Classic Takeout For Once

[jdonn]

Partner had KQ doubleton of spades and they go down 1. Well done passers.

 

(I'm only a little bitter :))

[whereagles]

jtf, I just examined two scenarios, which seemed to be consistent and likely with the bidding.

 

Besides, that I got no losers in the minors seems like a good assumption: pard made a responsive dbl and I got AK AK in the minors. It isn't far fetched to assume he has the missing Qs. And if pard has ♠Qxx, there's a good chance opps will fish out the 3-1 break.

 

BTW, now that I see the full hand, I think I would have bid 3NT with pd's hand :)

[han]

Partner had KQ doubleton of spades and they go down 1. Well done passers.

 

(I'm only a little bitter :))

Yep, partner had a 14-count and only very few will be in the making 3NT. Well done passers. :P

[whereagles]

Come to think of it.. pard's responsive dbl is actually kinda awful.

[kfay]

Knowing what South has in his (my) hand 3NT red at imps is an EXTREMELY unattractive contract, imo. 3NT is a lucky make. I'm not saying that the double is good but I AM saying that if these t/o doubles are acceptable by South that 3NT is just as bad as X.

 

Anyways if partner doesn't have ♠KQ then hopefully we get favorable splits in hearts and clubs. This contract could have gone down 3! It's not just that partner had 1 spade trick that we set this contract, it's that we probably had a trick coming to us. Pass is a risk, but a calculated one. Certainly forgivable at MPs.

 

Edit: I mean 3NT is giving THEM a magic 200 more often than not. Am I wrong?

[whereagles]

Pass is a risk, but a calculated one. Certainly forgivable at MPs.

Are you sure? I don't want to argue with sucess, but isn't it more normal for pard to have, say,

 

xxx

Kx

Qxxx

KJxx

[jtfanclub]

jtf, I just examined two scenarios, which seemed to be consistent and likely with the bidding.

Huh. That's what I frequently have for my responsive doubles...a single stop in the opponent's suit, and 4-4 in the minors. Looks a little heavy to me, but the KQ of spades probably isn't carrying full weight.

 

I think a loser in each minor (which I expect to happen here in a club contract with the actual hand) is not uncommon on the auction and given hand.

[whereagles]

Sorry, I thought I had AK AK in the minors. Would still bid 4♣, though.

[han]

For what it's worth, I do agree with partner's double. But often partner will have the same shape in a hand that is quite a bit weaker, so I'm still not sure if passing is right.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW I think the argument that dummy will have 3 spades is silly, when I have 4 spades I'm sure I bid 3S more often than 4S. It's not mandatory to offer up a number with random balanced hands that have 4 spades.

[Guest Jlall]

But often partner will have the same shape in a hand that is quite a bit weaker, so I'm still not sure if passing is right.

You don't think partner will usually have 2 or more tricks on this auction? I can't see the opps making this that often, I think the bigger risk is missing a game and going +200 or +500, but even that will usually score a decent amount of matchpoints. I'm willing to risk getting a zero 20 % of the time for this, I bet we get a top more often than that.

[keylime]

I really loathe 4m here, and convert the double - the +200 allure is too much when they are red at MPs. That and the psychology of netting +500 when others are in a shaky 3NT that may go down, might help you in the long run as well.

[helene_t]

I like p's double, he has perfect shape and 3N is too much of a gamble for me

[Winstonm]

FWIW I think the argument that dummy will have 3 spades is silly, when I have 4 spades I'm sure I bid 3S more often than 4S. It's not mandatory to offer up a number with random balanced hands that have 4 spades.

I happen to agree, but that is also why LOTT can at best only be a guide - you cannot be a slave to LOTT. No one ever knows for sure how many trumps each side holds in their best fit.

 

When I said opps rate to have 9 spades, that is simply an estimation and won't be accurate more than 50-60% of the time - sometimes they raise on 4 and sometimes on a doubleton. But you have to start LOTT estimation somewhere, so 9 is a reasonable assumption.

 

It is also guesswork as to partner's shape - again, an estimation is the best you can do and thus relying totally on LOTT is wrong.

 

In the given scenario, I look at estimated LOTT but even more importantly I look at my good defense and lousy hearts and determine our chances of making game are remote so taking the risk of going +200 seem worthwhile.

 

This is why I pull at imps - I can't be sure of LOTT and do not want to bring back a big minus number.

 

BTW, if I were missing either minor suit 10-spot I wouldn't double - I think it really is dead minimum and only so because of the good interiors. Keep in mind that we are forcing to a 9-trick contract with a double of 2S.