It's bridge, Jim, but not as we know it.

[gnasher]

Nobody vulnerable, IMPs.

 

AQ xxx xxx AQ10xx

 

1♥   pass 4♥   pass

pass dbl   pass

 

Partner's double is for takeout, suggesting a three-suiter with insufficient strength to act immediately over 1♥. You can assume that he's void in hearts and doesn't have five spades.

 

What would you do?

[H_KARLUK]

Thanks.

 

Nice spot, I bought 5♣.

[maggieb]

I would bid 5♣, expecting it to make or be a good save very often. The frequency of both contracts going down is small enough to make pass a clear long-term loser to me. It seems like if partner has scattered values in her three suits, then pulling is about an even proposition, but if she has concentrated minor values or five clubs, it is a big winner. There is also a chance that the opponents will not judge correctly if I bid, while they have no decision if I pass.

[pclayton]

So we expect a 4=0=(54) across.

 

Our prospects against 4♥ are dependent on pard's honor location. I'm expecting two big card (possibly K-K-K too) and maybe some bits and pieces.

 

Kxxx void Axxxx Jxxx. We are beating 4♥; RHO's 4♥ call could have been based on short clubs, so the fate of 5♣ depends on the club J. I would take the dough and pass.

 

xxxx, void, AKxxx, Jxxx. Short diamonds on my right? 4♥ looks like its making or -1 max. 5♣ looks touch and go. I'm a bidder here.

 

Kxxx void AQxxx, xxxx. I like my chances in 5♣ here. On a good day we'll make 6.

 

5♣ for me.

[helene_t]

5♣ but I wonder: is it standard to play this double as t/o?

[pclayton]

5♣ but I wonder: is it standard to play this double as t/o?

No. But IMO its best.

[gnasher]

I wonder: is it standard to play this double as t/o?

I think it's standard to play it as barking mad.

[han]

5C for me too please.

[peachy]

I am a little puzzled. In your methods, partner did not have enough strength to make a takeout double on the one-level and now he shows enough strength to make a takeout double three levels higher. What kind of hand does he have, can anyone construct a plausible hand under these conditions and now knowing he has probable void in hearts.

[655321]

Agree this is barking mad.

 

Still, it seems to have worked this time. 5♣.

[matmat]

you canna change the laws of bidding, laws of bidding, laws of bidding

you canna change the laws of bidding, laws of bidding, jim...

 

5♣

[maggieb]

Why are people so surprised that there exist (lots!) of hands that would pass and then double? Is everyone here really saying they would sell out on a 4054 8-count? Why is it so bad to defend 4♥x? Sometimes we find a very good save, and sometimes partner has a heart stack and is more than happy to pass. These two things really outweigh the probability of going for a number.

[kfay]

These two things really outweigh the probability of going for a number.

Can't say I know for sure but I think you're mistaken. Maybe at favorable this action will work out more. I'd say it's more 50/50. If partner can't bid 4S then we can still be making 8 tricks and lose the board.

 

And unless you're playing against some big clubbers partner does not have a heart stack.

[mike777]

1) per bw problems I assume opp are world class

2) partner cannot have a heart stack

3) partner cannot have great one suit hand but less thanopening hand or opening hand and other.

4) partner did not bid weak michaels or wk unusual nt.

5) If we do not bid 5c now we never do.

[gwnn]

Let me just say the thread title is brilliant.

 

(5♣ is sort of obvious. I'd think this is from an appeal but who was appealing what?)

[Finch]

I wonder: is it standard to play this double as t/o?

I think it's standard to play it as barking mad.

It's standard to play it as penalties.

 

This auction came up once in the BW MSC. About 2/3 of the panel learnedly bid some suit or other, explaining that partner had a void in their suit, and was showing a 4045 8-count or whatever.... and for once the full hand was revealed; the opening was a psyche and partner had a monster penalty double.

[gnasher]

Why are people so surprised that there exist (lots!) of hands that would pass and then double? Is everyone here really saying they would sell out on a 4054 8-count? Why is it so bad to defend 4♥x? Sometimes we find a very good save, and sometimes partner has a heart stack and is more than happy to pass. These two things really outweigh the probability of going for a number.

There's another possibility: they were about to go down in 4♥ until we told them how to play the hand.

 

Most takeout doubles have one more potential benefit (probably the largest), which is that we find a contract that we can make. In this situation that is unlikely, making this takeout double less attractive than usual.

[gnasher]

In answer to various comments:

 

- They're not my methods; one of my teammates faced this problem.

 

- It wasn't a ruling question, but just what seemed a close, and interesting, decision.

 

- On the actual hand, the double was right in theory, in that there was a better score available than 4♥ undoubled. However, advancer's actual action led to a worse score.

 

- The title of the thread was someone else's joke. I merely plagiarised it.

[Cameron_1]

Splendid well Andy finally got me to not only log into the BBO forum but to post also !

 

As the actual X'er here people seem to have been diverted from the two interesting points on to the subsidiary issue of if the X is standard or not.

 

The points of interests are:

 

Firstly, if this was a clear 5♣ call or not.

 

Secondly, if the X is best used as take out or two way.

 

For me yes 5♣ and two way X is the clear option and I have never played against somebody smart enough to put me in a position where I have been compromised in this position although I do grant you it is theoretically possible.

[awm]

I'd think that if you were playing against a strong club pair, your "two-way double" would be compromised with great frequency.

 

Say the auction goes 1♥-P-4♥-P-P-X-P and you are looking at a singleton heart. It could easily be that:

 

(1) The opponents have eleven or even twelve hearts, partner has singleton or void, double was takeout.

 

(2) The opponents have eight hearts, the raise was a "to play" raise on three, double was penalty with four strong trumps and an ace.

[ArtK78]

I do not accept the premise that it is possible to have a takeout double at the 4 level when one could not act over a one-bid.

 

Therefore, the meaning of the double of 4♥ is PENALTIES.

 

FrancesHinden is right. The only rational explanation for this bidding is that LHO psyched a 1♥ opening and partner has 4♥ beaten in his own hand.

[pclayton]

It's standard to play it as penalties.

This auction came up once in the BW MSC.  About 2/3 of the panel learnedly bid some suit or other, explaining that partner had a void in their suit, and was showing a 4045 8-count or whatever

 

:)

[MFA]

Given the lunacy to play this as a take-out double, I'm very far from convinced that it should show a 40(54) type. This distribution has the lowest possible playing strength of all the hands that are void of hearts.

 

If we are puritanical about our 1♠ overcalls, requiring a suit for the bid and all that sort of silly stuff, then this delayed double really should show 5 spades. Is 4♠ the winning bid? Or 4NT? (partner is 5062) :blink:

 

How do you like my game? :huh:

Very interesting sir, indeed, but personally I prefer bridge. :)

[the hog]

Agree with the above post bost. I would say this is penalty.

[pclayton]

If we are puritanical about our 1♠ overcalls, requiring a suit for the bid and all that sort of silly stuff, then this delayed double really should show 5 spades. Is 4♠ the winning bid? Or 4NT? (partner is 5062) :blink:

Actually, a 4♠ call should show a weak two suiter, I think.