After 4s Preemption

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sxhkqjxxdxxxcaqj10]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(4♠)-ps-(ps)-?[/hv]

What's your call?

[Blofeld]

It's close to the border between a pass and a double.

 

I think I double.

[skjaeran]

I double, and I don't think it's close.

[gwnn]

It's close to a redouble, if anything, but that's not really allowed.

 

I'd double without the ♥Q also (and replaced by a non spade)

[pclayton]

I'd pass and I don't think it's close.

 

If you double, what are you rooting for? A leave in or a pull? Neither looks that appetizing. The opps are vulnerable.

[whereagles]

Dbl. I like action B)

[Fluffy]

Double, not close.

 

Phil, partner is almost unlimited in this auction, only trouble about double is to fail on slam.

[MickyB]

Double. You wouldn't have to change the hand much for me to pass.

[Guest Jlall]

X. As Phil implied this is going to give up 5 imps often (and maybe more with the overtrick). However you're going to get some small wins when you beat them 2 or a big win when partner bids a game and makes it or pushes them to the 5 level or w/e. I think doubling light here is a long term winner.

[whereagles]

Well, I don't even consider this a light dbl :)

[Finch]

Double. And I don't think this is light, just minimum.

[P_Marlowe]

X.

 

Unless you play penalty doubles

in this position, in which case I

would pass, because I dont think

I am strong enough to force to

5 level via 4 NT in this case.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[655321]

Put me in with the 'Double, not close' crowd.

[jdonn]

I guess I'll start a new crowd. Double, but it's close.

[mikeh]

I double.

 

Pass is too dangerous.

 

We are allowed to have the minimum hand for our call: it makes us dislike the call but that isn't a reason not to make it.

 

BTW, this would be a far more dangerous call if partner didn't have 4N available with a 2-suiter with which he can't pass 4♠ doubled.

[jtfanclub]

BTW, this would be a far more dangerous call if partner didn't have 4N available with a 2-suiter with which he can't pass 4♠ doubled.

How so? Partner's expecting a three-suiter, yes? So if he has five diamonds and four clubs you'd expect him to say 5♦, not 4NT.

 

I'm not saying that Xing here for takeout is wrong (assuming you play it as takeout). I will say the average result from this has been nightmarish when I've been the partner, though often every choice is a bad result. But since partner didn't get a chance to bid over, say, 2♠, I don't see how I have any choice in the matter.

[bid_em_up]

BTW, this would be a far more dangerous call if partner didn't have 4N available with a 2-suiter with which he can't pass 4♠ doubled.

How so? Partner's expecting a three-suiter, yes? So if he has five diamonds and four clubs you'd expect him to say 5♦, not 4NT.

You might, but I wouldn't.

 

If partner was 3-1-5-4 (or 2-2-5-4), he should bid 4N offering both minor suits, not a unilateral 5D.

 

jmoo.

[cherdano]

BTW, this would be a far more dangerous call if partner didn't have 4N available with a 2-suiter with which he can't pass 4♠ doubled.

How so? Partner's expecting a three-suiter, yes? So if he has five diamonds and four clubs you'd expect him to say 5♦, not 4NT.

 

I'm not saying that Xing here for takeout is wrong (assuming you play it as takeout). I will say the average result from this has been nightmarish when I've been the partner, though often every choice is a bad result. But since partner didn't get a chance to bid over, say, 2♠, I don't see how I have any choice in the matter.

I don't know what your partner's do, but when my partners have 3154 they either pass or bid 4N. It is not close to show 2 suits with this shape, since the takeout double could be off-shape (with 1426 and the right amount of high cards, I would double).