Crazy crazy crazy?

[awm]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s7hkq32dkj9caj987]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 4♠ in first seat. You are playing IMP pairs, unfavorable. What's your call?

 

Assume fairly standard meanings for double and 4NT.

[rogerclee]

I think this double is clear.

[mike777]

double

 

but perhaps this is some bad nonexpert bid by me.

[jillybean]

I reluctantly passed this. 4nt 2nd choice

[Elianna]

I like 4NT.

[655321]

Agree with Clee.

[pclayton]

Double. No second choice.

[the hog]

X. Not pass.

[awm]

As a side question, what do you think about this hand on the same auction:

 

♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦KJ9 ♣AJ9

[Guest Jlall]

You gave an example of a textbook double...what's the catch?

 

As a side question, what do you think about this hand on the same auction:

 

♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦KJ9 ♣AJ9

 

This one is at least closer but I would pass. If you turned the hand into a doubleton spade I would be doubling again.

[DrTodd13]

One could make an argument that 1 spade is fine (because you know you are short) and 3 spades are ok (on the inference that pd is probably short) but that 2 spades is the most dangerous case. So, I think one should be more likely to bid with 3 of them instead of 2.

[Guest Jlall]

One could make an argument that 1 spade is fine (because you know you are short) and 3 spades are ok (on the inference that pd is probably short) but that 2 spades is the most dangerous case. So, I think one should be more likely to bid with 3 of them instead of 2.

Those people would forget that partner is more likely to reopen himself when he has a stiff spade, and we are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx, and that partner is not going to pull that often with 2 spades himself, and when he has a stiff spade we would rather have an extra card somewhere else (especially if he's going to pull to that suit).

[dicklont]

Double is normal, could go wrong but that´s just bridge.

It will be ok more often, won't it?

[dicklont]

One could make an argument that 1 spade is fine (because you know you are short) and 3 spades are ok (on the inference that pd is probably short) but that 2 spades is the most dangerous case.  So, I think one should be more likely to bid with 3 of them instead of 2.

Those people would forget that partner is more likely to reopen himself when he has a stiff spade, and we are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx, and that partner is not going to pull that often with 2 spades himself, and when he has a stiff spade we would rather have an extra card somewhere else (especially if he's going to pull to that suit).

Puzzling me....

 

We are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx

 

Is that so? Why?

[DrTodd13]

If pd needs a spade ruff then the spade suit is either 8320 or 7321. In either case, the short guy is ruffing after dummy....not so ideal. The big problem is losing two spade tricks I think. You can't have any other losers in that case. Yeah, if partner is short he'll be more likely to take action but there is a limit. Give partner a 10 point hand with a singleton spade, who is going to take some action after 4♠-pass-pass.

[nige1]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s7hkq32dkj9caj987]133|100|Scoring: IMP

RHO opens 4♠ in first seat. You are playing IMP pairs, unfavorable. What's your call? Assume fairly standard meanings for double and 4NT.[/hv]

IMO _X = 10, _P = 7, 4N = 5.

[gwnn]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s7hkq32dkj9caj987]133|100|Scoring: IMP

RHO opens 4♠ in first seat. You are playing IMP pairs, unfavorable. What's your call? Assume fairly standard meanings for double and 4NT.[/hv]

IMO _X = 10, _P = 0, 4N = -1.

FYP

[Free]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s7hkq32dkj9caj987]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 4♠ in first seat. You are playing IMP pairs, unfavorable. What's your call?

 

Assume fairly standard meanings for double and 4NT.

Is there anything else than Dbl?

[effervesce]

One could make an argument that 1 spade is fine (because you know you are short) and 3 spades are ok (on the inference that pd is probably short) but that 2 spades is the most dangerous case.  So, I think one should be more likely to bid with 3 of them instead of 2.

Those people would forget that partner is more likely to reopen himself when he has a stiff spade, and we are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx, and that partner is not going to pull that often with 2 spades himself, and when he has a stiff spade we would rather have an extra card somewhere else (especially if he's going to pull to that suit).

Puzzling me....

 

We are more likely to have a trump trick when we have xx trumps than xxx

 

Is that so? Why?

Let's say for argument's sake the 4♠ bidder has an 7 card suit, headed by AK. If you have 3 of them, then there are only 3 cards remaining in the suit- making it more likely that if parter has the Q, it will drop. If you have only 1, then there are 4 cards remaining in the suit. If dummy has two, then partne will have 3. Declarer will probably play for the drop, thus allowing the Q to take a trick.

 

The same argument applies with xx vs xxx.

[mcphee]

This hand is a dble of 4S. Why it is a better choice IMO than 4NT is because 4NT is generally used as a 2 suited hand type, and its easy to see this is not the hand you hold.

 

I feel sorry for players who use dble as penalty of 4S, they get screwed on hands like this.

Dblr =10

4N = 2

P = 0

[Finch]

As a side question, what do you think about this hand on the same auction:

 

♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦KJ9 ♣AJ9

well, someone has finally posted a 3433 14-count on which I'd double a 1♠ opening

[Lobowolf]

This hand is a dble of 4S. Why it is a better choice IMO than 4NT is because 4NT is generally used as a 2 suited hand type, and its easy to see this is not the hand you hold.

 

I feel sorry for players who use dble as penalty of 4S, they get screwed on hands like this.

Dblr =10

4N = 2

P = 0

It's not necessary to have a 2-suited hand; it's feasible, because if partner bids the short suit, you pull to the next one up, suggesting the other two; here, you don't care what suit partner responds in -- you have support for all of them. How is that getting screwed? 4NT pick a suit - partner bids anything at the 5-level, and you're right where you would be if he'd responded to a takeout double.

 

10 vs 2 on the score because what, opener can't sit for the double?

[jdonn]

2 is generous for 4NT (unless you play it specifically as three suited takeout, in which case your methods are old fashioned and bad). It's partly that partner can pass a double, which is his most common action. But more it's that if 4NT can be two or three suited partner has NO CLUE what suit to respond in. What does he bids if he is 2533? 2542? You are missing your heart fit to play in worse minor suit fits? And if he has six hearts it's even worse. I mean god forbid he is 3721 and has to worry you have minors...

[gnasher]

Using 4NT to cover all of your two-and three-suited takeout hands has several disadvantages:

 

- You can't defend 4♠x

 

- Facing a three-suited takeout, advancer can't use 4NT to show two places to play. With 1=4=3=5 opposite x=4=4=x, some of the time you will end up in diamonds.

 

- If advancer has to cater for a two-suiter, sometimes he has to bid a 3-card suit. With 4=4=3=2 opposite a 4NT bid that is either two-or three-suited, advancer has to bid 5♦, presumably playing there opposite a 1=4=3=5.

 

- You can't cope with both 5-5 and 6-4 shapes. Playing takeout doubles, you can use double followed by converting 5D as 4-6 in the reds, and 4NT followed by 5D as 5-5 in the reds.

[gnasher]

Isn't the original question really just a matter of what "fairly standard" means? If double is for takeout, or covers a range of hands that includes a takeout double, then it's is completely obvious to do that, and 4NT deserves about -5.

 

Equally, if double is either for penalties or strong balanced, it would be ridiculous to double. In that style, it's probably fairly close between pass and 4NT.