Your call?

[Phil]

MPs. Vulnerability unknown. If it matters, say so.

 

West holds: Axxx, xx, Axx, KQxx

 

South....West....North....East

1♣....pass....3♣....3♠

pass....4♠....5♣....pass

pass....?

[hanp]

I think this is an obvious double! Unless I am misreading this we have KQxx of clubs.

 

The vulnerability is of course relevant except that this time it isn't imo. On most hands where 5S is right partner would already have bid it.

[jjbrr]

Saw it off

[Jlall]

uhh...??????????????????????

 

Awaiting dburn and picts replies to tell us this isn't a double!

[billw55]

yep hit it. Massive defense here.

 

♣KQ wasted on offense (partner is probably void, and certainly no more than stiff) and no shortness here to suggest playing 5♠.

[jdonn]

I can't believe you found a hand on this auction where the vulnerability doesn't matter!

[aguahombre]

Double because Phil was the OP. Otherwise, it would have been posted by someone who will explain to us all --in detail ---why 5C is obviously making and we are cold for 6S.

[billw55]

Double because Phil was the OP. Otherwise, it would be have been posted by someone who will explain to us all --in detail ---why 5C is obviously making and we are cold for 6S.

heh, it does smell like another forum trap.

 

Besides, is partner absolutely obligated to pass my double? Couldn't he pull to 5♠ with an extreme hand?

[mikeh]

I began a post arguing that doubling was clear, but the more I thought about it, the less clear it became.

 

We can infer quite a bit.....partner probably has 4 hearts (no heart bid by either opp) and a void club. So...he will probably be 6430 or 7420...with the latter, we'd need to know his tendencies re an immediate 4♠ call.

 

Given this, we will usually have play for 5♠. As little as Kxxxxx xxxx Kxx void makes if they lead clubs or the club ruffing hook works, and spades are 2-1.

 

Red v white, I think I'd take the push....but otherwise I'd take the sure plus (well...almost sure :P )

[Pict]

I mustered a double on this one.

 

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

 

I don't see an argument for bidding 5♠ unilaterally. Partner knows whether he was pushing them or not, I don't.

 

For all I know pass is the only way to score, but with good trumps and that useful non-spade Ace, I'll live with the small risk.

 

As an aside, I like it when dburn or similar players explain their choices. Some posts can be so laconic the poster might as well have voted in the poll and left it at that.

[jdonn]

I don't think you can infer lack of heart length with the 3♣ bidder. If weak they even bid it on 5-5 sometimes, which (maybe with a spade void?) could also justify the later bid.

[Phil]

I don't think you can infer lack of heart length with the 3♣ bidder. If weak they even bid it on 5-5 sometimes, which (maybe with a spade void?) could also justify the later bid.

Are you assuming 3♣ means something specific?

[jdonn]

I don't think you can infer lack of heart length with the 3♣ bidder. If weak they even bid it on 5-5 sometimes, which (maybe with a spade void?) could also justify the later bid.

Are you assuming 3♣ means something specific?

Preemptive with club support??

[Jlall]

3C could mean SUPER DUPER STRONG SLAM TRY, and we could be w/r, and I would still double...

[Phil]

I don't think you can infer lack of heart length with the 3♣ bidder. If weak they even bid it on 5-5 sometimes, which (maybe with a spade void?) could also justify the later bid.

Are you assuming 3♣ means something specific?

Preemptive with club support??

Well, this is the crux of the problem.

 

If I told you 3♣ was limit, are you still cracking?

 

(I see Jlall has already answered this).

[jdonn]

I agree with him, double if told 3♣ is grand slam force.

[OleBerg]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

[Pict]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

[aguahombre]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

In poker, some players "win" all arguments by saying, "Look at my chip stack."

[RMB1]

It looks like the OP wants to know if there are logical alternatives to Double.

[billw55]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

Of course in bridge as in any game with an element of chance, from time to time the correct choice will fail at the table.

[jdonn]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

I think we believe in a broader definition of "right". Btw if my goal had been to get it "right" the way you define it then obviously I would have passed since double was likely to be wrong for the problem to be posted at all, given that double was so obvious.

[Pict]

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

Of course in bridge as in any game with an element of chance, from time to time the correct choice will fail at the table.

Let's consider the current hand.

 

If double (my choice) gets a really poor score, do I try to find out who voted for whatever was the winning outcome and pillory them any time they post?

No.

 

Do I think that double is completely wtp and if it goes wrong it is probably partner? No.

 

Did I know (and do I care) that there was a difference of opinion between Oleberg and dburn about the last case? No.

 

Do I think the purpose of a Forum is to agree with a few contributors (albeit they may be very successful players), I hope not.

[Phil]

It looks like the OP wants to know if there are logical alternatives to Double.

Kind of.

 

Sorry - this is drifting over to the Rules area - if you have the powers, go ahead and move the thread.

Phil's argument for pass: If 3♣ really is a limit raise, partner has roughly a five count (we have 13 / RHO has something like a weak NT (12) and LHO holds 10-ish) with no doubt a void club. ♠KJTxxx(x) feels right. LHO is bidding one more the for the road - certainly a void spade feels very likely. LHO certainly has six clubs, or five very good ones for this action (with ostensibly a 0-3-5-5). Our ♣KQ look like they might not take two tricks, and our ♠A isn't cashing. +100 versus +50 gains little equity at MPs, but -550 looks like absolute zero. (recognizing +200 may garner plenty). In either case, passing certainly does not feel like a failure to play bridge. Feel free to disagree, but this isn't really the reason for posting the hand.

 

At the table, the actual hand passed. She made a face-down lead and her partner asked about 3♣ and was told it was preemptive.

 

5♣ drifted off four. The TD (not me) was kibitzing (maybe an Orange County thing :rolleyes:) and rules no adjustment, because:

 

1. West has an 'obvious' double of 5♣, regardless of the meaning (many presume that here). West stated she would have doubled, had she known that 3♣ is preemptive. As a matter of fact the Director said after the ruling, "I feel sorry for you if you can't find a double of 5♣ with that hand".

 

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

 

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

 

So:

 

MI due to the failure to alert?

 

or not?

 

Any mitigating circumstances due to failure to ask or ask 'inappropriate questions'?

 

Comments appreciated. Thanks.

[Siegmund]

If I told you 3♣ was limit, are you still cracking?

 

If responder has values, that makes double obvious. (More obvious than it already is, that is.) Opposite a preempt there is at least some chance of us getting only 500 instead of 650 r/w.

 

You could convince me 5S was an LA, only at r/w and only if 3C is preemptive. Not sure you could convince me to actually bid it. You could not convince me passing was an LA no matter what the agreements and vulnerability were.