Got to do something

[wank]

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hj93dq543cakj53&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1sd3s]133|200[/hv]

 

Your style is of the modern aggressive variety here, so over 1♣ you would often overcall on a 4 card suit or make a less than traditional take-out double.

 

Imps

 

1C is 2+ but 3S promises clubs.

 

If you choose double, what do you think you're showing on a scale of pure TO to pure pens?

 

edit: 1NT from partner would have been natural and chunky.

 

what actually happened: i bid 4H which got a swift 4S on the left which came back to me. if you defend now it's one off and pushing onto the 5 level costs 500. Partner's double isn't a thing of beauty: Kxx Qtxxx AJxx x. I think there's a good case for partner smacking 4S - he should be able to work out we've got a good hand with clubs after we can't bid at the 1 level, but come back in at the 4 level and he's the one who can see they're not in a monster spade fit.

[PhilKing]

I expect partner to take a double out about 60% of the time in principle.

 

When I hold this exact hand I expect him to leave it in about 60% of the time.

 

Edit, with this many Milton's, the chances of partner being distributional must rise, so I still expect a removal most of the time.

[mikeh]

I don't know why we need do anything at all, other than pass.

 

Sure, we'd 'like' to do something, but that doesn't mean we should.

 

I'd be very worried that a double will be left in and we'll be defending a partscore when they hold a 10 card fit, tho if I had to guess partner's shape I'd be thinking 3=4=5=1/3=4=4=2 would be most common.

 

In any event, I see no reason why I want to play a 4=4 diamond fit or a 4=3 heart fit at the 4-level, so any call that suggests such a contract is right out.

 

As for double, I think it is important to remember that we won't usually be looking at a stiff spade, let alone this club holding, so defining a double so as to work for this hand is a mistake. We should always ignore our hand and ask ourselves what would partner think double meant.

 

I think it is a fairly strong suggestion to defend, and that in particular partner is expected to pass except with unusual shape and short spades. Since partner has promised both red suits, or the ability to handle any action we make based on that premise, there is no need for us to double in an effort to find a red suit sit. IOW, we have no use for a takeout double here. Double is either 'cards' or 'penalty'. My vote is 'cards', with no clear direction, and hence no big red suit fit.

 

Our main problem here is that partner rates to have some spade length. Unless LHO has 7 of them partner has at least 2 and thus will likely be passing our double. That MIGHT work out, but I'd hate to be defending a vulnerable partscore when the opps likely have shape in both hands and a combined 10 card fit. It is possible that partner is 4=4=4=1 or so and now I am really going to want to have doubled, but I can't bring myself to hammer it on that off-chance (and if he is 4=4=4=1, he's going to be wondering, happily, where we found the double ourselves)

 

If 0 was pure takeout and 10 was pure penalty, I'd put the double at about a 7 or 7.5, and maybe an 8.

[Fluffy]

In Spain the standard is to play 1NT as weal with other suits, and double as constructive, it would be important to know what 1NT would mean.

 

I would double, not afraid to defend with this hand, and we might find a good 4♥ hand, not risk free but I think it will lad to good results often enough to do it.

[Codo]

I would bid 4 ♦.

 

X sounds like penalty, pass like a much weaker hand. Maybe 4 ♥ is better, but ....

West will surely compete to 4 ♠ with so many spades and I will double 4 ♠ if partner did not take another position before.

[rogerclee]

I like 4D, not going to commit to 5 but certainly won't mind if partner bids it, which he usually will with 5 diamonds and an acceptable hand.

[Cyberyeti]

I would double, this is NOT for penalties and suggestive of a 2344/1345 10+. If partner passes, he will do so with his eyes open.

[aguahombre]

I would double, this is NOT for penalties and suggestive of a 2344/1345 10+. If partner passes, he will do so with his eyes open.

Yep. If I dared put a label on this double, it sure looks like a responsive one to me.

[MrAce]

Wow, i am surprised there is a comment that says this double sounds like penalty.

 

Since when we spare double for penalties when opps bid and raise, not a simple raise but a jump raise, and not a preemptive jump raise but a constructive jump raise ?

 

If we construct some hands for pd, double or 4♦ stands out imho. I would never consider passing, this is way too passive approach imo. We are way too close to making 5♦ or punishing them if pd has relatively balanced hand. (which will require more values imo)

 

I am not worried about them holding 10 card fit very much tbh. If that is the case, % 90 of the time responder will raise to 4♠ with 6 card spades and nothing more required , before we find our fit at 4 level.

[PhilKing]

Looking at this one again, there seems to be at least one psycho at the table, since I am having difficulty constructing a layout consistent with the bidding. And I hope it's not me.

 

The only one that make sense is righty has a fairly light 4??6 shape, lefty has a light 1♠ response and pard has some sort of ???1 shape. That's just fine, because pard will pass the double with a few decent high cards and kicker in spades, else pull to 4♦.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would think this sounds like a penalty double.

[phil_20686]

I should either double or pass depending on partners style here. If partner has five hearts, 4H looks like it could easily be on opposite as little as xxx KQxxx KJxx x. Five diamonds needs only a little more. I am not too worried about playing at the four level. I am more worried about partner having 18-19 balanced. 3S over the double, some play it as light/shapely rather than constructive, rho could just have AKxx xx x QT9xxx at this vul in that style, though admittedly the vul is all wrong for that.

 

Double for me just shows a hand that has values to compete but without four hearts. If parther has 4450 10 count he will know what my hand looks like. 4d might not be pretty but unlikely to be a disaster either. I would do that. I am close to pass though. Its not great for playing to have so much in clubs. But sometimes I won't have a great hand for the auction. I have a lot of sympathy for pass actually. But would double.

[gszes]

while x for me is TO it generally emphasizes diamonds more than hearts

but in any case shows at least 4 hearts. Do we really intend to pass 4h if p

bids it if we x???? Just cant make the stretch looks like a simple competitive

 

4d

 

for me. Pass seems out of hand cowardly and I would not be really happy using

x even if it was penalty here.

[rogerclee]

If you think double shows this, then definitely double, but the one thing you definitely cannot do is pass with a hand like this. The upside to bidding is extremely high.

[aguahombre]

while x for me is TO it generally emphasizes diamonds more than hearts

but in any case shows at least 4 hearts.

Since we want to bid anyway, and since partners has hearts ---hmm. If I had 4 hearts I would bid 4 hearts.

[Free]

Seems like an obvious Dbl to me: values, useful distribution, 3 card ♥.

[rhm]

Of course DBL is not penalty. It is responsive, but when you hold a singleton yourself what is partner supposed to do with a likely doubleton.

He will leave it in most of the time and I do not blame him.

I had good results leaving such doubles in but here I do not like my chances in 3♠ doubled.

If 4♣ would be understood as uncertainty about strain I would bid it, but I am not convinced.

 

Right or wrong I will try 4♥

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Looking at this one again, there seems to be at least one psycho at the table, since I am having difficulty constructing a layout consistent with the bidding. And I hope it's not me.

 

The only one that make sense is righty has a fairly light 4??6 shape, lefty has a light 1♠ response and pard has some sort of ???1 shape. That's just fine, because pard will pass the double with a few decent high cards and kicker in spades, else pull to 4♦.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would think this sounds like a penalty double.

What about

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hj93dq543cakj53&w=sqt9765h872dk98c6&n=s32haqt4dajt762c4&e=sakj8hk65cqt9872&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1sd3s]399|300[/hv]

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

If you think double shows this, then definitely double, but the one thing you definitely cannot do is pass with a hand like this. The upside to bidding is extremely high.

If you think that double shows this, I would suggest that you treasure this hand, because it is going to be a long, long time before you ever have another opportunity to make this double.

 

As philking stated in one of his posts, someone appears to have become psycho here. Does anyone have any idea of how the cards lie? Or red v white rho just showed, I assume, shape and strength, and we're looking at AKJxx in his longest suit, and Jxx Qxxx in the 2 'shown' by partner.

 

I tried to construct some hands consistent with the auction. One quick example was:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hj52dq853cakj74&w=sjt8762ht96dj94c2&n=s93hak84dakt72c63&e=sakq5hq73d6cqt985]399|300[/hv]

 

I paid no attention to the spots btw, so don't point out how I have misplaced any of them :P

 

I see no reason why N should pull, looking at 3 or 4 defensive tricks (assuming he reads East as shapely) with a partner promising some defence.

 

If you don't like this, swap the heart Q and K.

 

I do confess that I have changed my mind on what to do: I had passed, out of concern that playing a weak red fit at the 4 level might prove to be a costly choice, but I now think that bidding is best. I had originally posted, but then edited out, the notion of 4♣, which surely shows this sort of hand type: I can't see how it could be viewed as natural. However, except when playing in a partnership and with a partner one can trust to think the same way we do, this is the sort of call best reserved for the post-mortem. So I bid 4♦.

 

I know that on the hand I gave as an example, I will have missed game, but there are limits to the extent that I will change my mind on this hand!

 

As it is, my original pass rates to win a lot of imps from many of the posters (tho a lot of them will probably now claim that 'of course' partner, holding the hand he already showed in the bidding, must pull!)

[wank]

Unfortunately I can't edit the original post because I'm using my phone, but i'll fill you in on what actually happened, I bid 4 hearts and LHO bid a swift 4 spades which came back to me.

 

Fwiw I''m in the camp that thinks double should have more willingness to defend 3Sx and that partner should pass with a reasonable number of hands where it's cold.

[PhilKing]

Glad I voted for 5♦. B-)

 

Oh, wait ...

[MrAce]

I still think DBL is responsive and doesn't suggest pd to pass. But Mikeh convinced me that 4♦ is better.

[rhm]

I still think DBL is responsive and doesn't suggest pd to pass.

Few claim that this DBL is penalty.

But Bridge logic suggests at least that the higher the level the more frequent a responsive DBL should be left in, not least because alternatives may look unappealing if you have to climb even higher.

Your responsive DBL at least suggests you have a positive score (otherwise you would pass or sacrifice), but you yourself are uncertain whether to bid on or not.

A responsive DBL over 3♠ (or higher) puts partner under a lot of pressure, while relieving pressure from opponents. They can pass and wait.

Partner knows you had no bid over 1♣. Now you claim you still have no clear preference, but you have values. What is partner supposed to do with a doubleton in spades?

He will often pass because there is no safety in bidding on.

In essence total trump consideration should play a prominent role here. If I had a club less and a spade more I would DBL and if partner left it in I hope he would lead a trump.

No guarantee that 3♠ can be beaten but offensive potential is poor unless partner has much more than promised so far.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

Wait, partner showed diamonds and hearts with his double. I always thought that a responsive double ask partner to choose the better of at least two suits he showed with his double. (Definition f.e. here: http://www.bridgeguys.com/doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html

So, how can this double be responsive? Should he really choose hearts over diamonds if his hearts are better?

But I agree that "penalty double" is no good describtion either. Convertable values is the right expression, Isn't it?

[PhilKing]

But I agree that "penalty double" is no good describtion either. Convertable values is the right expression, Isn't it?

 

Depends how you play it. Some of us expect pard to remove most of the time, whilst some expect him to leave it in with a normal hand.

[Free]

Wait, partner showed diamonds and hearts with his double. I always thought that a responsive double ask partner to choose the better of at least two suits he showed with his double. (Definition f.e. here: http://www.bridgeguys.com/doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html

So, how can this double be responsive? Should he really choose hearts over diamonds if his hearts are better?

But I agree that "penalty double" is no good describtion either. Convertable values is the right expression, Isn't it?

Nobody said partner needs to have equal length, and with a responsive Dbl we even suggest ♣.