IMP v. MP

[kfay]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa10hq972dj10963ckj]133|100|P-(P)-1♦-(1♠)

Dbl-4♠-P-(P)

?[/hv]

 

What's your bid at IMPs and MPs? Feel free to throw out any other influencing factors.

[gwnn]

I'll double at all forms of scoring, to drive to 5 level is too unilateral. Pard is entitled to pull if he's short in spades, with 6-4 or something.

[gnasher]

Double. 1♦ would have to promise five before I'd consider anything else.

[mikeh]

Double.  1♦ would have to promise five before I'd consider anything else.

agreed

 

This should be analogous to 1♦ [4♠] x: transferable values.. the hand belongs to us, and opener is allowed to bid with extra shape, but is expected to pass more often than not.

[Apollo81]

I do not think that a double here shows any desire to play in 5♦.

 

I think this is much closer than people seem to think. In fact I would bid 5♦ W/W at IMPs where -1 is not that big of a deal if 4♠ is also -1. We may not even get doubled in such a case. They might even bid 5♠!

 

If we were vulnerable, I would double. I expect partner to have full values for a red 3rd seater, but not necessarily for this auction.

 

I would probably double at matchpoints regardless of colors -- and there are certain people who I would always double if they were making the 4♠ bid.

[jdonn]

This is definitely closer than most think. At imps I would bid 5♦, and second choice is PASS. They are probably down but we are quite unlikely to get rich, and it really hangs partner to double when he just opened not vul in third seat. To me double is sort of an expert reflex action based on the general strength, but where the more you think about it the more wrong you should see it is.

 

MPS it's a lot tougher. I lean toward double in a close decision with 5♦. This talk of being unilateral can go too far, I mean it's not like partner will ever play us for five card support if we double.

[gnasher]

Apollo and Josh seem to be arguing against making a penalty double with this hand. If so, I agree with them, but not with their conclusion. The answer is not to make a horribly unilateral bid of 5♦, but to stop playing the double as so penalty-oriented.

[peachy]

Apollo and Josh seem to be arguing against making a penalty double with this hand. If so, I agree with them, but not with their conclusion. The answer is not to make a horribly unilateral bid of 5♦, but to stop playing the double as so penalty-oriented.

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty:

Would Pass be forcing? Opener surely does not know whose hand it is, and our side was not in gameforcing auction nor bid game constructively. Responder could have had his 8 high with hearts and only two or three diamonds. In other words, I don't think Pass would be forcing. But maybe someone could elaborate more, for Yes or No on the FP issue which does affect the choice of bid of course.

[rogerclee]

Would Pass be forcing?

No. It would be a FP situation if we had shown game forcing values in terms of strength. We have not done anything which even remotely resembles this.

[kfay]

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty:

Would Pass be forcing? Opener surely does not know whose hand it is, and our side was not in gameforcing auction nor bid game constructively. Responder could have had his 8 high with hearts and only two or three diamonds. In other words, I don't think Pass would be forcing. But maybe someone could elaborate more, for Yes or No on the FP issue which does affect the choice of bid of course.

 

I wouldn't play a FP here with any of my partners. I don't think anyone should.

[jdonn]

Apollo and Josh seem to be arguing against making a penalty double with this hand.  If so, I agree with them, but not with their conclusion.  The answer is not to make a horribly unilateral bid of 5♦, but to stop playing the double as so penalty-oriented.

I am unaware of a meaning for the double for which partner anticipates 5 card support.

[Guest Jlall]

Josh you can't pass even if you think they will make more often than they go down because partner will bid x % of the time and it will be so good when that happens since you will probably make 5D, or maybe go one down vs their make, or maybe it will be a double make (imagine partner bidding 5C, yummy).

 

As far as double vs 5D it's pretty nasty to double with 5 card support but I would still do it since I think my hand is pretty defensive if partner has a weak NT hand type, and if hes unbalanced with short spades he will often bid.

[dburn]

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty:

Would Pass be forcing?  Opener surely does not know whose hand it is,  and our side was not in gameforcing auction nor bid game constructively.  Responder could have had his 8 high with hearts and only two or three diamonds. In other words, I don't think Pass would be forcing.  But maybe someone could elaborate more, for Yes or No on the FP issue which does affect the choice of bid of course.

If your methods encompass the notion that a pass in the pass-out seat is forcing, they should probably be revised. If on the other hand you are asking whether opener's pass to 4♠ is forcing, the answer is no.

 

Would pass at IMPs - why should we make game, or lose points on the board if 4♠ goes down? Doubling or bidding could easily result in a three-digit score starting with 5, 6 or 8 being entered in the minus column. Might double at matchpoints just in case we get 300, but probably would not. 5♦ might work, but is ridiculous.

 

Of course, I would not have doubled 1♠. Instead I would have bid 2♠ to show a sound diamond raise. That might have left partner better placed over 4♠ to his right, but so strong is the tendency to show four hearts in this kind of auction that I do not expect to convince others of the soundness of this approach.

 

But it is pretty stupid, when the opponents have started bidding spades, to conceal excellent support for partner's diamonds just in case we can fight spades with the hearts that we may or may not have. Supporting diamonds does not deny holding four hearts, nor preclude reaching a heart game if that is where we belong.

[gnasher]

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty:

Would Pass be forcing?

No, pass isn't forcing. If it were, my double would be for penalties, and I'd bid 5♦ instead.

[benlessard]

At MP i think X is pretty clear. Sometimes there are going to make it but +300/+100 instead of +100/+50 will make quite a difference in MP.

 

At Imps partner is rarely going to have a weak Nt hand, most of the time hes going to have 5D or 4D & 5C. So RED i slightly prefer 5D and white i prefer pass.

[peachy]

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty:

Would Pass be forcing?  Opener surely does not know whose hand it is,  and our side was not in gameforcing auction nor bid game constructively.  Responder could have had his 8 high with hearts and only two or three diamonds. In other words, I don't think Pass would be forcing.  But maybe someone could elaborate more, for Yes or No on the FP issue which does affect the choice of bid of course.

If your methods encompass the notion that a pass in the pass-out seat is forcing, they should probably be revised. If on the other hand you are asking whether opener's pass to 4♠ is forcing, the answer is no.

 

Would pass at IMPs - why should we make game, or lose points on the board if 4♠ goes down? Doubling or bidding could easily result in a three-digit score starting with 5, 6 or 8 being entered in the minus column. Might double at matchpoints just in case we get 300, but probably would not. 5♦ might work, but is ridiculous.

 

Of course, I would not have doubled 1♠. Instead I would have bid 2♠ to show a sound diamond raise. That might have left partner better placed over 4♠ to his right, but so strong is the tendency to show four hearts in this kind of auction that I do not expect to convince others of the soundness of this approach.

 

But it is pretty stupid, when the opponents have started bidding spades, to conceal excellent support for partner's diamonds just in case we can fight spades with the hearts that we may or may not have. Supporting diamonds does not deny holding four hearts, nor preclude reaching a heart game if that is where we belong.

You are right, I meant the opener's Pass. :mellow: And Yes, I thought it cannot be a FP. But I liked the neg Dbl, I see no reason to hide hearts just because I have good diamond support. One cannot foresee that they were going to bid 4S over the Dbl and they might have bid 4S over a hypothetical 2S (diamond raise) as well, in which case the potential heart fit gets buried. I am still not sure what I would do, but probably bid 5D.

[pclayton]

I would definitely double at MPs. I can't see -420 ever being a good score when most tables might not be getting to game, or we have a profitable sac. I need to protect against out +110 / +130 and I'm not that concerned about turning a 15% board into a 5% board. At MPs, pard tends to ride out these doubles more often.

 

At IMPs I would probably double but for different reasons. I only want partner to pull with 6♦ (or 5♣). I'm fine defending 4♠ with something like a 1354 / 1453 / 1444.