/0 WPs, i.e.

 

We: 24 WPs, SST 3 --> 11 tricks

They: 16 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

 

Let's try another scenario: we 3/0/5, they 7/10/0

 

We: 23 WPs, SST 3 --> probably 10 tricks due to the spade trick being setup too late

They: 17 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

 

Seems like odds are make 10-11 tricks in a minor and that they won't go more than 1 down in 3♠.

 

 

2. It's not a misconception. It is a true statement: it IS an alternative. Just that SST/WPs isn't as easy and straightfoward to evaluate as LOTT.

[han]

So I believe Frances taught us that partner could easily have 4 hearts here. With something like a 2-4-2-5 distribution, partner would double and bid 4H, showing at least two places to play.

 

Could those that pass post some hands where they would pull to 4C? Would those be similar shaped hands with fewer quick tricks?

[ArtK78]

In my partnerships, partner cannot have 4 hearts. So where are the heart honors?

 

This is very close. Passing 3♠x could result in -730 when we can make 9-11 tricks in a minor. Partner's responsive double indicates that he has at least one, if not both, minor suits. So I am bidding 4♣. I may miss a +200 (maybe even +500) on some occasions, but I should get a reasonable score.

 

Besides, maybe they will bid again.

[jtfanclub]

1. Ok. Let's see it from opps point of view then.

 

Their SST rates to be 2, unless the minors are mirrored (less likely than unmirrored). Suppose now we got 0/4/5 WPs in S/H/minors. They'll have respectively 10/6/0 WPs, i.e.

 

We: 24 WPs, SST 3 --> 11 tricks

They: 16 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

Ummmm...so if I understand this right, IF we have 150 honors in both minors, AND every point on both sides is working, THEN we might have 11 tricks.

 

I was thinking 4♣, but that'll change my mind in a hurry. Your partner made a responsive double. That doesn't scream extreme purity to me. I also expect that there's a lot fewer than 40 WP in this deck.

 

For example, if your partner has Qxx of spades, that's likely a trick on defense but not on offense. If your partner has, say, the QT of hearts, that'll set up slow trick for you on defense, but on offense you'll never have the time. Even if your partner has, say, the AKT of spades, that's not much of a help. You get to sluff what? Hearts you were planning to ruff? Diamonds you were planning to establish?

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with Mike Lawrence. I think you're starting with the assumption that they have no losers in spades and that you have no losers in the minors (with a 4-4 fit and a 2♠ opening, natch). That's a hell of an assumption to make.

[kfay]

I'm with the passers on this one, and I did just that. Here's the full deal:

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=skqhaqxdjxxxcqxxx&w=s10xxxhk108xxdqxxcx&e=saj9xxxhjdxxckxxx&s=sxhxxxxdakxxcaj10x]399|300|Scoring: MP

E S W N

2♠ X 3♠ X

All Pass[/hv]

 

I didn't really think it was clear-cut but I agree with everything that Winston said. IMPs I'll probably bid but here the quick tricks make pass very attractive.