Greed

[kayin801]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=saxxxh10da9xxca10xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦-(4♥)-X-(P)

?[/hv]

 

Would it make a difference at MP?

 

Edit for additional info: If it makes any difference, LHO is a junior but one you haven't played against all that much and doesn't seem super wild, and partner is a true expert.

[655321]

4♠ for me always.

 

If all of our Aces stand up, and if partner takes 2 defensive tricks as well, we can get 500. But even at matchpoints I would not pass here.

[jdonn]

So tempting. Even if we don't get 500 we might not have made game due to bad breaks, or if an ace is ruffed partner might have 3 tricks, etc. I love pass against bad opponents (or known ridiculously aggressive opponents), and like it less and less the better my opponents. I suppose if I have no idea about the opponents I bid 4♠ since it seems more normal.

[MarkDean]

I would bid, but I could definitely be convinced that is wrong.

[mike777]

great hand as a nonexpert I would pass....I C....experts bid...

[Bbradley62]

Are folks bidding 4♠ expecting to investigate slam? Otherwise, what hand could partner have that

(a) doubles 4♥

(b) makes 4♠, and

(.c) doesn't set 4♥ by two?

 

Couldn't partner have: xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

[655321]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

[Bbradley62]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Why not? What should this hand bid instead?

[Jlall]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Why not? What should this hand bid instead?

pass

[mikeh]

The modern style is (I think) that a pure penalty double passes, and tries to avoid drooling saliva on the table, awaiting a balancing double. Double therefore announces ownership of the hand with values that support both offence and defence. I may be completely wrong on my call, but I vote for pass.

 

I don't expect to have a 9 card fit...maybe we have one in clubs, but we probably have none. I am not a fanatic about the LOTT, but I think it deserves more respect that it seems to get on this forum. Plus our holdings look very good for defence and very bad if we play in a suit that breaks badly.

[Cascade]

Couldn't partner have: xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

Not if they have long term aspirations to remain a partner.

[the hog]

I am passing, but this is very close to a 4S bid and you could try to convince me otherwise.

[flytoox]

The modern style is (I think) that a pure penalty double passes, and tries to avoid drooling saliva on the table, awaiting a balancing double. Double therefore announces ownership of the hand with values that support both offence and defence. I may be completely wrong on my call, but I vote for pass.

 

I don't expect to have a 9 card fit...maybe we have one in clubs, but we probably have none. I am not a fanatic about the LOTT, but I think it deserves more respect that it seems to get on this forum. Plus our holdings look very good for defence and very bad if we play in a suit that breaks badly.

I like this argument. Pass is a safe bid, but 4S is kind of putting all eggs into one basket.

[ggwhiz]

LHO is a junior

 

I would pass on these colours.

 

Wild or not, a junior is a junior and with bad splits looming, +200 against our +420 feels like it's a long shot.

 

Perhaps an acceptable loss at imps and if it happens, pard should understand. I don't think anyone under 80 would have the hand that actually makes 4 hearts.

[ArtK78]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Never say never.

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxxhkj9xdkxxckxx&w=shaqxxxxxxdqjtxxc&e=skqjtxxhdxcqjxxxx&s=saxxxhtda9xxcatxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

It is possible that this is the layout. Whether North should double 4♥ is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

Now, I was not there. And I am not saying that this is the actual hand. But it is possible.

[mohitz]

Pass at this vul. happy to take a plus score.

[kayin801]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Never say never.

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxxhkj9xdkxxckxx&w=shaqxxxxxxdqjtxxc&e=skqjtxxhdxcqjxxxx&s=saxxxhtda9xxcatxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

It is possible that this is the layout. Whether North should double 4♥ is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

Now, I was not there. And I am not saying that this is the actual hand. But it is possible.

That is a super gross double.

 

Here's the actual hand. I personally agree with N's X, just bad luck that I found the pass for -790? I don't know how often I should expect 4♥ to make but I don't think it's that often. Then again, gotta ask if it's worth taking out insurance with 4♠ (making here)

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxxhkj9xdkxxckxx&w=shaqxxxxxxdqjtxxc&e=skqjtxxhdxcqjxxxx&s=saxxxhtda9xxcatxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[cherdanno]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Never say never.

 

It is possible that this is the layout. Whether North should double 4♥ is a matter of partnership agreement.

Everybody who said this hand is not possible was assuming normal partnership agreements, where a double of 4H is s.th. between pure takeout and convertible values. So if partner has this hand he has to pass.

[bluecalm]

Scratch that I misread the auction.

[655321]

Couldn't partner have:  xxx, KJ9x, Kxx, Kxx ?

No.

Never say never.

 

It is possible that this is the layout. Whether North should double 4♥ is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

Now, I was not there. And I am not saying that this is the actual hand. But it is possible.

It is not possible in any partnerships I know about. Sure, there are probably some players who still play penalty doubles here, but I don't know any of them. And the North hand is not a double unless the partnership plays penalty doubles, so there doesn't seem any point in constructing an entire deal to support a claim that double is possible.

 

 

 

Here's the actual hand. I personally agree with N's X, just bad luck that I found the pass for -790? I don't know how often I should expect 4♥ to make but I don't think it's that often. Then again, gotta ask if it's worth taking out insurance with 4♠ (making here)

 

Opponents knew the vulnerability before overcalling 4♥ R/W; partner made a takeout double (likely short hearts) and we only have one trump; we almost certainly have a double fit: - I think that 4♥ will make a significant percentage of the time. Yes, with our 3 Aces it will probably go down more often than not, but it would not be a surprise for the 4♥ bidder to have a void - after all, we know he has no outside Aces yet still overcalled 4♥ R/W.

 

I wouldn't be assigning this one to bad luck.

[bluecalm]

What do you guys think of 5♣ bid with actual hand ?

I know values are slim but probably defense will be very cheap.

[ArtK78]

While a double on a pure penalty double is old-fashioned, it is still played by many good players (whether the Forum posters know them or not). But even among those who do not double with a pure penalty double, MikeH is correct - the double shows values which are valuable on both offense and defense.

 

The hand that doubled in this problem does not have defensive values - it is purely an offensive hand. At best it has very questionable defensive values. Perhaps the partnership was playing negative doubles through 4♥ or even higher. But everyone has to appreciate that the higher you get, the less likely the double will be taken out.

 

North has a serious problem over 4♥, and, unless he is 100% sure that partner is going to take out the double, the double is likely to produce a poor result. I would pass, and I would take out partner's reopening double to 4♠. But I am not happy about it.

[jdonn]

Why do people discuss double being a pure penalty double? If that's what it is we have the happiest pass ever so we might as well consider that it has the meaning that makes the problem interesting.