[cherdano]

Difficult to say whether pass is LA. (I think Luis overlooked the fact that it is MP and would double too, otherwise.)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass is LA, and the hesitation suggest action,
dbl being the most flexible bid caters for any
action was contemplating.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Echognome]

Taking a slightly different point of view, how much have you left unbid with your 3♥? You are definitely more defensive with your singleton ♦, but other than that, you have bid your values with 3♥.

One thing about it being MPs is that partner may not have a great 2♦ bid. Suppose partner has KQJTxxx and out, might he not be adventurous at MPs? Maybe he would (shouldn't) be at these colours, but my point is that it is difficult to rule out pass as a logical alternative. Just pass and tell partner to bid in tempo next time.

[inquiry]

The ruling here requires a bit more information. The question is rahter or not 3♥ was game forcing. IF so, then pass of 4♠ here would be (for most partnerships) a forcing pass. In this case, double is clear cut.

If 3♥ was only forcing to 4♦, then pass would not be forcing. The longer than necessary pass SUGGEST SOME ACTION (as opposed to pass). Pass is clearly a logical alternative, since you have a minimum for your forcing 3♥ bid. Since an action was suggested, I would roll back to 4♠ undoubled down one. But, since a hesitiation was required the hestation here would really have to have been long.

From your description, you had no agreement about 3♥ (I assume even without agreement it is forcing one round), so there can be no forcing pass agreement, so the second situtation exist.

As a hint, here, the problem goes away if over 2♠ you bid 4♥ rather than 3♥. Now a forcing pass situation is established and you have made the value bid with your hand. If LHO passes 3♥ and partner bids 4♦, you are not really passing are you?

[luis]

cherdano, on Mar 30 2006, 10:40 AM, said:

Difficult to say whether pass is LA. (I think Luis overlooked the fact that it is MP and would double too, otherwise.)

Yes didn't see it was MPs.
At MPs I would double automatically, at IMPs as I said I pass automatically and as the result shows converting 50 in 100 or 100 in 300 is not going to be the winning board :-).

I understand now why Mike said it was a losers idea to pass, at MPs passing 4♠ seems to be certainly a bad idea.

Sorry I'm just too used to IMP problems, my apologies for not noticing it was MPs, everything I said holds for IMPs.

For a good player pass is not a LA at MPs.

[mikeh]

luis, on Mar 30 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

I understand now why Mike said it was a losers idea to pass, at MPs passing 4♠ seems to be certainly a bad idea.

Sorry I'm just too used to IMP problems, my apologies for not noticing it was MPs, everything I said holds for IMPs.

I also missed that it was mps

So, I am sorry, Luis, but everything I said applied to imps as well: I guess we have to agree to diasgree on this one. And as for the double gaining only 5 imps (+300 v +100): I don't know about you, but I cannot afford to allow the opps to steal 5 imps on this kind of board very often

[luis]

mikeh, on Mar 30 2006, 04:24 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 30 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

I understand now why Mike said it was a losers idea to pass, at MPs passing 4♠ seems to be certainly a bad idea.

Sorry I'm just too used to IMP problems, my apologies for not noticing it was MPs, everything I said holds for IMPs.

I also missed that it was mps

So, I am sorry, Luis, but everything I said applied to imps as well: I guess we have to agree to diasgree on this one. And as for the double gaining only 5 imps (+300 v +100): I don't know about you, but I cannot afford to allow the opps to steal 5 imps on this kind of board very often

Yes, we agree to disagree, 5imps are not worth the risk in my opinion, one day the 4♠ bidder will have 8 or 9 tricks in his own hand and you will go for 1880 or something like that :-)

Luis

[whereagles]

luis, on Mar 30 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

5 imps are not worth the risk in my opinion, one day the 4♠ bidder will have 8 or 9 tricks in his own hand and you will go for 1880 or something like that :-)

Actually, I also missed the point it was MPs.

At MPs you might not wish to double, on grounds that if they go down you'll get a good score anyway, while if they make it, it's a rock-bottom.

At IMPs it's ok to risk the occasional 4♠ X just made (couple imps lost), to try and get a substantial set (loads imps) if opps are overbidding.

Of course, it may happen they redouble and you're kinda in trouble, but they would never redouble if you double with conviction

[luis]

whereagles, on Mar 30 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 30 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

5 imps are not worth the risk in my opinion, one day the 4♠ bidder will have 8 or 9 tricks in his own hand and you will go for 1880 or something like that :-)

Actually, I also missed the point it was MPs.

At MPs you might not wish to double, on grounds that if they go down you'll get a good score anyway, while if they make it, it's a rock-bottom.

At IMPs it's ok to risk the occasional 4♠ X just made (couple imps lost), to try and get a substantial set (loads imps) if opps are overbidding.

Of course, it may happen they redouble and you're kinda in trouble, but they would never redouble if you double with conviction

Substantial what?
You have a math problems

At Imps

If double is wrong
from 420 to 590 lose 5 imps
from 450 to 690 lose 6 imps
and if they redouble you lose a zillion imps

If double is wrigth
From 50 to 100 you win 2 imps
From 100 to 300 you win 5 imps

And if you think 500 is possible here I strongly doubt it.

Substantial win of imps? What?

[whereagles]

Oh they're NV. Well, then forget it. I thought they were vuln.

[luis]

whereagles, on Mar 30 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

Oh they're NV. Well, then forget it. I thought they were vuln.

That is why a redouble can be around the corner being NV vs V if you are quite sure that 4♠ makes or goes down 1 in the worst scenario a redouble is very interesting, in your worst scenario you convert -100 in -200 and in your best scenario you get a bunch of imps.

[han]

One thing about it being MPs is that partner may not have a great 2♦ bid. Suppose partner has KQJTxxx and out, might he not be adventurous at MPs? Maybe he would (shouldn't) be at these colours, but my point is that it is difficult to rule out pass as a logical alternative. Just pass and tell partner to bid in tempo next time.

You got to be kidding Matt, KQJ10xxx and out? I understand that you don't want to make a weak jump overcall with that at these colors (although I would), but in my opinion that's the only alternative to pass. Agreeing that you overcall 2D without defense will help you to bid more hands, but it will hurt your partner on hands like this.

If Mark was playing with me then pass is no logical alternative and he can freeely double. If he was playing with you then I guess pass is the normal call. So it depends on their partnership style, which makes this case very difficult.

[han]

And if you think 500 is possible here I strongly doubt it.

Why not Luis? Wouldn't you jump to 4S immediately any time you'd want to sac over 4H? Especially at these colors down 3 is a real possibility imo.

[luis]

Hannie, on Mar 30 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

And if you think 500 is possible here I strongly doubt it.

Why not Luis? Wouldn't you jump to 4S immediately any time you'd want to sac over 4H? Especially at these colors down 3 is a real possibility imo.

Doesn't look very likely, pd overcalled 2♦ and passed 4♠, you have nothing in spades, your RHO raised FREELY to 2♠ when he could have passed 2♦, certainly doesn't look like a 500 deal.

[mr1303]

Incidentally, partner is a solid if unspectacular citizen who will have a reasonable hand at these colours. However, you haven't been playing together very long, and don't go in for much science in your bidding style, if any of that helps.