Partner doubles twice

[MFA]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sq84hk983da73c876]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(p)-p-(1♥)-X

(2♥)-p-(p)-X

(p)-??[/hv]

 

This hand created a lot of debate in our club.

 

What should south do?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass, although it is possible that we may have

to write down 2Hx=, the alternative being 2S.

 

As it is, it is a matter of partnership agreement:

How much does the 2nd X promise.

It occurred in the pass out seat, so it wont be based

on +17, 12-14HCP with the approbriate shape 444?

would be sufficient for most, at least for me, but it may

not be for your partnership, and maybe "most" means

just me.

 

If you require more for the 2nd X, you can pass more

easily, if you require less, you should run.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[brianshark]

I think I would pass and take our plus, even though it may only be 100 or 300. We might not have the values for 3N, especially as you probably have a single ♥ stopper.

[MFA]

I think I would pass and take our plus, even though it may only be 100 or 300. We might not have the values for 3N, especially as you probably have a single ♥ stopper.

Note that they are vul, we are not.

[Sambolino]

for me pass is the best action, but i also think 2hx will make more often than one would expect

[OleBerg]

Pass and prey.

[mcphee]

A nice hand which may have elected to dble 2H responsive, although admittedly that K of H may be worthless, especially with the lead going through it opposite a hand that may well be 4-1-4-4. That said I do not see that if dear partner were to bid 2S after my double that his task will be momumental to make 2S. If partner does not have 4S for this t/o dble we surely have an 8 card minor fit and now things are not hopeless at all, though not wonderful. I lean towards dble of 2H and feel that is the action I would have taken at the table, right or wrong.

 

There is no way I am passing 2H dbled at imps, which could easily be minus 670 or 870 for that matter. I feel passing is risking too much and may punish partner for acting a second time. So after this second double I reach with confidence for the 2S bid and hope I have been blessed with a suitable dummy.

[RichMor]

Pass at matchpoints, pull to 2♠ at IMPs.

[Trinidad]

Hi,

 

Pass, although it is possible that we may have

to write down 2Hx=, the alternative being 2S.

 

As it is, it is a matter of partnership agreement:

How much does the 2nd X promise.

It occurred in the pass out seat, so it wont be based

on +17,  12-14HCP with the approbriate shape 444?

would be sufficient for most, at least for me, but it may

not be for your partnership, and maybe "most" means

just me.

 

If you require more for the 2nd X, you can pass more

easily, if you require less,  you should run.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I hope the second double shows a little more than just that. After all, those are about the minimum requirements for the first double. A 4144 with 13 HCPs shouldn't balance, since partner has already said that he wants to play 2♥ opposite that.

 

Unless you play advancer's pass as forcing, it is normal to expect (at least) something like a 16 count for the second double with a distribution that is somewhat near a 4144.

 

I think pass is crystal clear. We have the values for bidding 3NT, but that doesn't mean that it will make. I would be very surprised if 2♥ would make. I expect down 3 for +800 and happy team mates. Even if it goes down 1 only, we write +200 in which case it is hard to envision us having a making game.

 

Remains the dreaded 2♥ making. We will give a game swing away. But my A, K and Q should be good for 2 tricks, in isolation. When they cooperate with partner's 16 HCP, it is hard to imagine that we can't take at least 6 tricks.

 

Partner can lead the ♥10 ;).

 

Rik

[benlessard]

I make pretty light initial X but make sound X in balancing so its a clear pass and they are not going to make it.

[OleBerg]

Of course it is not difficult to imagine 2♥ making, even with an overtrick. The danger is that partner has reopened with a void in hearts.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to reopen with:

 

♠ EJ10x

♥ -

♦ KQJx

♣KJ10xx

 

Here we are guarantied nothing but one spade and two diamonds. (Declarer will probably be down to 9 tricks, due to handling problems.)

 

However with the very same hand, we might have three spades, three diamonds, a club and a heart, for 800.

 

Exchange the ♣K with the queen, and the double is still reasonable, allthough now we can only expect 500 in the best case scenario.

 

We can exchange the minor suits, and the result will be aproximately the same.

 

So there is danger lurking.

 

Nonetheless I definately believe pass is the percentage call, espescially at imps. (As opposed to total-points.)

 

I would consider anybody advocating a pull, to be second-guessing that it is the right move, because the hand was posted as a problem.

 

Anybody pulling at the table, would be in deep trouble, if partners bid was out of tempo. (Well at least if I was the TD.)

[MFA]

The problem arose at the other table in a team match.

 

The NS opponents there were two extremely aggressive players. On this board, they conceded 870, since north had chosen to make an undisciplined second double with 9xxx, -, Kxxx, AKxxx. A hand on which I made (what I thought was) a WTP-pass of 2♥ (-140). So it's reasonable to mentally discard the actual result, since doubler should have more for his bidding.

 

I'm quite big on not making silly penalty passes at the 2-level. At higher levels things tend to be very different.

This hand is marginal, I think, but I feel pass is ok. 2♠ seems so wet with 9hcp, when partner could double twice. 3NT is possible, but when it makes, we would very often be better off against 2♥. On the other hand, we wont' be -670 or something.

 

I have just been having one nagging thought, though. Since the opponents are vul vs not, and expert players, they can be expected to have at least something. This means that partner is very often dead minimum, and his minimum requirements are lower, if he also is void of hearts. He is not expecting us to make marginal penalty passes.

Opposite that, defending could be very scary.