Crazy crazy crazy?

[effervesce]

Dbl in my partnership.

[awm]

Here is the actual hand. It comes with a funny story.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakq9542hjda75ck6&w=sj83ht875dt6cq432&e=s7hkq32dkj9caj987&s=st6ha964dq8432ct5]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

At our table, north opened 4♠ and east doubled. This was passed back to north. As you can see, 4♠X makes fairly easily. But north decided it was time to get greedy (maybe he wasn't doing too well in this IMP pairs event). He redoubled. East now decided that maybe defending 4♠XX wasn't the best idea and bid 4NT. West pulled to 5♣, and north now bid 5♠. Everyone passed.

 

As you can see, 5♠ can be defeated. But we didn't manage it. Lose 0.8 imps for a fairly average board. We won the tournament anyway.

[awm]

I think there are two very reasonable ways to treat double in these auctions:

 

(1) Double is for takeout. It's typically a three-suited hand type with at least opening values. Partner should usually remove this double, but can leave it in with good defense or with a flat hand that just doesn't offer a realistic chance of making anything at the five-level opposite a typical 1444 opening bid.

 

(2) Double is general values. It's typically a strong notrump or better in strength. Partner should usually pass this double, but is welcome to bid on if holding a six-card suit or five-five in two suits.

 

There is also the unreasonable "absolutely penalty" treatment where it just promises the ability to beat 4♠ without any guarantees about shape or general values.

 

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to double with both hand type (1) and (2) and then blame partner when the "wrong" action is taken. I'm very unconvinced by this treatment. I see an awful lot of times that advancer has some moderate balanced hand (say a 2335 7-count) where bidding is much better opposite (1) and passing is much better opposite (2).

 

In any case, the actual hand is more of a funny story than anything else.

[han]

I think that the double by east and the pass by west are both normal. Don't really see alternatives.

[skjaeran]

I think that the double by east and the pass by west are both normal. Don't really see alternatives.

Agree.

[OleBerg]

I think that the double by east and the pass by west are both normal. Don't really see alternatives.

Agree.

How about taking out the take-out double? Theres a reason for its name.

 

Of course if it is a values-double, you'd have to pass.

[Apollo81]

Agree that this is a normal double. IMO pass has more merit than it has been assigned by this discussion, and 4NT has less...

[xcurt]

Here is the actual hand. It comes with a funny story.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakq9542hjda75ck6&w=sj83ht875dt6cq432&e=s7hkq32dkj9caj987&s=st6ha964dq8432ct5]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

As you can see, 5♠ can be defeated.

I didn't GIB this, but I don't think you can beat 5♠.

 

Assume a high heart lead (forced else declarer just sets up the diamond suit, east cannot profitably unblock). Declarer wins, ruffs a heart, and then runs 5 rounds of trumps leading to:

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakq9542hjda75ck6&w=sj83ht875dt6cq432&e=s7hkq32dkj9caj987&s=st6ha964dq8432ct5]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Now a low diamond forces east to duck, whereupon declarer rounds up: heart ruff, diamond ace, diamond.

[benlessard]

I would X but pass is ok too. For me there is a significant strength difference needed to double 4S instead of 4H.

[nige1]

I think there are two very reasonable ways to treat double in these auctions:

(1) Double is for takeout. It's typically a three-suited hand type with at least opening values. Partner should usually remove this double, but can leave it in with good defense or with a flat hand that just doesn't offer a realistic chance of making anything at the five-level opposite a typical 1444 opening bid.

(2) Double is general values. It's typically a strong notrump or better in strength. Partner should usually pass this double, but is welcome to bid on if holding a six-card suit or five-five in two suits.

There is also the unreasonable "absolutely penalty" treatment where it just promises the ability to beat 4♠ without any guarantees about shape or general values.

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to double with both hand type (1) and (2) and then blame partner when the "wrong" action is taken. I'm very unconvinced by this treatment. I see an awful lot of times that advancer has some moderate balanced hand (say a 2335 7-count) where bidding is much better opposite (1) and passing is much better opposite (2).

In any case, the actual hand is more of a funny story than anything else.

At the four level and higher, beggars can't be choosers. Tim Rees, one of the most successful UK players, enigmatically quotes "Double shows the cards you hold". I take this to mean that double is "competitive" -- showing any strong hand without a trump stack; and partner will remove it only with shape. It seems that Justin shares a hymn-book with Tim.