Still another high level decision

[ArtK78]

Playing in an ACBL BBO matchpoint pairs game late on Saturday night, you pick up, at unfavorable vul in 3rd seat:

 

----

KJ98653

96

K965

 

The bidding:

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ - (4♠)

x - (P) - ?

 

Your call.

[wyman]

I'd bid 5H.

[CSGibson]

If we had the agreement that 4N was 2 places to play, I would make that call. If not, 5♣ for me.

[Finch]

If double is penalties, I pass.

Assuming that double isn't penalties, as most people play it as 'cards' or 'take-out', I suppose I bid 5H although there's something to be said for 6H. Or 4NT followed by 5h.

[benlessard]

In MP i think I have to play in hearts.

 

Once again a situation where 4Nt should be 2 places or H competing and 5H directly is inviting 6.

[gszes]

4n for me

 

I am hoping p takes this a key card for hearts.

 

If p can come up with 3 aces ill guess to bid 6h

with less ill play 5h. It is just too big a position

to try clubs (of course if 5h gets x i will give

6c some serious thought) (ouch).

[ArtK78]

Here is the whole hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s42ht4dq532cqj743&w=shkj98653d96ck965&n=sqjt9876hq72daktc&e=sak53hadj874cat82&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1h4sdp5hp6hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

As you can see, East-West have 3 inescapable losers, and North-South have 5 inescapable losers. So the only winning action is to pass 4♠x. My partner's raise to 6♥ only turned a 30% result into a 12% result (there were a number of -530s on the hand).

 

It seems that no one has been able to find the winning action so far.

 

Does anyone have a problem with my partner's double of 4♠? It seems like the normal action on her cards.

[gnasher]

It seems that no one has been able to find the winning action so far.

Frances found the winning action, assuming partner's double was for penalties: "If double is penalties, I pass."

 

Does anyone have a problem with my partner's double of 4♠? It seems like the normal action on her cards.

If it was for penalties, it seems an obvious action. If double was for takeout, it's dreadful.

 

If it was somewhere in between, it depends where on the scale the double lies: it's reasonable to treat this hand as "balanced values", but not to treat it as "good two-way values", or "action" or "DSIP".

[phil_20686]

Here is the whole hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s42ht4dq532cqj743&w=shkj98653d96ck965&n=sqjt9876hq72daktc&e=sak53hadj874cat82&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1h4sdp5hp6hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Does anyone have a problem with my partner's double of 4♠? It seems like the normal action on her cards.

 

If it turns out to be a poor idea for partner to pull on their KJ to seven, then that is a clue that you do not really have a t/o double. Easts action is not, by any stretch `normal', unless you play penalty doubles.

[gszes]

this is similar to a discussion concerning negative doubles vs penalty doubles

in general. Is it reasonable to assume p has a lot of "stuff" in the opps long and

strong suit or is it more reasonable to assume their "stuff" lies outside. Yes indeed

your p has a ton of "stuff" in opps suit but they should view this as a danger sign

not a reason to x for penalty because a distributional partner will get carried away.

 

This presents another interesting problem bidding goes 1c p 1h 4s p p what do you do

with the 0724 hand now?? We are using p x to give us reason to bid at the 5 level are

we going to use the pass to give us a reason to bid at the 5 level also (have to bid in case

both 4s and 5h make---might still be a good sac if down 1 etc etc) interesting.

[mikeh]

I think most of the posters are being too harsh on East (having assumed that the double wasn't pure penalty....if it were by agreement a penalty double then I agree that West should pass).

 

When double is defined as 'ownership of the hand, no clear direction', which is, I think, more common than pure takeout, altho the definitions tend to blur at this level, then East can be forgiven for choosing the double, imo, simply because West will usually pass.

 

Indeed, East can rightfully fear that a pass over 4♠ may end the auction, and that defending 4♠ undoubled rates to lead to a horrific mp score. At imps, +100 as opposed to +300 isn't a disaster and +50 against +100 in almost inconsequential, but at mps, the undouble costs big time. So I think East should double 4♠ whether the agreement is penalty or hand ownership.....recognizing that the latter double isn't risk free.

 

However, raising 5♥ to 6 is bizzaro imo. We need to cover a LOT of cards for partner. We have presumably shown something along the lines of our values, altho we would usually hold another heart, so we can't claim we had a better-than-expected dummy for a heart contract. If partner didn't think slam was on, we have zero reason to overrule him.

[Phil]

I think the doubling is terrible, unless its categorically defined as 'penalty'.

 

The raise to 6♥ looks like a spiteful call to me.

[ggwhiz]

When my partner doubles it usually shows short or shorter hearts.

 

I'm on a 50-50 to pass hoping we can beat it or 5♣ as a dive. Depending on how short pards hearts are, they don't promise the world's fair at mp's.

[lalldonn]

I think east's double is simply wrong, and bad. It would be like doubling a 4♠ opening bid. If you are that long in their suit you know partner is going to pull the double. Just take your plus.

[Codo]

I agree with MikeH that the double was not so bad. It is not a take out double, so it is obviously not the same as a double of a 4 Spade opening.

I doubt that passing - usually showing a weak NT- is the winning call with these hands on the long run and it had not been the winning call on this hand either...

[lalldonn]

I agree with MikeH that the double was not so bad. It is not a take out double, so it is obviously not the same as a double of a 4 Spade opening.

I doubt that passing - usually showing a weak NT- is the winning call with these hands on the long run and it had not been the winning call on this hand either...

Lol pass is not the winning action since we are entitled to 100 instead of 50, is that the argument? Believe it or not, I realized when I passed over a 4♠ bid with AK of trumps and two more aces that this was probably not my par result on the hand.

 

By the way, who says it's not a takeout double? What do you suppose is your average spade length here when someone overcalls 4♠? I'm not saying 0445, just that it shows high cards and can stand whatever partner wants to do, which this hand can not. Not just because of the singleton heart but because the AK of spades are so bad for offense. They were worth the same amount of tricks in partner's best suit here as the queen of clubs would have been, which is completely predictable.

[kuhchung]

How much better would the hand have to be before bidding 6H over partner's takeout double? I thought 6H was pretty automatic but I see no one really chose it.

[mikeh]

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't have doubled as East. I think it is too far from the hand that partner should play us for having. All I meant was that I could understand why, at matchpoints, someone would decide that they would risk the double because they were concerned that they'd be getting a poor score if they passed, while recognizing that they might be getting a terrible score if they doubled and partner pulled.

 

Looking at the East hand, one can reasonably infer that RHO may not have everyone's idea of a 4♠ call, in which case defending 4♠ undoubled rates to be a bad result. Of course, this is a tenuous inference.

 

However, one can also infer from our hand that partner rates to be extremely short in spades....which significantly increases the chance that he will/should pull.

 

So what I tried to say was that I thought the comments about the double were 'harsh', rather than that I thought the double was the best call. I saw and see the double as a call that isn't horrific if done as a gamble for the reasons set out. If done because East thought that it was the technically correct call (while not being penalty) then I think it a terrible call.

 

And if done at imps, unless penalty, it was definitely horrific.

 

In addition, I thought that the really harsh comments ought to have been addressed to that hideous 6♥ call.

[neilkaz]

 

The raise to 6♥ looks like a spiteful call to me.

Such calls can end partnerships.

[ArtK78]

Thank you all for the responses.

 

Do any of you worry that playing the double of 4♠ as not for penalty will encourage frivious preemptive actions on the part of your opponents at matchpoints? Even at IMPs bidding 4♠ on this auction will show a profit if you know that it is difficult for the opponents to penalize you.

 

I held the long heart hand in this auction, and I have to admit that the 6♥ bid really disgusted me. But I find that the inability to penalize your opponents in this auction is a problem. Had my partner passed over 4♠, I would have bid 5♥ and gotten a poor score (not as bad as 6Hx, but what is?). But suppose I had a lesser hand, such as:

 

x

Kxxxx

xxxx

Kxx

 

Should I act if 4♠ is passed back to me?

 

If you know that your opponents have "real" 4♠ calls when they make them, then it makes a lot of sense to play the direct double of 4♠ as something other than penalty. But if they know that you cannot penalize them, then you give them carte blanche to mess with all of your auctions.

[kuhchung]

How will you ever know when to pull then? Maybe next time it goes off 2 and you're cold for your red slam. In your collective attempt to beat this contract doubled, you turned a plus into a minus (even without the 6H spite)

[phil_20686]

Thank you all for the responses.

 

Do any of you worry that playing the double of 4♠ as not for penalty will encourage frivious preemptive actions on the part of your opponents at matchpoints? Even at IMPs bidding 4♠ on this auction will show a profit if you know that it is difficult for the opponents to penalize you.

 

I held the long heart hand in this auction, and I have to admit that the 6♥ bid really disgusted me. But I find that the inability to penalize your opponents in this auction is a problem. Had my partner passed over 4♠, I would have bid 5♥ and gotten a poor score (not as bad as 6Hx, but what is?). But suppose I had a lesser hand, such as:

 

x

Kxxxx

xxxx

Kxx

 

Should I act if 4♠ is passed back to me?

 

What matters is what the population does, not what you do. Players, esp in short rounds, do not cater their preempts to your particular system. :) The question is how best to respond to the population's average 4S bid, which is fairly solid.

 

Secondly, no two kings is not enough to act here, particularly without four clubs, as your most likely win here, given the club opening and the short spades, is to play in 5c. With an ace and a king, in teh pass out seat, and with partner opening the bidding, I would probably double for t/o. With a singleton spade the chance that partner will pass, but I want to have very good odds of beating it, and two kings is not quite enough. x Kxxxx Qxx Axxx for example would be a completely routine double after a pass. I would probably double without the Q, but I am pretty aggressive here, and do not open 1c very light.

[mikeh]

Thank you all for the responses.

 

Do any of you worry that playing the double of 4♠ as not for penalty will encourage frivious preemptive actions on the part of your opponents at matchpoints? Even at IMPs bidding 4♠ on this auction will show a profit if you know that it is difficult for the opponents to penalize you.

 

I held the long heart hand in this auction, and I have to admit that the 6♥ bid really disgusted me. But I find that the inability to penalize your opponents in this auction is a problem. Had my partner passed over 4♠, I would have bid 5♥ and gotten a poor score (not as bad as 6Hx, but what is?). But suppose I had a lesser hand, such as:

 

x

Kxxxx

xxxx

Kxx

 

Should I act if 4♠ is passed back to me?

 

If you know that your opponents have "real" 4♠ calls when they make them, then it makes a lot of sense to play the direct double of 4♠ as something other than penalty. But if they know that you cannot penalize them, then you give them carte blanche to mess with all of your auctions.

Your point is valid but not necessarily persuasive.

 

I think most players these days play a wide-ranging style for 4♠. If they don't, then I suggest they should, precisely because such a strategy prevents the opps from adopting a strategy that assures them of maximal success. As it is, if your LHO held a sound preempt, you'd want opener's double to be 'cards' with transferable values, while if, as here, it was a weak bid, then you'd want a penalty double.

 

Given that with most opps you either have no idea of their style or you know their style to be wide-range, it comes down to your partnership's assessment of frequency of gain (at mps) in terms of what double should mean. I think the current consensus is that double should be 'cards', perhaps even leaning towards 'takeout'.

 

Btw, if you and your partner were known to play penalty, a opp could game you by tightening up his preempts, leaving you in trouble over his infrequent 4♠ calls, because you may now have no effective call. Conversely, as you point out, if double is known to be more take-out oriented, your opps will preempt ever more loosely. Such is the nature of the game, and I don't think it possible to eliminate this issue.

[lalldonn]

Do any of you worry that playing the double of 4♠ as not for penalty will encourage frivious preemptive actions on the part of your opponents at matchpoints?

It's completely the opposite. If I know the opponents play an inferior system, such as penalty doubles of my preempts, I will force them to use that system such as by preempting more. How much will they lose every time a non-penalty double is the action they need available to reach their best contract?

[han]

How many mikeh's are posting in this thread? One would not have doubled, the other one thinks that east should double whether double is penalty or hand ownership (which is more common than takeout).