[pclayton]

Scoring: IMP

---

IMPs, NS Vul

You open 1♥, 2♦ on left, 2♠ by pard, 3♦ on right.

You raise to 3♠, pass, 4♠ by pard. Now 5♦ on right. Your call?

(Darn it - Double should be a poll choice - HELP!)

[han]

I imagine that everybody plays this pass as forcing, so what is the problem?

I don't like double, but I hate 5S (or any other bid).

[inquiry]

If I passed everytime I didn't know what to do, I would be passing almost all the time. :-)

On this hand, I would pass (forcing) however, because I know what to do. Let partner decide. If he wants to play the hand, my hand will not be a big disappointment. If he wants to defend, it will not either. The major drawback here is two diamonds. That is a bad number that makes me feel like doubling would be better. But if partner has a doubleton diamond, he will double and we will defend.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Oct 27 2005, 02:55 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

IMPs, NS Vul

You open 1♥, 2♦ on left, 2♠ by pard, 3♦ on right.

You raise to 3♠, pass, 4♠ by pard. Now 5♦ on right. Your call?

(Darn it - Double should be a poll choice - HELP!)

Double

Wish I had bid 4s last round
FTL 13-4+1=10 tricks
13=total tricks
-4=estimated 2 shortest suits
+1=estimated 22 working hcp.

[mikeh]

An interesting point is how many ♦ should a forcing pass show?

I think a forcing pass should show 1 or 3 ♦ losers, while a double should show 2.

My concern is that we will frequently have a hand with a stiff ♦ with no clear 5-level safety: 3=6=1=3 or 3=5=1=4 with modest values.

It seems to me to be dangerous to overload the forcing pass here: it seems quite likely that we have a side loser, so if we make a forcing pass with both 1 and 2 ♦'s we are endplaying partner.

Partner denied any slam interest, and it is not as if we have any pleasant surprises (like a 4 card fit or a stiff ♦) so I vote for double.

Partner is still there: this double is not penalty: it is a 'caution' sign, not a 'stop' sign.

[awm]

Unless 3♠ was forcing, I would've prefered 4♠ at the first turn. Give partner a typical sub-minimum hand like:

KQJxx
xx
xx
Kxxx

I think our chances at 4♠ are quite reasonable, and I would expect partner to pass a 3♠ advance with this hand.

After opponents compete to 5♦ I like double. My reasoning is much the same as mikeh's: usually passing should show a better number of diamonds. Also we have the "wrong" heart holding to play opposite shortness (Axxxx(x) could be much better) and only three spades. The only way this hand could be worse for competing to 5♠ would be to hold a "wasted" diamond honor -- not all that likely given the opposing bidding, but possible. I would feel much happier about doubling had I forced game initially though.

[keylime]

Double. Warn pard that your hand is really minimum and not enough offense to warrant a five bid.

If I held another club honor card that was working, I pass. The lack of shortness screams the defensive nature of the hand.

Take what is likely the sure profit.

[bearmum]

I dpoble -- mainly because I have 2♦ and only a minimum hand for my previous bidding.

[luke warm]

i'd double... i think i'd only pass with a stiff diamond

[luke warm]

the only reason the number matters to me goes back to something rubens (i think it was) said... it was just opposite of what i'd been taught, and made an impression... he said the one with length in their suit should act... i was taught the one with shortness should act

anyway, that means to pass with a stiff, if pard has 3+ he'll x... with 2 it's tough, then you might have 2/2 between your 2 hands... partner would likely bid with 2 diamonds here, and i think they're going for 800 or more

[han]

This is not how Rubens meant it I think. He said "pass with shortness", because the person with length knows if he has stuf waisted or not. It is an interesting theory, but hard to apply in practice.

[flytoox]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2005, 11:47 PM, said:

I used to be a Xer whenever I had xx in diamonds. It always seemed that partner had KQxxxx xx x KQxx and had an "easy" pass of my double. He also has an easy 5S bid when I pass.

I'm now of the view it's ok to pass with xx in diamonds. When partner has 2 diamonds he usually seems to X, when he has a stiff he often seems to bid, and thats just fine with me with this hand. I also feel comfortable Xing with Kx and pard knowing that I have some wastage and making a good decision. I think more important than my number of diamonds is the amount of wastage I have, and how well my honors will play at the 5 level. With A, A in the blacks thats great for the 5 level. KQ of hearts is bad opposite a stiff, but I will assume with a stiff diamond he won't have a stiff heart just based on frequency. If he does we may just be off 2 aces.

Especially in this auction I think it's fine to pass with xx in diamonds, I can't remember ever raising to 3S non forcing with a stiff diamond here. I'm sure someone will start constructing some hands and being like HAH SEE YOU HAVE A 3S BID HERE, but it will always be a bare minimum opener with something like xxx in spades and soft values. The fact is, a stiff diamond is just unlikely for a 3S bid.

I like the theory of 3S implies non-singleton diamond.

A side point, I think the given hand worths a 4S bid rather than 3S. Of course this may not matter in the context.


After 5D, I prefer dbl to a forcing pass. This will be easier had I bid 4S in the previous round. However, east's bidding 3D then 5D is unusual. If he has a really shapy hand and think that sacrifice is clearly right then he would bid 5D last round. So 3D then 5D implies his hand isnot that shapy. THis gives another reason why we should dbl rather than pass to encourage pd to bid on.

[beatrix45]

Double. My hand is a little better than a min, but it doesn't sing to me as a player despite the heart 6 bagger. Most important, MY VALUES ARE TRANSFERABLE, so one heart, one spade and one club on defense from my hand alone gives me the warm fuzzies.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Oct 27 2005, 11:33 PM, said:

This is not how Rubens meant it I think. He said "pass with shortness", because the person with length knows if he has stuf waisted or not. It is an interesting theory, but hard to apply in practice.

maybe he meant it that way also han, but he said "let the hand with length in the opps' suit make the final decision"... it's paraphrased, but that's the quote.. i'll look for it later

[Fluffy]

Clsoe between aps and double to me, I am hating my ♦xx, but that depends on how likelly are oppoennts to have 10 cards. I Will try to use my nose to find it. If it tells me they often bid this way with just 9 I will double. Otherwise I'll pass.

[pclayton]

I thought double was kind of obvious with your 3 trump and semi-balanced distribution, but maybe not. Perhaps its a tough hand.

I held the component hand and had: ♠Qxxxx, ♥xx, ♦A, ♣KJTxx and bid 5♠ which went for a #.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

I used to be a Xer whenever I had xx in diamonds.

You mean, back when you were young? Now that you are old and grizzled (wait, that's me...) you have changed your style?

Actually, I do not advocate a simple rule: double with 2♦, forcing pass (or bid) with very short or unexpected length. The decision rests on the entire hand in context. For me, the short ♠ support and the minimal nature of my high card strength combine with the xx holding to get me doubling. There are some hands on which I would commit a forcing pass with xx (not many since I bid only 3♠) but this is not one of them.

And I agree that partner should double if I pass, so the forcing pass, altho not my choice, is not the culprit here.