Welcome to Hell - Take a number

[Phil]

The really happened yesterday in the pairs at Irvine:

 

vul versus not

 

♠x ♥JTx ♦x ♣AQJ9xxxx

 

(p) - p - (4♠) - ?

 

You ask if they play NAMYATS - LHO says yes, but looks unsure. You decide 5♣ is just too expensive at these colors opposite a passed hand.

 

Partner returns from the grave with a double.

 

.........................pass;

 

(p) - double - (p) - ?

[hanp]

Did you just make us pass with AQJ94 of clubs? Is LHO, a passed hand lacking club length, really going to double me? If not, how can 100 per trick (that is, if we aren't making) really be too expensive?

 

I don't understand the problem after partner's double, what's the alternative to 5C? Should we expect partner to have a spade void plus two keycards and a bit more?

 

I'll bid 6C if they bid 5S though.

[jdonn]

Partner made a takeout double and I have an 8 card suit. Additionally he is a passed hand so I need have no thoughts of slam.

 

Trick question?

[hanp]

Would you pass initially Josh?

[jdonn]

I don't know I'm on the fence. I certainly don't automatically object to it as it seems you do.

[pooltuna]

I will guess 5♣ because 5♣x rates to be a smaller negative number than 4♠x= and I don't think we will be allowed to keep any positive number.

[gwnn]

I will bid my 8 card trump suit now.

[Phil]

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

[Phil]

I will guess 5♣ because 5♣x rates to be a smaller negative number than 4♠x= and I don't think we will be allowed to keep any positive number.

Matchpoints is a tough game if we have to collect crumbs for -500 against -590.

 

Not sure what you mean by "we won't be allowed to keep any positive number". Are you implying we will get an adjustment if 5♣ makes? (You may be right, this hand did tank quite awhile over 4♠ (understandably) as well as ask about NAMYATS).

[jdonn]

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

[gnasher]

Not sure what you mean by "we won't be allowed to keep any positive number". Are you implying we will get an adjustment if 5♣ makes? (You may be right, this hand did tank quite awhile over 4♠ (understandably) as well as ask about NAMYATS).

It appears that partner has UI that suggests double over pass. But partner knows that, and partner is (because we agreed to play with him) honest. Hence he will have a hand where he judges that pass is not a logical alternative.

 

I don't normally play for partner to have misjudged before I've seen his hand, so personally I'd assume that we're going to keep whatever score we've got. I realise that if you're playing with a client such an assumption might be unwise.

[Phil]

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

Indulge me with an example of a hand - he's a passed hand and the vulnerability hasn't changed.

 

I suppose void, AQxx, Axxxx, xxxx would work - anything less for you?

[Phil]

I realise that if you're playing with a client such an assumption might be unwise.

I'll take the 5th here...

[jdonn]

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

Indulge me with an example of a hand - he's a passed hand and the vulnerability hasn't changed.

 

I suppose void, AQxx, Axxxx, xxxx would work - anything less for you?

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx. Could even be more offshape than that, obviously 1453 is more likely given our hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Is the full nightmare possibly that partner has x, Axxxx, Axxxxx, x and bids 5♦ when you bid 5♣ ? Shouldn't happen, but no details supplied about partner ...

[Hanoi5]

I think 5♣ is clear, now. If we're punished by the director then we need to have a long talk with partner about ethics. Unless we agree with his double.

[Phil]

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx. Could even be more offshape than that, obviously 1453 is more likely given our hand.

FWIW, doubling with x Axxx Axxx xxxx is batshit crazy in my book.

 

1453 gives us a better chance at beating 4♠ obv.

[gnasher]

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx.

If he's got that, the score really will get adjusted.

 

One of the consequences of asking questions over 4♠ is that if partner does bid we know he's got it. I've never quite worked out whether that's authorised information or not - it feels like it ought not to be, but it's hard to find a rule that says it's not.

[MFA]

It appears that partner has UI that suggests double over pass.  But partner knows that, and partner is (because we agreed to play with him) honest.  Hence he will have a hand where he judges that pass is not a logical alternative.

Is such an inference legal?

[rduran1216]

having seen the hand, the director would've been called and adjusted to +590 whether you bid 5C or not

[Phil]

having seen the hand, the director would've been called and adjusted to +590 whether you bid 5C or not

This is probably true, although the comments so far indicate that there is no alternative to 5♣, although I have my doubts.

[JLOGIC]

Did you just make us pass with AQJ94 of clubs? Is LHO, a passed hand lacking club length, really going to double me? If not, how can 100 per trick (that is, if we aren't making) really be too expensive?

What? Never disagreed with a hanp post more than this :(

 

RHO was third seat, it is not an uncommon thing at all for him to open 4S with a good hand and then double you. In fact, we know that it is quite likely that RHO has opened 4S with enough points for an opening bid since we have 8 and LHO and partner are passed hands (yes they could both have 11, but it's unlikely).

 

As far as I'm concerned if you open 4S with a good hand in third seat you are required to double them if they bid. I don't view that as unusual at all.

 

Also, it seems like a faulty assumption that LHO will never double you if he has a decent hand (like an ace, king, and stiff spade). He, too, knows that partner probably doesn't have a textbook preempt in third seat.

 

So I think we should bid on the merits of our hand and assume we are getting doubled most of the time that it's right. As it is we have maybe 7.5 tricks (being generous). We need partner to cover 2.5 tricks for us as a passed hand, and even then 4S might be going down. I would never consider bidding 5C here and think it's very bad.

 

As far as the rest of this thread, why is it so bizarre that partner has balanced with a double as a passed hand? This seems normal with A A Q or A K K and a stiff spade or many hands with a spade void.

 

As far as the UI, it seems we have brought it on ourselves with our question. We asked if they played namyats in third seat despite them not alerting, and they said yes, and yet we still passed (getting the most favorable response for us to bid). Obviously we could not really foresee this coming so it seemed harmless, but I think in general it is good to not ask questions unless the answer will make a difference to us (even if it's not to give away UI, it's good for the opponents to not know we were thinking of bidding).

 

Now I bid 5C, what else? Good bid partner.

[jdonn]

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx.

If he's got that, the score really will get adjusted.

 

One of the consequences of asking questions over 4♠ is that if partner does bid we know he's got it. I've never quite worked out whether that's authorised information or not - it feels like it ought not to be, but it's hard to find a rule that says it's not.

I certainly wouldn't ask if they play namyats if I was planning to pass anyway when they say yes. Anyway all my responses have not been considering the score might be rolled back, I'm just making the best bids I can based on the best reasoning I can muster.

[JLOGIC]

Are we really allowed to even consider the possibility of a score being rolled back/hands partner might have based on that in order to make our bid?

 

Done the other way it leads to double shots and is considered evil, why is it ok to do it this way?

[peachy]

If Namyats was on their card, then in ACBL a 4H or 4S opening must be alerted. It was lucky that you found out by asking, but the initial offense was their failure to alert the 4S opening. It seems completely unfair to assign UI to a question which was necessary to find out what their bid means. Besides, in ACBL, the regulation specifically says "ASK, DON'T ASSUME"

 

Here is a quote from the regulation:

" Natural opening bids at the three level or higher which convey an unusual message regarding HCP range or any other information which might be unexpected to the opponents must be Alerted.

EXAMPLE: 4H,S openings which are natural but are weaker than might be expected because the partnership has some other method (an example is the Namyats convention) for showing a good 4H,S opening. "

 

As to your call, 5C looks completely automatic. 6C is a second choice.