Normal situation

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saq9xxhqj8xdkca7x]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

You open 1S (2/1), lefty passes; partner bids a forcing NT, and righty bids 3d.

 

All you can be sure of, at this point, is that no one else in the room will have the same auction. If righty had a normal 3D call, she would have done something else :D Partner knows this, too.

 

WTP and/or OBV to accompany your answer is fine.

[PhantomSac]

Double is takeout, so my hand is perfect for that.

[karlson]

I find that I'm very bad at guessing what unpredictable opponents are doing, but moreover, I don't even see how that helps me at all. Double seems normal.

[rogerclee]

Double, and you are in great shape (vulnerable opponents who make retarded preempts after no-fit auctions at matchpoints).

[jjbrr]

Double is takeout, so my hand is perfect for that.

ez game

[aguahombre]

ok. result on the hand not relevant. We were destined for a good board regardless. But is anyone of the opinion that the stiff diamond king is not really a part of the opening hand, and that they have the same minimum opening bid they started with?

[karlson]

I'm pretty sure all the doublers would still double if you changed ♦K to ♦x. I think most decent minimums with stiff diamond should double here.

 

But even so, ♦K is not automatically worthless, especially against a wild preemptor who need not have ♦AQ.

[kenrexford]

I would double if the diamond King was the deuce.

 

But, I like that I have the diamond king. If partner opts for a strange pass, I'm OK with that. Plus, partner doesn't have that card, which means that his hand fits. In other words, I know that the diamond King is wasted, but I can meet that problem with my great hand. If my diamond King were a deuce, and if I needed that three points for my call for some reason (worse shape or something), then wasted diamond values might be more likely, from partner. That cannot happen now.

 

Plus, the fact that RHO lacks the diamond kking means that he has a tendency to be more likely sound as to length, which increases our chances of a real fit and safety. In contrast, give me the deuce, and RHO might have better top diamonds, meriting a 3♦ call on a shorter holding on average.

 

Finally, the fact that I have the diamond King means that partner will be less likely to convert in a situation where conversion would be unfortunate.

[PhantomSac]

The DK is awesome, partner will very often pass or bid 3N in which case it's a great card

[cherdanno]

ok. result on the hand not relevant. We were destined for a good board regardless. But is anyone of the opinion that the stiff diamond king is not really a part of the opening hand, and that they have the same minimum opening bid they started with?

You still have the same hand you opened with. But AQ9xx QJ8x x A7x looks a lot more like a takeout double of 3D than the hand your partner expects when he heard you open 1S. And the stiff K is a bonus rather than a problem (as Justin explained).

[OleBerg]

ok. result on the hand not relevant. We were destined for a good board regardless. But is anyone of the opinion that the stiff diamond king is not really a part of the opening hand, and that they have the same minimum opening bid they started with?

No.

 

You should check out what people opens these days.

[gnasher]

♦K isn't necessarily a bonus, because it may mean that RHO "needs" another high card outside diamonds to justify her bid.

 

Suppose that, for this RHO, x xx AQJxxx xxxx would be too weak for 3♦, but either x xx AKQJxx xxxx or x Kx AQJxxx xxxx would be strong enough. Since she doesn't have ♦K, she is likely to have a "compensating" value elsewhere.

 

Needless to say, I think this approach to preempting is absurd, but it is how some people think.

[kenrexford]

♦K isn't necessarily a bonus, because it may mean that RHO "needs" another high card outside diamonds to justify her bid.

 

Suppose that, for this RHO, x xx AQJxxx xxxx would be too weak for 3♦, but either x xx AKQJxx xxxx or x Kx AQJxxx xxxx would be strong enough. Since she doesn't have ♦K, she is likely to have a "compensating" value elsewhere.

 

Needless to say, I think this approach to preempting is absurd, but it is how some people think.

Do we re-deal if a suit accidentally has seven cards?

[gnasher]

Do we re-deal if a suit accidentally has seven cards?

No. Do we ignore the relative likelihood of six-card suits and seven-card suits?

[Fluffy]

low diamond makes it minimum take out but still ok.

[mcphee]

I do not understand why your RHO would do something else with a normal 3D bid.

 

Double 3D for take out, which I would do with a small D as well, I want to compete, nothing else makes sense to me.

[kenrexford]

Do we re-deal if a suit accidentally has seven cards?

No. Do we ignore the relative likelihood of six-card suits and seven-card suits?

Five-card suits occur more frequently than six-card suits, as well. In fact, the average number of cards in a suit is 3.33. However, because of the known stiff in my hand, the average split of remaining cards is about 4 for each person. Thus, it seems like the opponents probably have a 4-4 diamond fit, which is splitting badly. Because of this, I suppose I should double for penalty.

[aguahombre]

So now that we have established that the double by opener is pretty much unanimous --- suppose you had to sit in for Opener who suddenly became ill after passing.

 

1S (P) 1NT* (3d)

P! (P) dbl (P)

??

 

This is not a Cayuga, and perhaps should have been in B/I, but I thought it was more appropriate for "interesting" because .... well just because.

[gnasher]

Five-card suits occur more frequently than six-card suits, as well. In fact, the average number of cards in a suit is 3.33. However, because of the known stiff in my hand, the average split of remaining cards is about 4 for each person. Thus, it seems like the opponents probably have a 4-4 diamond fit, which is splitting badly. Because of this, I suppose I should double for penalty.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[PhantomSac]

Gnasher it might surprise you but some people would consider all of your example 2D or pass rather than 3D bids, and would have a 7 card suit much more than a 6 card suit vul heh.

 

I think ken just assumes that they will have a 7 card suit more than 6, and you don't.

 

If RHO is a psycho preemptor vul at MP I love Xing even more , partner will have a pass even more often.

[gwnn]

So now that we have established that the double by opener is pretty much unanimous --- suppose you had to sit in for Opener who suddenly became ill after passing.

 

1S (P) 1NT* (3d)

P! (P) dbl (P)

??

 

This is not a Cayuga, and perhaps should have been in B/I, but I thought it was more appropriate for "interesting" because .... well just because.

4D now, uncertainty w.r.t. strain.

[Pict]

Well, I haven't shown my hearts. I'm a simple soul, so I'll bid 3♥.

[PhantomSac]

So now that we have established that the double by opener is pretty much unanimous --- suppose you had to sit in for Opener who suddenly became ill after passing.

 

1S (P) 1NT* (3d)

P! (P) dbl (P)

??

 

This is not a Cayuga, and perhaps should have been in B/I, but I thought it was more appropriate for "interesting" because .... well just because.

4H

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saq9xxhqj8xdkca7x&w=shkt9xdaqtxxxckxx&e=sktxxxxh7d7cqt8xx&s=sjxhaxxxdj98xxcj9]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Hence, interesting hand. Everyone else in the room had a decision to defend 3C or declare 3HTS. Original statement that we could be sure no one else would be confronted with the same auction=true.

 

Whether we defend 3D doubled or not doubled, we get all the matchpoints. The double by opener on the second round is the easiest way to accomplish that on this hand. If Opener doesn't double, responder had better not; see expert answers to the second part.

[Codo]

I disagree with the others about the part whether south should double 3 ♦ or not.

If north passes with his hand over 3 ♦, they obviously play penalty doubles here and south should double. I would hate this style, but even more I would hate to play a different style then partner.