5-level decision

[straube]

Imps favorable, partner opens a limited (10-15 with 5+ spades) 1S and your RHO bids 5C to you

 

JTxx Jxxx AKxx x

 

What's your bid?

 

We play negative doubles at this level, but would double as spade support be better? I.e. I would have bid 4S and do we take the push or not? Seems like this comes up a lot more than "Do we have a heart fit pd?"

[billw55]

I bid 5♠ which shows support. For me double would be primarily penalty.

[manudude03]

double shows values for me. Even given the conditions, I double.

[ArtK78]

I think that 5♠ is clear. For all that you know, 5♣ could be cold, and the double will put partner under pressure to guess right. He will pass out the double many times when it is wrong. Opps have between 16-21 HCP and a long club suit. There may be several shortnesses around the table, so the odds favor bidding.

 

As for how many tricks we will make, probably somewhere between 9 and 13. Really, there is no way of knowing. But I would expect that 5♠ is the best guess available.

 

The operative word is guess.

 

Even if you play this double as "negative," at this level it will be left in much of the time. Holding JTxx of spades I would never make a double which could be passed. Partner will expect no more than two spades in my hand for my double.

 

Double could be the winning call, but I will bet against it.

[mikeh]

Sometimes terminology gets in the way. Thus, in my ACBL Convention Card there is no space for 'transferable values' doubles, and I have to write in 'negative' through whatever level my partner will tolerate: in my serious partnerships it is all the way to 7♠.

 

I don't know any good player who would think that a negative double of 5♣ showed 4 hearts. It shows that we own the hand, and partner will usually pass but should bid with extra shape: it says we have the values to make it very unlikely that they can make their contract, but the values would support our making something if opener has unusual shape.

 

So much for terminology: we still have to decide what to do.

 

I bid 5♠: doubling puts way too much pressure on partner who should never play us for primary support.

 

Partner shouldn't even think of pulling with say AKxxxx Axx QJx x, a layout on which a double game swing is possible given the red v white 5 level call.

[quiddity]

I would double, though it feels close. Mike's doomsday scenario aside I want to defend unless we have a double-fit.

[fromageGB]

I voted for pass, given that double is negative, but would penalty double like a shot. Not guaranteed, but likely to beat our spade part score.

[mikeh]

I voted for pass, given that double is negative, but would penalty double like a shot. Not guaranteed, but likely to beat our spade part score.

Would you not have made a limit raise?

 

And if for some reason you were forced to choose between an auction-ending 2♠ or an overbid 4♠ wouldn't you choose 4♠?

 

I'm a conservative bidder and I don't think it's close.

[fromageGB]

Would you not have made a limit raise?

 

And if for some reason you were forced to choose between an auction-ending 2♠ or an overbid 4♠ wouldn't you choose 4♠?

 

I'm a conservative bidder and I don't think it's close.

Maybe I'm more conservative than you, because unopposed this is not a limit raise for me, but 4♣ splinter. Yes, 4♠ rather than 2♠, as it surely has good chances, but with a 5♣ interference, vulnerable, I think 5♠ unlikely. 3 tricks in defence seems to me more likely, but it is just guesswork, as ArtK78 says. We just come down on opposite sides of the coin.

[MrAce]

We play negative doubles at this level, but would double as spade support be better? I.e. I would have bid 4S and do we take the push or not? Seems like this comes up a lot more than "Do we have a heart fit pd?"

 

-Stop playing negative doubles at 5 level unless one of them bid and other one raised.

 

-And do not even think about playing trump support doubles, this is even worse.

 

-Accept the fact that against preempts there is no magical cure, especially very heavy preempts such as bids that brings the auction from 1 level to 5 level immediately. Do not play the double as penalty either. I dunno how yoy define the negative and penalty doubles, to me negative doubles means negative and penalty double means you want to play their contract doubled. Card showing double or whatever you want to name it, is what makes the use of DBL at this level most effective and flexible imho. Pd sits on it unless he has a very good reason not to.

 

Most people don't like this because this requires some good hand evaluation and/or judgement, instead of blindly passing if they agreed it to be a penalty double or taking it out if they agreed it to be a take out double. But the matter of the fact is, after heavy preempts like this, pd will hold a lot of hands, much more frequent hands than which are pure take out or pure penalty double hands and also too strong to pass, imho.

 

Having said what i believe about the doubles at this level, letme anwer your questions

 

1-With the agreements you provided, i would talk myself into bidding 5♠. If double showed values i might have choosen double, and bid with very offensive hands at this level. This hand is offensive but i am not sure if it is offensive enough to bid at 5 level. I can not disagree with 5♠ either way.

 

2-Double should promise nothing but values at this level imho, you do not need to put the name "negative" just to make sure pd knows you are not doubling with ♣ stack or tricks. We should bid with very offensive hands, double with values, and pass with hands that we would normally take action at lower levels and accept that preempts makes life harder.

[straube]

Just to clarify because I've seen a few references to my terminology, but we play essentially card-showing doubles at the 5-level though we call them negative. We tend to leave the double in unless opener has significant extra distribution. We are not finding 4-4 heart fits at the 5-level. So the double shows willingness to defend but opener may bid. OTOH, if we have a penalty double we pass. I think this is what most people are doing.

[Mbodell]

Just to clarify because I've seen a few references to my terminology, but we play essentially card-showing doubles at the 5-level though we call them negative. We tend to leave the double in unless opener has significant extra distribution. We are not finding 4-4 heart fits at the 5-level. So the double shows willingness to defend but opener may bid. OTOH, if we have a penalty double we pass. I think this is what most people are doing.

 

Well then your terminology is confusing to me. I voted pass, because I wouldn't make a negative double. But I would make a double the way you describe it.

[fromageGB]

Just to clarify because I've seen a few references to my terminology, but we play essentially card-showing doubles at the 5-level though we call them negative. We tend to leave the double in unless opener has significant extra distribution. We are not finding 4-4 heart fits at the 5-level. So the double shows willingness to defend but opener may bid. OTOH, if we have a penalty double we pass. I think this is what most people are doing.

I am not entirely convinced this makes sense, though as you say it appears popular. So double is values, and declarer leaves it in unless he has extreme distribution. I agree with this, though I call it a penalty double, and this is what I would do with this hand. In my book, a penalty double simply says "I think they are going off if you have a normal sort of hand, and prefer to try for that rather than make a contract".

 

But you also say that if you have a penalty double, you pass. Why? What do you call a penalty double? If you have sufficient tricks to make it likely that the 5♣ bidder goes down, then pass seems wrong. If you have such a hand, and partner with extreme distribution takes it out, then he is likely to make the contract.

 

If you are suggesting a penalty double would he nothing except ♣ KJ987 (with no entries or useful tricks for a possible partner's contract) then fair enough, but that is an extremely unlikely scenario given the vulnerable 5 level preempt.

[wank]

i double:

 

i've got a lot of losers to cover in 5♠ if we're talking about making it

i expect my ak of diamonds to be adequate for defeating 5♣ - diamonds is the suit declarer's least likely to be short of.

if partner bids i'll be surprised but delighted.

[ggwhiz]

I bid 5♠: doubling puts way too much pressure on partner who should never play us for primary support.

 

Man up. Anything else is a transfer of responsibility and I would rather take a stand to win the hand instead of the post mortem.

 

This hand has way too much offense and with slightly nutzo distribution (seems indicated) we may be cold for slam. If we have a double fit in the pointed suits double could bury us.

[straube]

I am not entirely convinced this makes sense, though as you say it appears popular. So double is values, and declarer leaves it in unless he has extreme distribution. I agree with this, though I call it a penalty double, and this is what I would do with this hand. In my book, a penalty double simply says "I think they are going off if you have a normal sort of hand, and prefer to try for that rather than make a contract".

 

But you also say that if you have a penalty double, you pass. Why? What do you call a penalty double? If you have sufficient tricks to make it likely that the 5♣ bidder goes down, then pass seems wrong. If you have such a hand, and partner with extreme distribution takes it out, then he is likely to make the contract.

 

If you are suggesting a penalty double would he nothing except ♣ KJ987 (with no entries or useful tricks for a possible partner's contract) then fair enough, but that is an extremely unlikely scenario given the vulnerable 5 level preempt.

 

I think this is a matter of opinion and judgment. As you say, KJ987 is an unlikely holding, but how about more likely hands such as xx Kx Axxxxx Kxx or xxx Ax Kxxx QJxx? He wants to play against clubs, hopefully with a kiss, but better undoubled than taking the bid and going set. Sure, 5 of something could be making our way but I would think it more likely they are going down than we are making anything. Opener is a limited hand, too, and he could have opened 4 of his major but didn't. If opener is very very distributional (like a 6/6 hand) he's going to bid his second suit regardless of our pass. But doubling with these hands empowers partner a little bit more to bid than I think I'd like.

 

Now some may quibble with the example hands I gave and say that they'd do differently with these, but I'm just trying to make the point that Pass is most discouraging for partner to take the bid, double is more flexible and allows partner to bid with extra shape (say a 6/5 or a good 5/5 or a 7-cd suit) and bidding shows a strong preference for trump.

 

Btw, we made our contract after pd chose 5S. It took a bit of luck. The full deal was....

 

...............JT64

...............J873

...............AK97

...............6

5.......................Q72

A9.....................T64

T4.....................Q865

AKJT9543..........Q72

...............AK983

...............KQ52

...............J32

...............8

[aguahombre]

Regarding the terminology: I believe the poll itself described the OP's definition of "negative double" sufficiently for people to choose double or 5S without encumbrance of the conditions.

 

IMO, 5S is a reasonable position to take and double is the stodgy, unmanly card-showing call I would choose. The actual result at IMPs favorable is +500 vs (maybe) +450. The defense to 5C is more trivial than the declarer play at 5S. But resulting aside, I think at favorable the double is better. Pard will pull with serious shape.

[ArtK78]

Someone will have to explain to me how 5♠ makes after the defense takes its two aces.

[aguahombre]

Someone will have to explain to me how 5♠ makes after the defense takes its two aces.

I think he said with luck....i.e. help from the opps.

[straube]

I think he said with luck....i.e. help from the opps.

 

Yep. CA and DT. Dummy wins. ST successful finesse. Now SA and SK clearing trump. Low heart to J. Cash DK and low heart to QH. West endplayed himself and has to lead a club for ruff and sluff.

[ArtK78]

Yep. CA and DT. Dummy wins. ST successful finesse. Now SA and SK clearing trump. Low heart to J. Cash DK and low heart to QH. West endplayed himself and has to lead a club for ruff and sluff.

I am sorry. You meant HELP.

 

That is ugly.

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

I stand by the 5♠ bid in normal circumstances.

 

Does the 5♣ bidder play rubber bridge for cash? Does he have a lot?

[neilkaz]

Perhaps I am missunderstanding something, but given the limited 1♠ opening, do the 5♠ bidders actually expect to make it quite often? Do the 5 ♠ bidders think that there can't be enough combined defense to set 5♣ often? Personally, I'd not bid 5♠.

[Vampyr]

Maybe I'm more conservative than you, because unopposed this is not a limit raise for me, but 4♣ splinter. .

 

This doesn't make sense to me. You would force to game, implying mild slam interest, but consider the hand too weak to invite game?

[fromageGB]

This doesn't make sense to me. You would force to game, implying mild slam interest, but consider the hand too weak to invite game?

Not at all. This is not a strong splinter and does not imply slam interest, as I have 4♣ as a weak splinter and a stronger hand with a shortage starts with 2NT and shows the club shortage on the second bid. That would imply slam interest or possible suitability. A weak splinter just describes the hand so that partner may go slam seeking if strong enough with no wasted clubs, or can make a judgement in a competitive situation. He knows I have less than game strength in terms of high cards.

 

Of course my bids are based on an unlimited 1♠ open, and if I played a limited spade I may well have different methods.

 

If I did not have 2 strengths of splinters, then this hand warrants a game invitational bid, such as a limit raise, but for me a splinter shows this hand, while a limit raise implies a bit more strength and less distribution. Sometimes the splinter may take you too high, but other times it helps to have the distinction. (I don't have 3♣ available for a mini-splinter.)