Any logical alternatives here?

[bluejak]

Might it not be that they hoped to show the hearts at the three level, but were willing to do so at the four level, if needed?

Sure. And maybe not.

 

I think you missed that the hand I suggested was a 1525 12 count - to presume that the north would double on this shape when he does not have a strong hand is unwarranted, we do not know. The point is, if he would not double with this shape when weak, he must be planning to show a strong hand. If you engage in this you cannot expect to be bullied out just because the opps competed one level in your singleton....

On that logic you would rebid 6♥ if responder bid 5♠. Sorry, the logic is not there. You double with a plan. Either you decide in advance what do over every possible happening - I bet you don't - or you just hope it will be easy and see what happens. But that does not mean that you will always bid hearts whatever happens.

[Cascade]

I think you missed that the hand I suggested was a 1525 12 count - to presume that the north would double on this shape when he does not have a strong hand is unwarranted, we do not know. The point is, if he would not double with this shape when weak, he must be planning to show a strong hand. If you engage in this you cannot expect to be bullied out just because the opps competed one level in your singleton....

emphasis mine

 

 

On that logic you would rebid 6♥ if responder bid 5♠. Sorry, the logic is not there. You double with a plan. Either you decide in advance what do over every possible happening - I bet you don't - or you just hope it will be easy and see what happens. But that does not mean that you will always bid hearts whatever happens.

 

If you are talking logic then perhaps you should consider that 5♠ is not "one level".

[bluejak]

Oh, sure, every time he doubles off-shape he will bid one level higher but not two levels higher. If he claims that is his agreement then I want to see it in writing.

 

A player takes a gambling action that we might all take because he has no simple solution and if he is lucky in the later auction this may solve it. Some of you seem to think he has sufficient values to bid game - as Gordon says, it is unusual to play a takeout double as forcing to game. Why not use Leaping Michaels if the hand is that strong? Because the more the opponents bid, the stronger partner is?

 

In practice you take whatever gamble you think best and hope. When things go wrong you have to do your best then. This is a common situation which happens especially against aggressive opponents. Next round you have to guess whether to overbid or underbid. Partner gives you UI that makes the overbid reasonable and your defence is "I was always going to bid again at a high level if forced". Yeah, right.

 

Now you tell me there is a specific level at which you overbid but one level higher you underbid. Nothing to do with partner helping you by providing UI, of course. :D Certainly I believe you.

 

Next week we shall have the auction

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2sd4spp5c]133|100|[/hv]

 

with the same hand, and South having asked questions before his pass..

[barmar]

Why not use Leaping Michaels if the hand is that strong?

Maybe because they don't play that convention?

 

However, the rest of your post is on point. When you're in receipt of UI, you can't always do what you were always planning on doing. The question isn't whether 4♥ is a reasonable bid with the hand, but whether Pass is also a possibility. Doubling doesn't commit you to showing your ♥ at whatever level the opponents push you to, so Pass is a LA if they push too high. Since there seem to be a decent number of players who consider the 4 level to be "too high", so Pass is an LA in this case. South's hesitation suggests action, so having UI means you can't bid even if you were always planning on it.

[phil_20686]

Oh, sure, every time he doubles off-shape because he is too strong to overcall he will bid at least one level higher but not necessarily two levels higher.

 

FYP :)

 

You still haven't answered the main point: do you think a player at this level is likely to double rather than overcall with a 1525 shape, minimum values (12-14) and a decent suit?

 

If not, you have evidence that the player believed his hand too strong to overcall 3H. It doesn't really make sense that you can be too strong to overcall at the three level and not strong enough for the four level.

[Cthulhu D]

At the appeal, the members of the appeals committee were all expert players running in the top 10% of the field and [...] what they failed to appreciate is that weak players quite regularly fail to count up the values evident in the auction and tend to have a fairly blinkered approach to bidding.

 

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

[aguahombre]

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

I believe you are asking a serious question, but don't understand what you are asking.

 

Is it possible to produce a complete auction up to the point of your question? What was the bid your partner made, rather than double, over 3D?

[Cthulhu D]

I believe you are asking a serious question, but don't understand what you are asking.

 

Is it possible to produce a complete auction up to the point of your question? What was the bid your partner made, rather than double, over 3D?

 

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

[bluejak]

You still haven't answered the main point: do you think a player at this level is likely to double rather than overcall with a 1525 shape, minimum values (12-14) and a decent suit?

 

If not, you have evidence that the player believed his hand too strong to overcall 3H. It doesn't really make sense that you can be too strong to overcall at the three level and not strong enough for the four level.

Of course it does.

 

Ok, I shall ask you a question. Given the hand in the OP, you double 2♠, ok? Partner, who has never heard of Lebensohl, bids 3♦. Are you going to bid 3♥ or 4♥?

 

Be very careful before you answer this question, because if you answer 3♥ you have just destroyed your own argument.

 

It is a matter of general bridge knowledge that was worked out by experts in the 1930s and the rank and file in the 1940s or 1950s that if you are too strong for the simplest bidding sequence there are often alternatives to just bidding at one level higher.

[bluejak]

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

If your partner gives you some information about his hand by a method that you are not meant to use, for example by hesitating, then if you have choices you are required not to make the choice his action suggests. Hesitating suggests he has something to think about, and in some situations if he hesitates then passes you can be quite sure he has some strength - but you do not know it legally.

 

It is not a question of something stupid; it is your choice amongst reasonable possibilities that is restricted.

 

Look at the case in this thread. RHO bids 2♠, you double, LHO bids 3♠, and partner takes some time to consider and asks questions. You could safely guess he must have a few points: if he had none he would just pass very quickly looking bored, no?

 

Now people do not agree about what you should bid with your hand, but let us say for sake of argument that you consider 4♥ [which if partner has nothing might go for 500 or more] and pass [which might miss a game if partner has something] as reasonable choices. If you consider both then you should pass because you only know partner has a few points illegally.

 

Some people think you have no alternatives, that 4♥ is completely routine and they would always bid it. If you believe that to be the case then it is alright to bid 4♥: if you have no choices you have no problem.

 

Does that make it a bit clearer?

[aguahombre]

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

The question to ask is whether his hesitation before opening 1C suggested some particular L.A. by you at this point.

[mrdct]

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

The protracted pause is unauthorised information to you, suggesting that partner was considering actions other than 1♣ but generally you won't really have any idea whether the alternatives were to show a weaker or stronger hand or perhaps open a 5-card Major ahead of a 6-card ♣ suit. The (paraphased) rule in this situation is that you are not allowed to select from a range of logical alternatives a bid which is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

Hard to say for sure without seeing the hand and knowing a bit more about your bidding system, but it would seem that the UI doesn't really indicate that you should or shouldn't pass so you should just take your normal action on the merits of the hand and auction you are looking at.

[Cthulhu D]

Now people do not agree about what you should bid with your hand, but let us say for sake of argument that you consider 4♥ [which if partner has nothing might go for 500 or more] and pass [which might miss a game if partner has something] as reasonable choices. If you consider both then you should pass because you only know partner has a few points illegally.

 

Some people think you have no alternatives, that 4♥ is completely routine and they would always bid it. If you believe that to be the case then it is alright to bid 4♥: if you have no choices you have no problem.

 

Does that make it a bit clearer?

 

Sort of - the problem is I don't understand what a 'logical altenative' is - in the example it's clear cut, but there are some much more murky examples (If partner hestiates over a 2H Weak Jump Overcall, can I re-open with a double with a 19 count void in hearts? Some of my peers passed).

 

It seems to be defined as 'would other players consider it' (different from actually doing it), hence the polls of players in the peer group etc in these threads. This seems very strange if my peer group is beginners like myself who routinely make errors in bidding or play. If your peer group was Meckstroth or whatever that makes much more sense.

[phil_20686]

Of course it does.

 

Ok, I shall ask you a question. Given the hand in the OP, you double 2♠, ok? Partner, who has never heard of Lebensohl, bids 3♦. Are you going to bid 3♥ or 4♥?

 

Be very careful before you answer this question, because if you answer 3♥ you have just destroyed your own argument.

 

I genuinely have no idea why you think that, I bid 3H showing 17+ with 5 hearts in a strong flexible hand. If I have more room I will use it.

 

However, its sensible to plan your bids in a competitive auction. Competent players do not double with this shape if they are not prepared to bid at the 4 level, as partner will struggle to compete over a likely 3 spades when he has three hearts and only 4 card minors. I must give my side a chance to find a 5-3 heart fit.

 

PS I am not sure that I would double - it seems like a routine 3H call to me and that gives me better tactical options after 3s as I can bid 4C and feel like I bid my hand, but its close enough to a strong hand to envisage someone else might start with a dble.

[bluejak]

I genuinely have no idea why you think that, I bid 3H showing 17+ with 5 hearts in a strong flexible hand. If I have more room I will use it.

Exactly my point: doubling on such a hand does not automatically mean that you intend to bid at the 4-level, despite some people saying so.

 

However, its sensible to plan your bids in a competitive auction. Competent players do not double with this shape if they are not prepared to bid at the 4 level, as partner will struggle to compete over a likely 3 spades when he has three hearts and only 4 card minors. I must give my side a chance to find a 5-3 heart fit.

What does double mean from partner?

 

But I think you are over-simplifying the problem, and referring to competent players is unfair: competent players do their best when there are insoluble problems, not ignore the risks.

 

What you seem to be saying is that with a hand a bit too strong for an overcall you will only double if you are willing to bid 4♥ if pushed there. Ok, but then you will probably have to bid 3♥ and miss more games than a more flexible player who is willing to double and hope to get a chance to describe his hand further.

 

Competent players see the problem, which is that there are hands that you would not want to bid 3♥ but are not strong enough to double and bid 4♥ if pushed. Rather than decide on the basis of some logic which suggests missing a game is the end of the world, when they can see various risks competent players make a risk assessment, take the best action [which often means the most flexible action] and then re-consider next round.

 

PS I am not sure that I would double - it seems like a routine 3H call to me and that gives me better tactical options after 3s as I can bid 4C and feel like I bid my hand, but its close enough to a strong hand to envisage someone else might start with a dble.

Absolutely: but it is failure to understand that competent players see three approaches not two that is the problem. On any given day, given what the hands are and who the opponents are, any of the three approaches might work best.

[pooltuna]

Bluejak it back to 3NT=

[Trinidad]

Exactly my point: doubling on such a hand does not automatically mean that you intend to bid at the 4-level, despite some people saying so.

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between "intending to bid 4♥" and "willing to bid 4♥ if needed"?

 

Phil makes a perfectly good argument: North did -quite obviously- not intend to bid at the four level when he doubled. But he had -in Phil's view, and mine- decided that if needed he was willing to bite the bullet and bid 4♥.

 

I can't come up with anything nice to say about the reasoning that if you don't jump to 4♥ in a nice and calm auction that you won't bid 4♥ in a preemptive auction. The nicest I can come up with is that it is flawed.

 

I have a hand for you:

[hv=pc=n&n=skqt864h9daj84ck4]133|100[/hv]

What would you bid after RHO dealt and opened with 4♥? I think the majority would "accept the transfer to 4♠", and actually be relatively happy about it. There must have been worse hand with which they bid 4♠.

 

Now, assume that RHO opened 1♥. What would you bid now? I guess it is fair to assume that the majority would overcall 1♠. Furthermore, if they wouldn't need to, they certainly wouldn't bid game.

 

Does this mean that it is wrong to bid 4♠ when one is preempted? Of course not.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Sort of - the problem is I don't understand what a 'logical altenative' is - in the example it's clear cut, but there are some much more murky examples (If partner hestiates over a 2H Weak Jump Overcall, can I re-open with a double with a 19 count void in hearts? Some of my peers passed).

 

It seems to be defined as 'would other players consider it' (different from actually doing it), hence the polls of players in the peer group etc in these threads. This seems very strange if my peer group is beginners like myself who routinely make errors in bidding or play. If your peer group was Meckstroth or whatever that makes much more sense.

LA is defined in Law 16B1b:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Figuring out what the LAs are in any given situation is not always easy; often there isn't even a concensus in a post mortem forum like this one. When TDs have to make rulings, it's recommended that they poll players, to avoid personal biases (just because they might or might not consider an action doesn't mean it is or isn't an LA). Of course, when you're the player in receipt of UI, you don't have that luxury. You have to estimate it yourself.

[jdeegan]

:P I don't think you can reasonably force an eight trick hand to pass on this auction regardless of his partner's demeanor.

[bluejak]

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between "intending to bid 4♥" and "willing to bid 4♥ if needed"?

No, it is easy. But the presumption of some people that no-one ever doubles with this sort of hand unless they are always willing to go to 4♥ I consider deeply flawed.

[sfi]

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?" The unanimous response was "No." There was discussion about double, 4C, and 4H (with 4H being the majority view), but pass was simply not an option given those conditions.

 

On the original hand 3NT will make barring a double dummy SA lead, so ruling 3NT-1 would seem extreme.

[gordontd]

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?"

I don't think this is the right question. I think you should ask what they call, and then, of those who selected double unprompted, ask what they do on the next round. "You double because your hand is worth a double and bid" is too leading.

[blackshoe]

Well, apparently he only gave the shape of the hand; the "double and bid" bit sounds like it was an attempt to describe the strength. I agree it might have been better to just give the whole hand.

[Trinidad]

No, it is easy. But the presumption of some people that no-one ever doubles with this sort of hand unless they are always willing to go to 4♥ I consider deeply flawed.

But no-one ever doing it is not a criterion for determining whether an action is an LA. It is a fact that some people bid like monkeys. But that does not mean that bidding like a monkey is an LA.

 

An LA is not defined as "If you somewhere can find someone who would take this action, it is an LA". It is defined as "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.". So, you need significantly more people than "no-one" (not merely one) before pass is an LA.

 

Rik

[mrdct]

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?" The unanimous response was "No." There was discussion about double, 4C, and 4H (with 4H being the majority view), but pass was simply not an option given those conditions.

 

On the original hand 3NT will make barring a double dummy SA lead, so ruling 3NT-1 would seem extreme.

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action, so your first question should be "what do you do over 2♠ constructive weak two with this hand red vs green?" and then you only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those chose double as their initial action. Moreover, the follow-up question shouldn't be "what do you bid?" it should be "what actions would you be giving serious contemplation to?".

 

As for the defence to 3NT, I don't think the ♠A lead is at all double-dummy given that partner has raised ♠ which gives West a known 9-card fit with his side entry with the ♣A so there is no cost in protecting against a stiff K or Q in either opponents' hands.