Am I crazy

[kfay]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa6h632da1093caq93]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♠)-P-(2♠)-P

(P)-X-(XX)-3♣

(3♠)-P-(P)-?[/hv]

 

I don't care if you'd rather bid 2NT than 3♣ but do you double here?

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

No not close.

[Echognome]

I wouldn't double here.

 

I know you don't care, but can I go back and double 2♠? Then partner can decide.

[kfay]

I wouldn't double here.

 

I know you don't care, but can I go back and double 2♠? Then partner can decide.

Haha. Yeah maybe I should have done that.

[mikeh]

not close even at mps.

 

Consider:

 

the auction (especially the redouble) tells you that partner has already bid a lot of your values

 

your A's are under declarer.... who will hold most of the missing hcp

 

trump are breaking very well for declarer

 

if they fail by one trick, a double is probably gaining at most, on a 12 top, about 2 mps, since the field will usually be in 2♠. While if the double doesn't work, you are losing about 5 or 6 on a 12 top.

 

add to this the slight chance that the double will help declarer in the play, and the odds seem overwhelmingly in favour of pass

 

 

An added factor for an ongoing partnership is that a double of a making contract may dissuade partner from aggressive balancing in the future.

[oldman5757]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa6h632da1093caq93]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♠)-P-(2♠)-P

(P)-X-(XX)-3♣

(3♠)-P-(P)-?[/hv]

 

I don't care if you'd rather bid 2NT than 3♣ but do you double here?

 

 

You don't really think you were making 3 ♣, do you? You not only shouldn't double, if you do and they make it, which they probably will, it would be justifiable homicide in any bridge court to shoot you dead. Partner has taken his vulnerable life in his hands and pushed them to the three level, so you are very likely ahead of the field anyway. If they make it, you are average, if they don't, guess what, you are tied for top.

 

BTW, I would not have doubled 2♠, as someone suggested. I'd really want 4 ♥ to push the auction to the 3 level.

 

:D

[helene_t]

I would have doubled as well. Not sure if we are ahead of the field anyway as Mike suggests. If p has doubled with six hcps or less he has less than two spades so opps should be in 4♠ if they were lawfull. For all I know the board belongs to us.

 

I would probably have doubled 2♠ but I can live with pass. 3♣ is a really weired bid but you know that of course.

[cherdano]

You have to double 2♠ IMO, this is not close. Apparently partner knows you and helped you out, no need to punish him for that, just pass out 3♠.

[gwnn]

wouldn't you double 1st rnd on x xxx axxxx aqxx?? you have a spade more but it's the ACE.

[Halo]

I think double is winning Pairs here.

 

If partner is risking -200 or more to push them to a three level we can't challenge, I have to wonder what he was trying to achieve in this auction.

[Guest Jlall]

Partner's X has put you in a great spot, pass.

[MorK]

i don't know why I shd punish my pd for a good balancing double, so a clear pass for me at imps, in matchpoints I would look at my left and then decide to pass or double, but I prefer pass

[MFA]

I think double is ok. I'm not so confident that this will be a standard 2♠ contract board elsewhere, so there could easily be significant value in a successful double.

 

If -730 will stop partner from balancing vulnerable on some outrageous garbage in the future, maybe that is not so bad after all...

[MFA]

Btw, it IS so terrible to bid 3♣ that I have to mention this too.

[the hog]

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all. What is terrible is to double here, regardless of whether you are playing MPs or IMPs. At Imps it goes without saying. If you need arguments at MPs:

Partner has been brave; don't punish her and force her to reconsider her balancing strategy on future hands.

You are in a pretty good position here; don't waste it.

 

Yes I agree that 2S should have been doubled for t/out.

[gnasher]

I think it clear to double here: I expected to make three of a minor, I have a pile of defensive tricks, and partner competed to the three level vulnerable. I'm not going to let a fatuous redouble talk me out of bidding my hand.

 

The people who think that the field will be in 2S should find themselves a stronger game.

[MFA]

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all. What is terrible is to double here, regardless of whether you are playing MPs or IMPs. At Imps it goes without saying. If you need arguments at MPs:

Partner has been brave; don't punish her and force her to reconsider her balancing strategy on future hands.

You are in a pretty good position here; don't waste it.

 

Yes I agree that 2S should have been doubled for t/out.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

 

Yes, there is the old "don't punish partner" - saying. Here I think it's more about respecting partner and do what I have to do.

[cherdano]

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

But you prefer a club lead over a diamond lead, and opponents are likely to bid on.

[MFA]

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

But you prefer a club lead over a diamond lead, and opponents are likely to bid on.

That's a valid point, although I'm not so sure that they will rescue us, if we do wind up in a 4-3 or even 4-2 fit.

[benlessard]

Partner Vul reopen X should at least promise something. He shouldnt be X only to force them to 3S with no hope of setting it (but he will if hes a beginner). Hes either expecting to make something at the 4 level(not likely) or expecting to push them in 3S and have a chance to put it down. Expecting to steal a partscore at the 3 level (make 3 something & opps are making 3S but dont compete) is naive. So now its a clear X for me.

 

If -730 will stop partner from balancing vulnerable on some outrageous garbage in the future, maybe that is not so bad after all...

 

agree 200%

 

Of course you should play that 2Nt after a reopening X is scrambling.

[mikeh]

I think it clear to double here: I expected to make three of a minor, I have a pile of defensive tricks, and partner competed to the three level vulnerable.  I'm not going to let a fatuous redouble talk me out of bidding my hand.

 

The people who think that the field will be in 2S should find themselves a stronger game.

Some of the passers here have played in the toughest games in the world B)

 

But the real arguments in favour of pass don't relate to the toughness of the game.

 

I suspect that most would agree that the bidding suggests that partner has balanced aggressively. We hold a lot of hcp and the redouble is not necessarily 'fatuous' as you wrote. Indeed, the tougher the game, the less fatuous it will be because good players redouble to clue partner in, not to psych the opps.

 

Assume that 50% of the field plays 2♠. Assume 50% reach 3♠.

 

Assume we have a 50% chance of beating 3♠ a trick.

 

Don't get hung up on the precision of these estimates: yours may vary and you can apply the same math to your numbers.

 

On a 12 top:

 

If their limit is 8 tricks, and you pass, you score (if they are red) 100, and get anywhere from 6 to 9 mps on a 12 top, depending on how many doubled. Assume half the field, if given the opportunity, doubled, and you will beat 6 pairs, tie 3 and lose to 3, and score 7.5 on a 12 top by passing.

 

Had you doubled, you'd be scoring 10.5. So by doubling you increase your score by 3 mps on a 12 top.

 

If they make 9 tricks, then on the same assumptions, if you pass you tie 9 players and beat the 3 who doubled: you score 7.5 mps. If you doubled, you lose to 9 players and tie 3, for 1.5 mps.

 

So by doubling, you decrease your score by 6 mps.

 

Double, when right, equals +3 mps, and when wrong -6 mps.

 

This makes the double a clearly wrong bridge decision.

 

You can play with the numbers, but, however you do it, the fact remains that the double is usually anti-percentage unless:

 

1) you expect a significant majority of the field to be in 3♠,

 

2) you expect a most players, given the opportunity, will say double,

 

3) and you expect to beat the contract more than half the time.

 

Add to this the partnership morale cost when partner makes an aggressive balance and you turn an average into a near-bottom, and the odds for the double working on the given hand have to be much better than 50-50 for it to be the best call.

[han]

You can play with the numbers, but, however you do it, the fact remains that the double is usually anti-percentage unless:

 

1) you expect a significant majority of the field to be in 3♠,

 

2) you expect a most players, given the opportunity, will say double,

 

3) and you expect to beat the contract more than half the time.

I agree with everything you wrote Mike except this.

 

(1) is wrong because part of the field might be playing in 3m our way making. Regarding those people we can only win by doubling, not lose.

 

(2) is wrong, for our EV it is completely irrelevant whether the other players in 3S are doubled or not (assuming that the same number of tricks are taken at each table).

 

(3) is not entirely correct, see 1.

 

Again, I agree with completely with your argument against double.

 

I also agree that our previous pass and 3C were bad.

[gnasher]

Assume that 50% of the field plays 2♠. Assume 50% reach 3♠.

I have a takeout double of 2S, and my partner also has a takeout double of 2S. Why should I expect that any proportion of the field will play 2S?

 

And why should I assume that every opposing pair will play in spades, rather defending three of a minor?

 

the fact remains that the double is usually anti-percentage unless:

 

1) you expect a significant majority of the field to be in 3♠,

 

2) you expect a most players, given the opportunity, will say double,

 

3) and you expect to beat the contract more than half the time.

 

This is quite a long way from being a fact.

 

As has been pointed out, (2) is irrelevant.

 

Regarding (1) and (3), you seem to think that a successful double gains only against other pairs that defend 3S. However, it also gains (twice as many matchpoints per pair, in fact) against pairs who score +110 in three of a minor. If I believed that a large proportion of pairs would do this, double would be right even if I thought 3S quite likely to make.

 

On this hand, though, I don't have to worry about such details, because I think 3S quite unlikely to make.

[benlessard]

Lets assume for an instant that we are on a top notch table. WTF is going on ? I have 14 pts but didnt make a take-out X with 2S and 3 aces. Maybe i did hesitate slightly and partner have his bid or maybe i bid in tempo (top notch table remember). I pass (not my bid) and partner found a really surprising reopening X (we are red and hes balacing over 2S so hes forcing us at the 3 level) & not only that but RHO found a XX !! It doesnt need a genius to know something is fishy here. How many spades do you think partner has ? with 2 he need at least 8-9 pts. With 1 S partner will need less point, but then why RHO would XX having 4 or 5S and minimal values ? Easy because hes trying to play you. He probably got subminimal values but nice trumps. Hes planning to get to 3S all along but want to avoid the X so for him the XX is a risk free bid.

 

 

Case 2 lets assume that we are not on a top notch table.Some of the possiblities are

1- partner bid on my hesitation

2- partner reopen with crap because hes doesnt know what vuln is & he doesnt know that i have the right to pass the 2SX bid. He doesnt know that 3S making 3 is the same MP that 2S making 3.

3- RHO XX because he thought 2SXX would make.

etc...

 

I agree with everything you wrote Mike except this.

I disagree 98% about Mikeh post except

Some of the passers here have played in the toughest games in the world

Agree but some of the passer do play terrible bridge from time to time also :)

I suspect that most would agree that the bidding suggests that partner has balanced aggressively.

Why would partner bid agressivly red ? I did pass with 14 pts so why would i assume that partner will XX with 8 pts ? Why would i expect partner to play a completly opposite style ? What about the XX its surely a very agressive XX don't you think ?

because good players redouble to clue partner in, not to psych the opps.

Good player will XX to psych when its risk free and in this case its pretty much risk free

Assume 50% play in 2S

hehh ????? more like 20% will play in 2S

Assume we have a 50% chance of beating 3♠ a trick.

Again wrong percentage+ You have to take into account those who are going to play 3m on this deal

100, and get anywhere from 6 to 9 mps on a 12 top

3m is heavy favorite to make so +100 is going to be below average.

 

The rest of the post is based on wrong assumption.