To save or not to save

[DavidKok]

Playing at the local club the evening has proceeded below expectations. On the very last board (deal rotated so you're sitting South) you pick up

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq75hj5dkj95cq32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1d1h2d2hppdp]133|200[/hv]

 

It is IMP scoring. The double is penalty-oriented, since our side has established a fit and limited both hands. What is your plan?

 

EDIT (copied from downthread): We played a 1♦ 4(+), 1♣ 2(+) where we open 1♣ on two only on 4=4=3=2. A 1NT opening would have shown 15-17. Partner's raise shows 6-9 but may have a bad 10-count. We also played 2♦ multi, so (if relevant) partner did not have the inference that we didn't open a weak two in diamonds.

 

We don't have detailed agreements on the double. The double is penalty-oriented only on general principles (after establishing a fit and limiting the hands), not based on discussion. If you wish, treat it as "I have one of the most defensive hands possible on the auction, and want to strongly suggest that you consider defending".

[thepossum]

Nervous being first up - but we need some danger in our lives

I never really like leaving 2Hx and a sim backs me up - despite not knowing the exact descriptions of your bids :)

 

EDIT - are you wanting to know what happens after they bid 3H - I would possibly hope not to have it doubled and have to risk 4D?

[pilowsky]

3♦ for me.

[LBengtsson]

Pass. That's not my bid btw, that's my reply to "To save or not to save" :)

 

What I do not get here is how partner can X now, and only bid 2♦ first time round. It does not add up imo. Except if West has overcalled on 4M at the one level (!): it happens, and the opps. are in a Moysian, and partner has 4 trumps and about 9 HCPs. Maybe West has psyched, that is a possibility here, but not much of one imo.

[mikeh]

I wouldn’t play the double as suggesting penalty. To penalize 2Hx’d and expect to beat it 2 tricks more often than not, and far more often than it makes? Surely few players double non vulnerable partscores into game hoping to set it 1? At imps?

 

I can’t construct such a hand. Even if he has, say Qxxx and forgot or was strangely unable to bid 1N, he can’t expect me to hold Jx….or for the opps to be on a 4-3 fit. Also, if I have a stiff heart, I may well have 5 diamonds. Since his 2D has to be on four (try constructing a hand that can’t bid 1N and doesn’t know I’ve got short hearts and bids 2D on a three card suit). So he may be doubling an eight card fit, with our side having a nine card fit at imp scoring!!!

 

If, however, that’s your agreement…..maybe 1=4=4=4, not wanting to bid 1N due to spades……3D. I think I need aces to pass. Partner will have at least one ace but playing him for two aces and a trump trick seems weird to me at this form of scoring.

[Tramticket]

Not a penalty double for me. Any double will be rare, whether takeout or penalties, but I see no reason why my passed-hand partner, who could only dredge up a 2D bid last time, suddenly thinks that they have the values to set 2H.

 

Maybe partner concealed a four-card spade suit? Or holds three good spades and wants to give us the chance to compete at the two-level? I bid 2S now.

[helene_t]

I agree that double is penalty-oriented. An action double has higher frequency but sitting under the hand with likely 5-card hearts I would almost never be able to pass an action double, so penalty is reasonable. If I had a hand with which I would pull I would probably have bid 3♦ before, but presumably I am allowed to pull this one since it's called "penalty-oriented" rather than just "penalty".

 

It is borderline. Even if 1♦ could be a 3-card suit, partner can see that I don't have four hearts so I must have four diamonds. So this is a fairly poor hand for diamonds.

 

I think that ♥J tilts me towards pass. At IMPs, partner wouldn't double too speculatively. And sometimes EW are in a 4-2 fit or even worse if W has psyched. I once saw +800 in one of the Nationals finals on Vugraph in this auction.

[DavidKok]

I forgot to give a bit of background on the system, oops. We played a 1♦ 4(+), 1♣ 2(+) where we open 1♣ on two only on 4=4=3=2. A 1NT opening would have shown 15-17. Partner's raise shows 6-9 but may have a bad 10-count. We also played 2♦ multi, so (if relevant) partner did not have the inference that we didn't open a weak two in diamonds.

 

We don't have detailed agreements on the double. The double is penalty-oriented only on general principles (after establishing a fit and limiting the hands), not based on discussion. If you wish, treat it as "I have one of the most defensive hands possible on the auction, and want to strongly suggest that you consider defending".

[Cyberyeti]

I forgot to give a bit of background on the system, oops. We played a 1♦ 4(+), 1♣ 2(+) where we open 1♣ on two only on 4=4=3=2. A 1NT opening would have shown 15-17. Partner's raise shows 6-9 but may have a bad 10-count. We also played 2♦ multi, so (if relevant) partner did not have the inference that we didn't open a weak two in diamonds.

 

We don't have detailed agreements on the double. The double is penalty-oriented only on general principles (after establishing a fit and limiting the hands), not based on discussion. If you wish, treat it as "I have one of the most defensive hands possible on the auction, and want to strongly suggest that you consider defending".

 

Do I want to defend 2♥x opposite a 3343 9-10 which is what would be suggested as partner's hand, not sure I do. Worst case, AJx, Qxx, Q10xx, xxx, considerable danger this is making an overtrick, I bid 2♠, unlikely to be doubled and may get out for -1 or even make if the spades split.

[nullve]

If partner is looking at four hearts and knows that I would have competed with 0-1 hearts (LoTT), then he also knows that opps are in a 7c fit at best. That would make a penalty double more understandable on some hands, especially now that we need a good board.

 

I hope that's what's going on. So Pass.

[mikeh]

If partner is looking at four hearts and knows that I would have competed with 0-1 hearts (LoTT), then he also knows that opps are in a 7c fit at best. That would make a penalty double more understandable on some hands, especially now that we need a good board.

 

I hope that's what's going on. So Pass.

Why can’t opener be 4=1=4=4? Where does the LOTT suggest we compete o the 3-level, at imps, when the Total Tricks is around 16?

 

In particular, what version of the LOTT suggests penalizing them at the 2-level, at imp scoring, even if the Total Tricks are 15? The LOTT doesn’t say which side scores which tricks

 

I’m primarily an imp player. I just don’t understand why anyone would make a borderline penalty double of 2H at imps. I think it’s very, very poor tactics.

 

I await the full hand with interest. I can’t construct a hand where this makes any sense, other than the possible 1444 for responder, and even that makes little sense since responder can’t assume we’re not 4=1=4=4 ourselves.

 

This isn’t mps. And even at mps, the idea of doubling for +100 leaves me cold.

[nullve]

Why can’t opener be 4=1=4=4? Where does the LOTT suggest we compete o the 3-level, at imps, when the Total Tricks is around 16?

1) I was already catering to Opener being 4144.

2) I thought it was MPs. :(

3) Doesn't LOTT suggest that both selling out to 2♥ and competing to 3♦ are ok in this situation? Then competing would be rather pointless (well, actually dangerous) against perfect opponents, of course, but fortunately they don't exist and competing might induce real opponents to make a costly mistake.

 

In particular, what version of the LOTT suggests penalizing them at the 2-level, at imp scoring, even if the Total Tricks are 15? The LOTT doesn’t say which side scores which tricks

I don't play penalty-oriented doubles (I'm not even sure I understand what they are), but DavidKok did with this partner.

[mikeh]

1) I was already catering to Opener being 4144.

2) I thought it was MPs. :(

3) Doesn't LOTT suggest that both selling out to 2♥ and competing to 3♦ are ok in this situation? Then competing would be rather pointless (well, actually dangerous) against perfect opponents, of course, but fortunately they don't exist and competing might induce real opponents to make a costly mistake.

 

 

I don't play penalty-oriented doubles (I'm not even sure I understand what they are), but DavidKok did with this partner.

No opponents are perfect. But: I suppose that raises the question of what we are trying to accomplish.

 

Me? I try to play to the best of my and my partnership’s ability. I can’t stress the partnership aspect enough, while recognizing that I’m fortunate in that each of my regular partners is a fine player, world class by BBO definition and nearly world class by my own much more stringent definition. Also, by trying to play to the partnership standard, that requires that we develop good habits. It’s easy to get sloppy against indifferent opponents, knowing that they will usually let you get away with it. But how does one play like that and then have the discipline needed to do ok against very good opps? Maybe some can. I can’t. Sloppy habits that generate good results tend, even if unconsciously, to perpetuate themselves.

 

So, if playing with one of my regular partners, I treat even a club game as a practice opportunity. We go +50 here, when my partner doesn’t double, and maybe we lose 2 or 3 imps to the field, but I don’t care. We’re maintaining partnership discipline (discipline is not the same as being conservative, it’s about staying within one’s methods, whether they call for aggression or conservatism or something in between. We tend towards the aggressive side in opening bids, preempting and bidding games, but the conservative side in doubling them into games).

 

Anyway, my main point here is that I can’t construct a hand, consistent with the bidding, where partner could be hoping for a two trick set and I can’t imagine doubling at imps hoping for a one trick set.

[thepossum]

I'm still re-reading this thread to find what I am missing

Has anyone else done a Sim too to back up their gut/sorry expert feel :)

 

I was even inspired to look at LOTT on this hand tricks are generally less than trumps (76%) - but for the brave there is another 24% of greater than or equal

 

On average giving the doubler a healthy 9 points :) there are 7 spade tricks, 8.2 diamond tricks and 9.2 heart tricks

And that's DD with "perfect" defence

 

What am I missing :)

 

I wouldn't be happy having to take out 3HX

 

As always I am here to learn :)

[DavidKok]

At the table I decided to bid 2♠, reasoning that if partner didn't have the expected 3-card support he could pull to 3♦. I didn't believe in defending 2♥X, although maybe that should be rephrased as "I didn't believe partner".

 

My main reason for posting this hand was to learn what people think the double should express. There is a continuous range between 'take me out of this, always' at the one extreme and 'penalty - if you run go find a new partner' at the other, and I couldn't figure out how far along that range this double is. On the one hand, partner has given a complete description of their hand (9-10 with diamond support and great defence against hearts). On the other hand, so have I, and also we are doubling their voluntary raise to the 2-level at IMPs into game.

 

My 2♠ ended the auction. LHO lead the ace of hearts, and dummy came down:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq75hj5dkj95cq32&n=s832ht872dat2cajt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1d1h2d2hppdp2sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

First trick ♥A-2-K-5, second trick ♦7-T-4-5. I don't think the play of the rest of the hand is particularly riveting, but feel free to share your thoughts. You can nearly pinpoint the distribution.

 

I understand partner's reluctance to bid 1NT on the first round, choosing to raise diamonds on a 3-card suit instead. I don't think partner's double was right, even though it matches the description perfectly (a maximum for the simple raise with an extremely defensively oriented hand). Which raises the question - should this double simply not exist?

[mikeh]

At the table I decided to bid 2♠, reasoning that if partner didn't have the expected 3-card support he could pull to 3♦. I didn't believe in defending 2♥X, although maybe that should be rephrased as "I didn't believe partner".

 

My main reason for posting this hand was to learn what people think the double should express. There is a continuous range between 'take me out of this, always' at the one extreme and 'penalty - if you run go find a new partner' at the other, and I couldn't figure out how far along that range this double is. On the one hand, partner has given a complete description of their hand (9-10 with diamond support and great defence against hearts). On the other hand, so have I, and also we are doubling their voluntary raise to the 2-level at IMPs into game.

 

My 2♠ ended the auction. LHO lead the ace of hearts, and dummy came down:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq75hj5dkj95cq32&n=s832ht872dat2cajt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1d1h2d2hppdp2sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

First trick ♥A-2-K-5, second trick ♦7-T-4-5. I don't think the play of the rest of the hand is particularly riveting, but feel free to share your thoughts. You can nearly pinpoint the distribution.

 

I understand partner's reluctance to bid 1NT on the first round, choosing to raise diamonds on a 3-card suit instead. I don't think partner's double was right, even though it matches the description perfectly (a maximum for the simple raise with an extremely defensively oriented hand). Which raises the question - should this double simply not exist?

 

 

Imo, the ‘penalty oriented double’ does not exist at imp scoring. Since I don’t play good bridge often enough (especially good mp bridge) to have different methods for mp and imps, it doesn’t exist at mps either. I’ve outlined my reasoning in earlier posts and see zero reason to modify my thoughts.

 

Btw, while I ‘understand’ not bidding 1N, I think the reasoning is mistaken. He has to choose a distortion not matter what he bids, including pass.

 

He’s too strong to pass…even if he can count on you reopening (and he can’t), passing only delays and exacerbates the problem (if you reopened with a double, I think 2H shows something like this but that’s an ugly sequence). He lacks a diamond for 2D….If you have short hearts, you’re getting tapped too often and, more importantly, you may overcompete since if you have short hearts, the opps may bid 2H and you’ll expect a fourth diamond. He lacks a heart card for 1N, but otherwise the hand is perfect.

 

When forced to distort, make the cheapest of equal distortions. 1N describes the shape and strength and 10xxx is fine for 1N anyway. If you’re passing, and they run hearts, you’ll have a good shot at 7 tricks most of the time. If you bid 3N, given the aces he’s holding, you will usually have some help in hearts

 

If not, too bad. Nothing’s perfect but, to me, 1N comes closest and is cheapest so it’s a clear winner

 

Btw, in my partnerships 1S over 1H denies spades, or the ability to raise diamonds or to bid 1N. It will often be based on some club length….a prototypical hand might be xxx xx Axx KQxxx but xxx in hearts and a 3334 is also common. I’d be considering 1S, which is cheaper yet than 1N but I’d reject it. We belong in 1N far too often when partner has Qx or Jx or Jxx and can’t bid notrump.

 

We double with 4-5 spades and bid 2H with six spades, without promising strength.

[DavidKok]

I'm familiar with those methods and like them but don't play them. What does you jump to 2♠ show? I think I've also seen a version where 2♥ shows either 5 strong or 6(+) so-so spades, relieving some pressure from the double (and 2♠ a weak jump shift).

 

I think 1NT and 2♦ are both small lies, I also prefer 1NT but don't mind 2♦ all that much. The diamonds are strong and it is not clear that you want to defend 2♥ opposite a singleton. I might get tapped in 3♦, but it is equally likely that's the best line anyway (a dummy reversal).

[mikeh]

I'm familiar with those methods and like them but don't play them. What does you jump to 2♠ show? I think I've also seen a version where 2♥ shows either 5 strong or 6(+) so-so spades, relieving some pressure from the double (and 2♠ a weak jump shift).

 

I think 1NT and 2♦ are both small lies, I also prefer 1NT but don't mind 2♦ all that much. The diamonds are strong and it is not clear that you want to defend 2♥ opposite a singleton. I might get tapped in 3♦, but it is equally likely that's the best line anyway (a dummy reversal).

2S (1D (1H) 2S) is a limit raise or better in diamonds. Or could be played as clubs, with 3C as the limit raise. This allows for 2S to be based on a chunky but non forcing club suit, bidding again with extras. But that can cause some issues. So I prefer 2S shows diamonds

 

 

Btw after 1C (1D) play 2D as 6+ hearts, 2H as spades.

[the hog]

We are asked to comment sensibly on bad bidding. Why post hands where you are playing poor methods or with a weak partner who does not know what is going on? 1NT, or in my case 1S,is pretty obvious over the H overcall. The x is just plain silly at imps,(even if you play against opps who overcall on a 4 card suit as here or who, (worse still), raise on a doubleton.