Rate this Take-out Double

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk865hkqt6d76c532&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1c(Natural%2C%204%2B%20Clubs)p1dd]133|200[/hv]

 

Pairs

[FelicityR]

Sitting on the fence again here, but I don't think it's awful but what is the point? It's unlikely you're going to get doubled at the one level, but if partner can't drag up a non-vulnerable bid on the first round over a 1♣ knowing that the opener has at least 4+, then where exactly are you heading?

 

It looks like the opponents have the majority of the points, and all you are doing is indicating to them where the major suit honours might be and the length of the major suits. Even at pairs I don't quite see the point. It's too balanced, too. I'd rather pass.

[pescetom]

Depends a lot upon partnership style, I think, both ours and theirs: what is 1♦ here, with what hands would partner pass 1♣?

 

I have a similar query but will make a separate post.

[Tramticket]

Depends a lot upon partnership style, I think, both ours and theirs: what is 1♦ here, with what hands would partner pass 1♣?

 

I have a similar query but will make a separate post.

 

1♦ is natural and a four-card suit. Four-card suits are bid up the line (Acol style), so 1♦ does not deny a four-card major.

 

We were North/South and I have no comment on the East/West bidding style.

[Cyberyeti]

Last time somebody did something like that against me we redoubled and collected 1400, less likely in this precise auction and at this vul but you can easily be going for 180/300/380 against nothing or 500/580 against a game.

[helene_t]

I think it would be very wrong not to make this double. With the honours in the majors it may even help partner in the defense.

 

Neither opps has a 5-card major. They are not even likely have a very good 4-card major. So even if partner has to bid a 3-card major, I am ok with it.

 

If partner has a 4-card major and some 9-14 points, we need to compete to the 2-level.

 

Maybe some partners would overbid with a balanced 15 count. But I don't think they should expect a better hand than this.

 

Make it IMPs and/or vulnerable and it is less obvious, but I would still do it.

[Cyberyeti]

I think it would be very wrong not to make this double. With the honours in the majors it may even help partner in the defense.

 

Neither opps has a 5-card major. They are not even likely have a very good 4-card major. So even if partner has to bid a 3-card major, I am ok with it.

 

If partner has a 4-card major and some 9-14 points, we need to compete to the 2-level.

 

Maybe some partners would overbid with a balanced 15 count. But I don't think they should expect a better hand than this.

 

Make it IMPs and/or vulnerable and it is less obvious, but I would still do it.

 

Don't judge other people by your bidding standards, the 1♣ opener can have AQJ10, AJ9x, x, AKQx on a really bad day, you need to know their full system as to what they can have in a 4M system.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk865hkqt6d76c532&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1c(Natural%2C%204%2B%20Clubs)p1dd]133|200| Tramticket 'Pairs'

++++++++++++++++

 

IMO As a passed hand, double is brave but reasonable.

You would prefer a couple more HCP but the shape is OK.

With more shape ...

- 1M = NAT. 5 cards.

- 1N = ART. M55.

- 2♣/♦ = CUE. Longer ♥/♠.

e.g. 2♦ with ♠ J x x x x x ♥ K Q J x x ♦ x ♣ x.[/hv]

[Tramticket]

Thanks, all who have replied so far. It seems that most find the double to not be silly.

 

My concern over the bid was that I had noted a minor hesitation and body language from East. The full deal was:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hj983daqt98c94&w=sk865hkqt6d76c532&n=sjtha42dk43cakqj6&e=saq942h75dj52ct87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1cp(With%20hesitation)1ddr2spp3cp3dpp3sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The intervention probably stopped us from reaching the doomed 3NT or the more successful 5♣/5♦ - I suspect that we would most likely be in 3NT in an uncontested auction. The hesitation / body language was of the minor kind that you get regularly at clubs and I didn't reserve rights / call the director but I was surprised when that eight-count went down as dummy. Our score of +300 was a top, so I didn't take any further action.

 

How should we have bid to 5m?

[pescetom]

Thanks, all who have replied so far. It seems that most find the double to not be silly.

My concern over the bid was that I had noted a minor hesitation and body language from East.

...

The intervention probably stopped us from reaching the doomed 3NT or the more successful 5♣/5♦ - I suspect that we would most likely be in 3NT in an uncontested auction.

If the hesitation and body language were evident then it doesn't make much difference that the double was not silly, it was still not a legal choice as pass s quite evidently a logical alternative not suggested by the show. You would probably get some mix of 3NT-1 and 5♦ making, according to Director's whim.

[P_Marlowe]

3S?

 

I think I can get behing pass by East over 1C, pass or T/O in the given bidding seq.,

various Degrees of conviction, but I can without to much bad Feelings, but 3S?

[igt3]

I would double everyday.

Then for the rest of the bidding. What did XX by North show? 18-19 without good stoppers in the majors? If so, you know 3NT is probably not a good contract. South pass after 2♠ is a little bit shy I think when partner has 18-19. Maybe I would double showing more than an absolute minimum. Or maybe better, bid 3♦ already now. Passing first and then bidding 3♦ looks like sign-off to me, and South is stronger than that I think. Then the last double by North is a bit strange since South already knows North´s hand. I would bid 4♦ instead and then South can bid the game.

[igt3]

3S?

 

I think I can get behing pass by East over 1C, pass or T/O in the given bidding seq.,

various Degrees of conviction, but I can without to much bad Feelings, but 3S?

 

Agree. Specially after 2♠. Kind of shows the hand already.

[Cyberyeti]

Without the intervention, we bid:

 

1♣-1♦

1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(asking)

3♣(17-19, 5♣, GF)-3♦(5♦)

3♥(stop)-3♠(unsure, can't bid 3N)

4♦-5♦

 

N should bid 4♦ over 3♠ and partner will bid game, N can see AQxxx and out is 11 tricks. Also were they playing WJS ? The danger is that partner has ♦QJxxxx and major quacks and you have 3 off the top, if partner can't have that hand I might bid 5♦ rather than 4.

[pescetom]

Just noticed that I missed a J and it is too strong to open 1NT for the previous auction.

So it would probably just go:

1♣ - 1♦

2NT - 3♥

3♠ - 4♦

5♦ - p.

[DozyDom]

If the hesitation and body language were evident then it doesn't make much difference that the double was not silly, it was still not a legal choice as pass s quite evidently a logical alternative not suggested by the show. You would probably get some mix of 3NT-1 and 5♦ making, according to Director's whim.

...I think you'll have to explain how a score can be adjusted with a portion that's worse than what the non-offending side actually scored. If they were going to reach 3NT without the interference, as seems overwhelmingly likely (despite the sequences posted, if the field isn't in 3NT it's because E overcalls, not because people ask about spade stops in the sequence 1C-1D-2NT), then don't adjust.

Edit: this came off as pretty harsh when I didn't mean that. But I don't think giving the "damaged" side a score that incorporates worse elements than their unadjusted score is really in keeping with normal rules about UI.

 

As for how to find 5D once the inteference comes in, N needs the diamond suit to play for no losers (or find partner with the spade A or KQ, which isn't totally impossible). Partner has rebid diamonds at the 3 level, but that could be on QJ to 6 or something. I guess I'd just bid 4D over 3D and hope that if partner accepts, their points are in the right place? But it could end with you in a terrible game. I wouldn't think about calling the director when my opps give me +300 like this; the room is likely in 3NT or a diamond partscore.

 

2nd edit: the actual result is probably a decent indicator of why I wouldn't X here. Partner has a hand that many would just overcall with, but we still can't compete at the partscore level, while we've just frightened them out of a non-making game.

[gordontd]

...I think you'll have to explain how a score can be adjusted with a portion that's worse than what the non-offending side actually scored.

That's the correct process, as long as the overall adjustment improves their score. If it wouldn't then they were not damaged and no adjustment would be made.

[Tramticket]

Without the intervention, we bid:

 

1♣-1♦

1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(asking)

3♣(17-19, 5♣, GF)-3♦(5♦)

3♥(stop)-3♠(unsure, can't bid 3N)

4♦-5♦

 

N should bid 4♦ over 3♠ and partner will bid game, N can see AQxxx and out is 11 tricks. Also were they playing WJS ? The danger is that partner has ♦QJxxxx and major quacks and you have 3 off the top, if partner can't have that hand I might bid 5♦ rather than 4.

 

I'm with you as far as the 3♣ bid. But is 3♦ really a choice of game bid? If partner bid 3♦ I think that I would interpret it as showing slam interest.

[DozyDom]

That's the correct process, as long as the overall adjustment improves their score. If it wouldn't then they were not damaged and no adjustment would be made.

I leave for half an hour, check the White Book to find that I'm completely wrong, and you're already here to correct me? The EBU really is in safe hands!

[gordontd]

I leave for half an hour, check the White Book to find that I'm completely wrong, and you're already here to correct me? The EBU really is in safe hands!

:)

I have a history of happening, entirely by chance, to be in the right place at the right time!

[nudnikbp]

Pass and possibly balance later.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm with you as far as the 3♣ bid. But is 3♦ really a choice of game bid? If partner bid 3♦ I think that I would interpret it as showing slam interest.

 

We just shape out at this point bidding suits up the line

[bluenikki]

Thanks, all who have replied so far. It seems that most find the double to not be silly.

 

My concern over the bid was that I had noted a minor hesitation and body language from East. The full deal was:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hj983daqt98c94&w=sk865hkqt6d76c532&n=sjtha42dk43cakqj6&e=saq942h75dj52ct87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1cp(With%20hesitation)1ddr2spp3cp3dpp3sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The intervention probably stopped us from reaching the doomed 3NT or the more successful 5♣/5♦ - I suspect that we would most likely be in 3NT in an uncontested auction. The hesitation / body language was of the minor kind that you get regularly at clubs and I didn't reserve rights / call the director but I was surprised when that eight-count went down as dummy. Our score of +300 was a top, so I didn't take any further action.

 

How should we have bid to 5m?

 

You should agree and put on cc that pass of 1-level rdbl promises 4+ in dbled suit.

[Tramticket]

We just shape out at this point bidding suits up the line

It would certainly work well here, but at the cost of telling opps your shape. you have a balanced minimum opposite a balanced 18(ish) and look destined for 3NT. I must confess that I would just bid 3NT☹️

[Lobowolf]

Thanks, all who have replied so far. It seems that most find the double to not be silly.

 

My concern over the bid was that I had noted a minor hesitation and body language from East. The full deal was:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hj983daqt98c94&w=sk865hkqt6d76c532&n=sjtha42dk43cakqj6&e=saq942h75dj52ct87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1cp(With%20hesitation)1ddr2spp3cp3dpp3sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The intervention probably stopped us from reaching the doomed 3NT or the more successful 5♣/5♦ - I suspect that we would most likely be in 3NT in an uncontested auction. The hesitation / body language was of the minor kind that you get regularly at clubs and I didn't reserve rights / call the director but I was surprised when that eight-count went down as dummy. Our score of +300 was a top, so I didn't take any further action.

 

How should we have bid to 5m?

 

From a legality perspective, a subtle distinction that is important to note is that the relevant question isn't whether the double was reasonable, but whether a pass would have been unreasonable. If passing is a logical alternative, then it can't be eschewed in favor of a bid that was suggested by the UI.