[xx1943]

Scoring: IMP

Facing strong opponents the bidding went up to me:
West North East South
  4♠   pass  pass  ????

---

I got this one wrong and lost a lot of IMPs.
What is your bid and wh?
Or is this just like tossing a coin?

[Fluffy]

4NT and no other choice is even close.

[dicklont]

4NT, two places to play.
Pass 5♣ and over 5♦ your call is 5♥.

[the hog]

As said by Dick and Fluffy - 4NT 2 places to play.

[neilkaz]

Agreed with trying 4NT here. X will fetch 5♦ sometimes when only 5♣ makes and sometimes catch a pass when we are better off making our game.

[Winstonm]

Double and I don't think it is close.

IMO, this hand is not nearly strong enough in playing strength to force a takeout to one of the two suits. Double allows a pull if partner has the right type hand but also expresses the values and allows a collection of whatever penalty bonus there is when that is right.

[jdonn]

I join the chorus for 4NT. Wtp? I guess pass could work given the doubleton spade, but it's a pretty deep position.

[mtvesuvius]

4NT, two places to play... This is exactly what you have, so...

[skjaeran]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 1 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

4NT, two places to play... This is exactly what you have, so...

Actually, you do have three places to play....
And it's not as if this hand is perfectly comfortable to force your side to play at the 5-level at unfavourable.

Anyway, I'm also bidding 4NT, but not with the same enthusiasm as other posters.

[Mbodell]

I voted for X, and I don't need to be convinced that this is wrong given the votes and comments here. But could one of the 4nt people explain why this is clearly wrong? Is the worry that we will not set 4♠X when partner passes? Or is the worry that when partner bids 5♦ and we bid 5♥ we'll be in a bad place or have miscommunication? Or is the worry partner will pass the 4♠X and we'll pick up +300 when +650 was available?

Basically I'm asking what people think the probable scores for us if we bid 4nt are. Like how often we will make game and how often we'll go down. And likewise what the same probable scores are over the double.

[helene_t]

The case against dbl is that partner may bid 5♦ when we belong in 5♣. Also it's a gamble whether to correct 5♦ to 5♥ or not. If I doubled and p passes I would be happy, but he is unlikely to do that.

[Fluffy]

Mbodell, on Mar 1 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

Or is the worry that when partner bids 5♦ and we bid 5♥ we'll be in a bad place or have miscommunication?

This is the right one, at least for me.

[Winstonm]

Mbodell, on Mar 1 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

I voted for X, and I don't need to be convinced that this is wrong given the votes and comments here.  But could one of the 4nt people explain why this is clearly wrong?  Is the worry that we will not set 4♠X when partner passes?  Or is the worry that when partner bids 5♦ and we bid 5♥ we'll be in a bad place or have miscommunication?  Or is the worry partner will pass the 4♠X and we'll pick up +300 when +650 was available?

Basically I'm asking what people think the probable scores for us if we bid 4nt are.  Like how often we will make game and how often we'll go down.  And likewise what the same probable scores are over the double.

This double is more card-showing and penalty in nature that it is takeout. If partner pulls it is because his hand is quite strongly suit oriented or he believes the penalty will not be sufficient to overcome our plus potential.

The double has a ground floor of around a very solid 14-count with plenty of defense. Responder is to bid accordingly.

If partner pulls to 5D, it is because he has a huge diamond suit and hand that is highly suit/play oriented. I would pass any 5-level bid he makes.

Personally, I think there is quite a bit of misjudgement in calling 5-card suits that have the interiors of 732 and 864 as two places to play. How many times have you made a 2-level Michael's bid and not found a 5/3 fit? Yet here we are at the 5-level with no guarantee of a fit and want to force a choice with AK732 and KJ864?

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Mar 1 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

I voted for X, and I don't need to be convinced that this is wrong given the votes and comments here.  But could one of the 4nt people explain why this is clearly wrong?  Is the worry that we will not set 4♠X when partner passes?  Or is the worry that when partner bids 5♦ and we bid 5♥ we'll be in a bad place or have miscommunication?  Or is the worry partner will pass the 4♠X and we'll pick up +300 when +650 was available?

The second one. It's a takeout double. It shows tolerance for the other suits. Partner will bid 5♦ too often, and even worse bid 6♦ over 5♥ too often.

There are also elements of the third one. Partner can easily pass the double with five hearts or clubs.

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

This double is more card-showing and penalty in nature that it is takeout.

FFFFFFFAAAAAAALLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

If you are going to continue living in the 80s or earlier, then at least admit that's what you are doing and don't pretend that's the way things are now.

Quote

Personally, I think there is quite a bit of misjudgement in calling 5-card suits that have the interiors of 732 and 864 as two places to play. How many times have you made a 2-level Michael's bid and not found a 5/3 fit? Yet here we are at the 5-level with no guarantee of a fit and want to force a choice with AK732 and KJ864?

There is no doubt that 4NT is risky. But your use of the word "want" in the last sentence is clearly unfair.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It's a takeout double. It shows tolerance for the other suits.

4S-P-P-?

A83
AK3
KJ832
K9

I guess you are just screwed then, by this hand, while we old guys still get to double.

Quote

But your use of the word "want" in the last sentence is clearly unfair

OK, I'll change it to "have elected".

Quote

FFFFFFFAAAAAAALLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

If you are going to continue living in the 80s or earlier, then at least admit that's what you are doing and don't pretend that's the way things are now.

I see. So your claim to be the all-knowing, all-seeing Kreskin of modern bridge is fair?

O.K. Thanks for the warning. I'll make a note not to offend you again.

I had the audacity to read and believe some complete moron named Larry Cohen who wrote that whether the double of a 4S opening was treated as penalty or takeout was a matter of partnership choice, and regardless of which choice was made there was bound to be some overlapping of hand types.

I cannot thank you enough for clarifying how wrong he was. Now everyone knows that there is only one correct way to play.

I guess I better write Larry Cohen a letter and let him know how wrong he was about bridge bidding, and chastise him for influencing the thinking of so many misguided souls on this clearly black or white takeout only subject.

After all, it's only fair.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Quote

It's a takeout double. It shows tolerance for the other suits.

4S-P-P-?

A83
AK3
KJ832
K9

I guess you are just screwed then, by this hand, while we old guys still get to double.

Yes, "old guys" will get screwed when they are short in spades, the world will get screwed when they are long in spades. Which do you think is more likely?

Quote

Quote

FFFFFFFAAAAAAALLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

If you are going to continue living in the 80s or earlier, then at least admit that's what you are doing and don't pretend that's the way things are now.

I had the audacity to read and believe some complete moron named Larry Cohen who wrote that whether the double of a 4S opening was treated as penalty or takeout was a matter of partnership choice, and regardless of which choice was made there was bound to be some overlapping of hand types.

I cannot thank you enough for clarifying how wrong he was. Now everyone knows that there is only one correct way to play.

I guess I better write Larry Cohen a letter and let him know how wrong he was about bridge bidding, and chastise him for influencing the thinking of so many misguided souls on this clearly black or white takeout only subject.

After all, it's only fair.

&()@#$&*()@&*

- If this becomes a contest of dropping names based on how experts play the double, you will lose. Very very badly. It won't be close. You are making a huge error to go down that road.

- Without even knowing where he wrote that (and taking you at your word that he did) I will guarantee you that it was either not recent, written for B/I, or both. Yes there was a time that double was oriented toward penalty, as I have never denied. That time is in the past, not in the present.

- What you said does not even correspond to what you claim Larry Cohen said! Did you mention the definition of double is by partnership agreement, or did you say "This double is more card-showing and penalty in nature that it is takeout." So just to be clear, when I used my own expertise as a basis to say your claim was false, you had no expertise of your own to contradict me, so instead you tried to borrow some expertise, but you failed to note that your borrowed expertise didn't agree with you either. Ok, glad I got that summarized for us.

- Before you were participating much in the bridge sections of the forums, another frequent participant continuously referenced Larry Coehn as a source to never make takeout doubles with voids, ignorring me continuing to repeat that not only was it wrong but even Larry Cohen wouldn't agree with it. Eventually I had a common friend ask LC about the topic, and he confirmed that his advice was being badly misconstrued. I posted his comments on the forums. If you would like I will gladly ask him how he plays double, how he recommends playing double, and what if anything he thinks is currently standard, and post his unedited reply. And then you can find the name of some expert from 30 years earlier and continue to remain in denial if you like.

[andy_h]

When the opponents preempt at the 4 level, it is much more frequent for you to hold a shortage in their suit thus a X is more takeout orientated than just random card showing. Sure, you might get an 18 balanced count with KJx in the opponents suit once in a blue moon and you sometimes just have to deal with it and pass.
As to the actual hand, I would bid 4NT and feel happy about it. However if my pointed suits were switched, I would X.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Yes there was a time that double was oriented toward penalty, as I have never denied. That time is in the past, not in the present.

You are getting a hung up on strict word useage as anyone you have ever criticized, Josh.

The game of bridge certainly fluctuates. I also concede that my explanation may not have been the best wording when I wrote that double was penalty oriented. I simply meant to convey the idea that double is often left in for penalty and not pulled - it is not as much takeout in the strict sense of that word as is a takeout double of a 1-bid or a 2-bid or even a 3-bid. Anyone worth a damn at all understands that as the level of the takeout gets higher, the strict interpretation as takeout grows more skewed. Takeout of 4S may well have a 3-card spade suit, hardly the perfect shape. After 4S-P-P-? I am going to double with K, AKx, Axxx, KJxxx and that certainly qualifies as a takeout double although I would be happy if it were left in opposite a non-shapely 7-count.

If you wish to argue that as the level of the bidding rises that the strict meaning of takeout double does not change or that the double is not more likely to be left in than after a 1, 2, or 3-spade opening then you are simply trying to be a jerk, and with great success.

Quote

And then you can find the name of some expert from 30 years earlier and continue to remain in denial if you like

.

If we go back to about 1929 we can find Harold Vanderbilt suggesting a forcing club bidding system, but the vast array of American "experts" didn't find any use for the idea until the Italians began to regularly kick their asses every year using forcing club systems. Many of the early bidders regularly opened extremely light hands.

Is there any point to your accusation?

If you are through, maybe you can get around to answering the question I posed.
Perhaps you will explain what others have not. When partner holds his balanced 6-8 count, what is there about the weak interiors of the heart and club suits that makes a 5-level contract more desireable that playing 4S doubled?

I would hope you agree that even a takeout double of 4S is left in a great deal of the time. If so, what is there about this hand that makes you believe that showing two places to play will be a better result than doubling?

[Winstonm]

Quote

When the opponents preempt at the 4 level, it is much more frequent for you to hold a shortage in their suit thus a X is more takeout orientated than just random card showing.

Andy,

Lest you feel left out I want to point out that when I say card-showing I do so in the context of an offshape takeout double. A double of an immediate 4S preempt cannot wait for perfect shape, so the double can be forced with less than perfect shape.

What you call a random card showing double is to me a penalty double, and I do not believe the double of 4S should be a strict penalty double.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Mar 2 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

Quote

Yes there was a time that double was oriented toward penalty, as I have never denied. That time is in the past, not in the present.

You are getting a hung up on strict word useage as anyone you have ever criticized, Josh.

I'm not buying it for even a moment. I respond to many people on the forums, and you are consistently the only one who responds by claiming you didn't mean what you really said. If you type the words and click 'add reply' then it stays there for everyone to see, and no amount of denial can change that.

"This double is more card-showing and penalty in nature that it is takeout."

You just look foolish trying to claim that what you mean by that is it's a takeout double that can be very off-shape and which you don't mind partner leaving in.

I'm certainly no stranger to posting things I regret or that were simply wrong, but when called out on it I usually admit I was stupid and move on with life. Try it sometime. It works a lot better than switching from double being more penalty than takeout, to double being a matter of partnership agreement, to double being takeout but often left in, and then claiming that someone who calls you out on it is hung up on strict word usage.

Quote

If you wish to argue that as the level of the bidding rises that the strict meaning of takeout double does not change or that the double is not more likely to be left in than after a 1, 2, or 3-spade opening then you are simply trying to be a jerk, and with great success.

You will notice I ignored your first post and simply expressed my own opinion, as you had done. One might conclude that I am not just out here looking to be a jerk to you.

Honestly, this is exactly what I would expect out of you since you are incapable of simply admitting you were wrong and that you have no decent reply to any point I actually made. You tried to use the opinion of an expert to show you are right, and I offered to ask him his opinion and post it here. I'd call that a pretty good offer! It essentially means that if your post was true I will voluntarily end up with egg on my face. But rather than say yes (or say no thanks) you called me a jerk. That says a lot more about you than it does about me, whether I'm a jerk or not.

Quote

If you are through, maybe you can get around to answering the question I posed.

What a mighty fair request considering I already have done so (see the end of this post) whereas you have ignored every point I made, which I even conveniently separated in list format.

Quote

Perhaps you will explain what others have not.  When partner holds his balanced 6-8 count, what is there about the weak interiors of the heart and club suits that makes a 5-level contract more desireable that playing 4S doubled?

And you wonder why your questions don't get answered? Please show me where anyone has claimed that the weak interiors of the heart and club suits make a 5-level contract more desirable than playing 4♠X opposite a balanced 6-8 hand. Do you know what a straw man is?

Quote

I would hope you agree that even a takeout double of 4S is left in a great deal of the time.  If so, what is there about this hand that makes you believe that showing two places to play will be a better result than doubling?

To the first sentence, I would definitely agree a takeout double of 4♠ is left in a great deal of the time. What you ignore is that it's left in a great deal of the time BECAUSE it's made on hands that qualify for a takeout double! If made on hands with spade length, it will much more rarely be left in. Your reasoning here appears quite circular. I claim the double is takeout, therefore our shortness implies length with partner, therefore he will often leave the double in. You conclude double should not be as much takeout as penalty because partner is often leaving it in. Do you see why this is illogical logic?

As to the second sentence, I responded to a reasonable poster who asked a reasonable question.

jdonn, on Mar 1 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Mar 1 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

I voted for X, and I don't need to be convinced that this is wrong given the votes and comments here.  But could one of the 4nt people explain why this is clearly wrong?  Is the worry that we will not set 4♠X when partner passes?  Or is the worry that when partner bids 5♦ and we bid 5♥ we'll be in a bad place or have miscommunication?  Or is the worry partner will pass the 4♠X and we'll pick up +300 when +650 was available?

The second one. It's a takeout double. It shows tolerance for the other suits. Partner will bid 5♦ too often, and even worse bid 6♦ over 5♥ too often.

There are also elements of the third one. Partner can easily pass the double with five hearts or clubs.