Fluffy Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 [hv=pc=n&s=sq743hqt96da9cakt&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n3dpp]133|200[/hv] Still against Robson/Forrester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 X 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 I'd x too. No doubt partner is 3334. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Sign me up for a double as well. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles123 Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 x for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbenvic Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 I may be a wimp but I'm passing. It's close but AK in clubs and Q 4th in both majors doesn't seem enough to want to re-enter the auction with a 15 count. I assume your NT is 15-17 (or 18) and so I'm a minimum, soft values in our likely trump suit. Yes the shape is right for a double but I've had these hands end up in 3Maj X -1 or 2 and IMP's lost many more times than I've had it go X all pass and Imps for us, or any of the other positive things that could occur. Edit I should also note that I usually put emphasis on the short suit straining to re-open and I do only have 2 diamonds which is what makes this close to a bid and I would not be unhappy with a partner who chose X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 [hv=pc=n&s=sq743hqt96da9cakt&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n3dpp]133|200|Still against Robson/Forrester[/hv] I rankDouble = Competitive. Normal, especially with 4-card support for both majors.Pass = You are minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiddity Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 I'm surprised at this one; double looks completely insane to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesleyC Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I'm really surprised the consensus is to double. Competing for the partscore at the 3 level, vulnerable with a minimum hand and diamond wastage on what could easily be misfit deal seems crazy. If you changed the hand to: AQxx Kxxx xx AKx then double would be clear because the major upside (partner passing for penalties) is a legitimate possibility. On the actual hand it is very unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 http://www.eurobridge.org/repository/competitions/16budapest/microsite/Asp/BoardAcross.asp?qboard=004.01..1210 Double would clearly be the winner here. Collecting 800 if I didn't make the stupid "passive" club lead and choose the proper spade instead. Even so, 500 was much better.At the other table they bid a very bad 4♥ which couldn't fail on the lie of the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiddity Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Fluffy, do you think it's right to double in this spot? I wish the eurobridge site showed the auctions; I see some 3♦-x contracts but I don't know if they had the same auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 You can look for the 6 vugraph tables of the round on the BBO archives. I think double is easy with ♦xx, and it is obvious not to double with ♦Qx. ♦Ax is somewhere in the middle and who knows... One thing is to think double is best in a public forum, and another is to make it against Robson/Forrester at the table :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.