At least it's not IMPs!

[ibraves]

Both decisions are a little pushy IMO and compounded into a cold 0. ATB:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s42hakt432d5432c2&w=skt85hj65daq6c943&n=sqj93hq98dkj8cqj5&e=sa76h7dt97cakt876&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c2hd3hdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Scoring is MPs. System is 2/1 Better minor. 1st X = negative 2nd X = I want to bid, I dont have 4S

[phoenix214]

I would pass with the west hand - my hand is not worth that much, we might have problems making a game on power because of a lack of tricks(suits might not break well because of the preempt) - also partner will not leave them in 2H, unless he has a heart stack as well. With the E hand, Id imagine bidding a balancing double or maybe 3C in the pass out position.

 

E double also seems a bit off,(although I have made a similar double recently, resulting in a similar result, so now i know), pd know about your hand anyway. Short hearts, likely 3 spades(would bid 3S with singleton H and 4S, or mostly with any 4S hand which is not too rubish) and 9 minors - so what do you expect to tell partner.

 

As for the last pass, id say it is right, because partner should be a bit stronger, and because of the shape i have, id expect to take a plus in defending.

 

Lesson that i see from the auction - you are also allowed to pass

[Vampyr]

100% to East. I can not figure out what he is hoping to accomplish with his double.

[mikeh]

It is 100% to East.

 

West has a minimum double, but passing rates to create more problems later, including the possibility of being shut out of spades should N raise gently to 3♥.

 

Meanwhile, East has shown an opening hand by the simple expedient of opening the bidding. He has a nice 11 but it is still just an 11, and the double should be used to show 'extras with no clear direction'.

 

He has the no clear direction part firmly under control, but funnily enough it turned out to be a zero because he didn't have the 'extras'.

 

He forgot to use the most under-utilized action in bridge...the pass.

 

West has a clear pass of the double.

[MrAce]

Both decisions are a little pushy IMO and compounded into a cold 0. ATB:

 

To me W has an obvious double. E is out of his mind. I disagree with "both decisions being pushy". Since when negative double of a preempt promised an opener? I do not even see it as minimum As Mike does.

 

%100 E

 

EDIT: As a side note, I do not understand the comments about feeling less worried at MP and "it is just 1 board" phrase. At imps it is also just 1 board, you bail 10-13 imps, it is not the end of the world but it hurts I know. If you think it is less damaging at MP you are mistaken imho. Unless of course you are just playing to get a 50+ score. If you are playing to win and say you are playing a 60+ % game, which is really tuff in a good field, a rock bottom will take you down to the china town, and you will have to work VERY hard to recover to get back up to where you were before that board.

[gszes]

The minority report is giving the rasberries to any and all players wishing to lay the blame on east. For those blaming east what would you do <over 3h> with a hand like QJx x Kxx KQJxxx. this defenseless wonder will rightfully pass so this brings us around full circle to what does east with 3 quick tricks do <over 3h>. IMHO x is the only reasonable conclusion. Would you get angry at east for x if they began with Axx A xxx Axxxxx? These minimum opening bids with 3 probable defensive tricks are not very common and need to be treated with more respect than the run of the mill minimum <especially at MP where an extra 50 is huge>. Now let's get back to west.

After 3h exactly how many hearts do they expect their partner to have? Any reasonable conclusion would be 1 or maybe zero. SO if the opps seemed destined to score at least 6 heart tricks How many do we expect to set 3h vs how many do we expect to make in 4c (or more). If p has a min with 3 aces we will probably set them 1 trick what if p has AK of clubs? hmmm lets see if p has at most 1 heart and a max of 3 spades it would appear they have an absolute minimum of 5 clubs and a reasonable conclusion would be 6+ is far more likely than exactly 3145. That means p AK of clubs are really only worth 1 trick and the opps are now

favorites to make 3h <ummm ick>. What are the odds we are in trouble in 4c? We will probably lose a club and a heart and on a bad day lose 3 more tricks for down 2 --- odds of the opps x 4c should be somewhere close to zero so we are trading in the opps making 3hx for -50 or -100 seems like a good trade off for me.

NOW the next phase if p has "extra values". Normally these transferrable values mean at least 3 defensive tricks (eerily similar to the 3 defensive tricks available for a minimum). So what qualifies as extra values? Flattish distribution or as reasonably close as the bidding will allow plus let us say one king greater value than minimum. That means we use the same math as above and primarily transfer 1 trick from the opponents and add one to our side. So we now have the opps going down 1 in 3hx

and our side is now making 4c or down 1. Are we really certain it is a gross idea to pull the x to 4c hoping against hope that we cannot make it? What if opener has that extra K and a 6th club now 5c is stating to look like it needs 22 clubs at worst and

the absolute most we will set the opps is for 300. Sketchy thinking at best but at least partially defensible at MP.

Remember that first hand that I said should pass? QJx x Kxx KQJxxx It is unreasonable to add the heart K so lets add an ace AQJ x Kxx KQJxxx or QJx x Kxx AKQJxx. Both of these hands have extra values and each is hugely dependent on partners heart holding as to where the contract belongs. X (by east) works for these hands works also but note that now the combined holdings make our side a monstrous favorite to make 5c. All of this means that the minority report lays 100% of the blame on a failure of imagination by WEST. Realizing their p has at most a singleton heart and they have no wasted heart values is practically screaming bid further do not pass.

At MP 4c = 8 P = 4 at IMPS 4c = 9 P = 2 so the form of scoring does cut west some slack but IMHO the pass got their side the zero they deserved on this hand.

[neilkaz]

As others have said, East gets the blame for his X.

[ibraves]

I don't know how to quote on mobile, but I was referring to the pass of 3Hx as pushy. Agree that the neg x is pretty normal. The reason I posted the hand is that I was west and passed fairly quickly thinking it pretty obvious, but give partner the Qc and his bid will be the same and we'll still be chalking up 0%!

[Phil]

East has to pass.

 

Do we need to compete to 3♠ on a 4-3 fit? Or the four level?

 

Look, I like to compete as much as (probably more) the the next person, but you just have to take your lumps defending 3♥. Even if 4♣ doesn't get doubled, its tough to stop and -200 is too likely.

 

West's original negative double is fine. Passing the double is pretty obvious; partner would bid this way with Ax xx Kxxx AKxxx, and we are killing 3♥.

[mikeh]

I don't know how to quote on mobile, but I was referring to the pass of 3Hx as pushy. Agree that the neg x is pretty normal. The reason I posted the hand is that I was west and passed fairly quickly thinking it pretty obvious, but give partner the Qc and his bid will be the same and we'll still be chalking up 0%!

with Axx x xxx AKQxxx one bids 4♣ (or a mp greedy 3♠)

 

The double will usually be a 3=2=3=5 with a good 13-14 hcp, but Phil's 2=2=4=5 is acceptable as well.

[ibraves]

with Axx x xxx AKQxxx one bids 4♣ (or a mp greedy 3♠)

 

The double will usually be a 3=2=3=5 with a good 13-14 hcp, but Phil's 2=2=4=5 is acceptable as well.

 

but might you not double with the first hand in the hope of getting to 3n (esp at MPs)?

[fourdad]

When one chooses to open bottom of the barrel opening hands, which I would in this case, it is inherently opener's responsibility to convey that at the 2nd bid.

The way to do that here is PASS!

 

ATB is 100% E

[jodepp]

I think we're being a little tough on East here.

 

I know that LTT is more of a guideline than a 'rule', but West's Pass of 3♥X seems ill-advised given that there are 18 trumps. The hand is 'pure' and there are no adjustment factors downward, so the decision to 'sit' seems wrong in theory as well as practice.

 

West should expect something like East's holding when East doubles (less than four spades, stiff heart with strong clubs). With no trump tricks West seems to 'hoping' rather than 'playing bridge'. I concede that I might bid 4♣ instead of the competitive double with the East cards, but the hand has good defense in context so that if West shows up with an unexpected trump trick or two, East understandably wants to give West an opportunity to whack 3♥.

 

West IMO bears the burden of guilt on this hand.

[GrahamJson]

I think that you can over analyse hands such as East's. Yes, it is better than a minimum, but only if played in clubs. Best is to pass and than bid 4C is partner finds a second double. If you double instead of passing, as happened, partner will always think that you have a better all round hand than you actually hold.

[dbl118]

Give South another club, or the king of diamonds, and the contract is going down and maybe you have a top board. The double is aggressive, but it all certainly could have worked out.

[mikeh]

but might you not double with the first hand in the hope of getting to 3n (esp at MPs)?

No.

 

Double is NOT a try for 3N. It announces ownership of the hand (extras opposite a 2-level negative double) and doubt as whether to defend or declare, along with doubt as to where to declare. As mentioned above, it is prototypically something close to 3=2=3=5 14 count.

 

It would be nice to be able to double with, say, Axx xx Kxx AKxxx, and also Axx x xxx AKQxxx, and somehow have partner know which is which, but that isn't permitted. Experience suggests that the former hand type is so difficult to bid without the double that using the double to show it is the best use of the call.

[nekthen]

As a side note, I do not understand the comments about feeling less worried at MP and "it is just 1 board" phrase. At imps it is also just 1 board, you bail 10-13 imps, it is not the end of the world but it hurts I know. If you think it is less damaging at MP you are mistaken imho. Unless of course you are just playing to get a 50+ score. If you are playing to win and say you are playing a 60+ % game, which is really tuff in a good field, a rock bottom will take you down to the china town, and you will have to work VERY hard to recover to get back up to where you were before that board.

 

At IMPs you would be trading a loss of 10-13 imps against a gain of 1 or 2 if it is off. So you need to be very wary in this situation. At MP you are gambling a bottom against a top so you can be more aggressive with doubling.

 

So I place no blame West double is absolutely fine. East double is aggressive and West has no option but to pass, but them's the breaks at MPs. At IMPs a double by East would be criminal

[MrAce]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. I still believe E's double is not aggressive, it is insane.

[jodepp]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. I still believe E's double is not aggressive, it is insane.

I don't get it. 'insane?' West made a negative double at the two-level, promising 'stuff' (not showing the world's fair, true, but it's plainly obvious West isn't broke). East has A/A-K and six strong clubs and appealing shape. East is also reasonably certain of a decent fit. If double says 'I'd like to bid', I think that's 'ballpark'.

 

West has information though that East doesn't have access to:

 

1) West knows East has a stiff heart.

2) WEST HAS NO TRUMP TRICK.

3) East is likely 3=1=4=5 or 3=1=3=6 (maybe even 2=1=4=6).

4) LTT says defending 3♥ is wrong.

 

Let's be fair - East has a pretty decent minimum that rates to have a 9+-card fit, not to mention pretty good defense. If West has a trump trick or two, at matchpoints East wouldn't mind a penalty conversion of 3♥X because East has what he's promising - shape and two-way values.

 

I confess I'm shocked to see East being so universally thrown under a bus when West showed bad judgment.

[MrAce]

I don't get it. 'insane?

 

I was trying to be polite. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[Cascade]

Not convinced by East's double of 3♥.

 

West's pass is at least as bad.

 

I don't see how you can play a system where double by east is not primarily aimed at getting to 3NT at least in the first instance. I am sitting there waiting for north to pass planning to bid 3♥ to ask partner for a stopper because I have some running or near running tricks but north bids 3♥ in front of me and I have to give up on our most likely and highest scoring game. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

Not only does it disrupt us from bidding our most frequent game (given I don't have four spades) it takes away definition from an immediate 4♣ which when playing double with the flexible hands shows a distributional and very good hand so is a springboard for slam.

[mikeh]

Not convinced by East's double of 3♥.

 

West's pass is at least as bad.

 

I don't see how you can play a system where double by east is not primarily aimed at getting to 3NT at least in the first instance. I am sitting there waiting for north to pass planning to bid 3♥ to ask partner for a stopper because I have some running or near running tricks but north bids 3♥ in front of me and I have to give up on our most likely and highest scoring game. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

Not only does it disrupt us from bidding our most frequent game (given I don't have four spades) it takes away definition from an immediate 4♣ which when playing double with the flexible hands shows a distributional and very good hand so is a springboard for slam.

it is a question of frequency. fwiw, my view is that it will be far less common to be able to count 9 winners with a heart stop than it is to have a desire to bid but no direction. your experience may differ.

[Cascade]

it is a question of frequency. fwiw, my view is that it will be far less common to be able to count 9 winners with a heart stop than it is to have a desire to bid but no direction. your experience may differ.

 

You don't need to count nine winners you need to estimate nine winners opposite what partner has shown. Which is a decent 8-10 plus for a negative double at 2Maj. I usually play a little more over 2♠ than ove 2♥ as here. But I am allowed to bid hoping for a couple of cards and maybe a finesse or something working. I don't have to wait for 9 (or 8 runners plus partner's stopper).

[MrAce]

You don't need to count nine winners you need to estimate nine winners opposite what partner has shown. Which is a decent 8-10 plus for a negative double at 2Maj. I usually play a little more over 2♠ than ove 2♥ as here. But I am allowed to bid hoping for a couple of cards and maybe a finesse or something working. I don't have to wait for 9 (or 8 runners plus partner's stopper).

 

It's MP. But it is insane to me even at IMPs.

 

But anyway, I am having hard time to understand your goal by double. Here is what I think...

 

1-Do not give negative doubler anything more than 10 hcp. If he has, you opened and he will definitely not sell it out to 3♥

2-You are talking about your most likely game as 3 NT, when you have a stiff ♥ and non solid ♣ suit. How can you possibly get a good result in the long run by seeking 3 NT vs pd's 8-10 hcp when you have stiff in their 9 card suit? Which hcps of your pd are you suggesting to be heart stopper? A of ♦? Will it cut it? Why do you believe the risk you are taking just to find such a borderline or worse game is worth it at MP?

[cherdano]

I blame North. Raising with such a defensive 4333 is crazy. ♦AQ offside is a bit unlucky but still the -300 is well-deserved.