E-W gets in trouble

[Bbradley62]

http://tinyurl.com/2bwckra

 

Takeout Double is explained as 4+D; 4+H; 11HCP; 12 total points.

Seems a little rigid: exactly 11 and 12? Since East is willing to make the bid on 3H, maybe the description should allow for that?

 

Rdbl is explained as 14-HCP; 16+ total points. Do we really expect South to have many distributional points after the 1NT bid?

 

Does 4♥ look like a good idea at this vulnerability?

[barmar]

The narrow point range is because it didn't double on the previous round, so it's very limited.

[Bbradley62]

The narrow point range is because it didn't double on the previous round, so it's very limited.

I understand he's limited due to earlier passing. But this is a 1-point range. It's exactly 11 HCP, not 10 and not 12. And exactly 12 total points, not 11 and not 13. Would you ever have such a partnership agreement?

[calm01]

Seems fairly straightforward to me as we are non-vulnerable. If we were vulnerable the double fails to have any meaning for me.

 

The clues are there:

 

- I have passed twice so am unlikely to have opening values,

- partner passed before so probably does not have opening values or 10 cards

in the two red suits with 10+ points,

- both opponents have limited their hand with bidding suggesting likely 8/9 club

fit,

- I am being offered two/three suits to select from at the two level,

- partner cannot have the values to double holding more than 1 club so the

opponents in this instance have a 9 or 10 card club fit,

- for us to have near to, or actually have, the balance of points we must have a

total of say at least 18 points with a very high probability of a fit.

 

Based on this very common competing logic, it is only worth reopening in this non-vulnerable situation if the doubler has 9 points with a good 4 or decent 5

spades and 4-4 in the reds or 10/11 points if holding only 4-3 in the reds.

 

So the description "4+D; 4+H; 11HCP; 12 total points" makes bridge sense to me. It is roughly what i would expect from a good partner, being non-vulnerable, playing duplicate pairs or any high standard game where the opponents can be trusted to have bid soundly. If the opponents are poor it would be too risky to double.

[Bbradley62]

Based on this very common competing logic, it is only worth reopening in this non-vulnerable situation if the doubler has 9 points with a good 4 or decent 5 spades and 4-4 in the reds or 10/11 points if holding only 4-3 in the reds.

 

So the description "4+D; 4+H; 11HCP; 12 total points" makes bridge sense to me.   It is roughly what i would expect from a good partner, being non-vulnerable, playing duplicate pairs or any high standard game where the opponents can be trusted to have bid soundly.   If the opponents are poor it would be too risky to double.

I think you've missed two things in this conversation. First, the doubler (EAST) is vulnerable and his opponents are not. Second, I think having 9-11HCP would be perfectly reasonable, as would sometimes being 4-3 in the reds; I don't understand why the description is exactly 11 and 4+4+.

[calm01]

Bbradley62,

 

You're right, I was confused about the actual vulnerability. javascript:emoticon(';)') Vulnerable, the double is perhaps a bid without purpose or carries too high a risk for the probable reward and so the best description might be "unused" when vulnerable.

 

But the GIB bid descriptions do not seem to be in format that can suggest often 4-4 but maybe 4-3 in the reds and 11 points if 4-3 and 9-11 if 4-4. Nor do they seem to vary too much by vulnerability.

 

The format on length nearest to what we both agree the non-vulnerable bid promises would seem to be 3+H, 3+D. This does not convey what we both agree that the bid promises.

 

So in the restricted format used in GIB descriptions 4+H 4+D is perhaps the nearest it can convey to our common understanding. Given that restriction on length, description suggesting 11 points may be a good compromise.

 

I ignore the total points component of the bidding descriptions but perhaps this is off-topic.

 

So again "4+D; 4+H; 11HCP; 12 total points" makes bridge sense to me given the apparent limitations of GIB bid description format.

[Bbradley62]

Of course, my nitpicking over the bid descriptions is the minor point. The major point is that EW shouldn't be bidding 4♥ on this hand.