[starfruit]

Hi it's my first post here so please forgive me for any errors that I've made.

It's IMPs (A league match) and you're facing 2 new opponents.
From a few previous boards you realised that this particular East is quite unsound for his various bids.

Now at all Vul, this East opened 1st hand 2♠ and I'm second to speak with :

♠Ax
♥QT9x
♦Ax
♣KJxxx

Should I double?

In reality I tried a double and partner did not fail to deliver a dreaded 3♦.
(*Edit* we went through lebensohl 2NT to get there)
I passed and hoped that he has a 5 bagger, but here is his hand:

♠Jxxxx
♥Jxx
♦xxx
♣Ax

No double, but partner still went for -6 when opponents showed up with 1 void each, and they starting with a round 1 ♠ ruffling finesse. Our teammates made 2♦+1 so we lost quite a big swing.

PS: East had a good playing hand so 2♠X would probably make.

[SoTired]

Your partner should have bid 3H not 3D. Many would double with this hand so no fault there. You can't pass with 14 and short spades and 3C on that anemic suit is just as likely to be a disaster.

80% blame to partner for not bidding 3H, 10% to you for making the normal but unlucky choice of X instead of 3C, and 10% to lady luck.

[mikeh]

You have my sympathies... a very, very tough hand. I think that the majority of an expert panel (such as the Bridge World Master Solvers Club) would go with the double. The other choices are pass, hoping for a balance by partner, 3♣, which is a horrible overbid in terms of the suit and will usually eliminate any chance of finding ♥, unless partner has a decent hand with 5+, or an even worse overbid, in terms of stoppers, points and general hand, of 2N.

I tend to be a chicken on these hands, so I might have passed... it is impossible for me to be objective here since I now know partner's hand. If I did not pass, I would certainly double.

As for reaching 3♦... partner has the proverbial hand from hell... he has an uglier hand than you do. You might want to consider playing lebensohl here: where 2N by partner would puppet to 3♣ (you'd bid 3♣ unless you had a very strong double) and he'd pass or correct, showing (in most sequences) a weak hand. That allows his 3m bid over your double to be constructive. Lebensohl is a powerful technique here, and it is a bit more complex than I have suggested but is worth the trouble. However, it doesn't solve the problem and you'd probably end up in the same filthy spot... just one round later

BTW, your post was fine... but if you want to get an unbiased sampling of the opinions of readers as to what to bid over 2♠, don't give partner's hand yet.... wait for a couple of days, after which most of those who want to express their view will have done so. There has often been noted, in these posts, the tendency of many to allow knowledge of the actual hand to colour their choice. This is almost unavoidable... but renders the poll unrealistic.

PS I wouldn't criticize partner too strongly for choosing 3♦. It is certainly true that the odds are that the doubler would be 4=3 in the reds rather than 3=4, but 3♥ has far more chance (risk) of being raised, whereas 3m usually gets passed unless doubler has a huge hand. I would probably have bid 2N (lebensohl) then 3♥ as north, but I suspect that 3♥ is down quite a few from your description of the result in 3♦. I'd place most of the blame on whoever shuffled the deck

[pclayton]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

I don't love the double, but if you wait for the perfect hands all the time, you will get shut out.

If pard was already a passed hand I would pass, since missing a game is negligible with this collection.

Pard has a death hand for a takeout double. At MPs, I think pass is the percentage action, but at IMPs, 3♥ is clear (or a Lebensohl 2N if thats available). You wouldn't make a TOx if your red suits were reversed, right?

[kenrexford]

My first reaction was that a double seems fine. I later realized that a 2NT, natural, call would probably be my choice if given time to think. Time to think may be a bad thing for me, though.

[neilkaz]

If you don't take a chance and dbl here, you get shut out of too many hands and sometimes miss game and/or put PD under much guesswork as to whether to balance.

Leb is a very good thing to play vs weak 2's in my opinion. If playing Leb, ur PD should bid 2NT followed by 3H. Not playing Leb he should just bid 3H and hope you pass.

.. neilkaz ..

[HeartA]

neilkaz, on Aug 2 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

If you don't take a chance and dbl here, you get shut out of too many hands and sometimes miss game and/or put PD under much guesswork as to whether to balance.

Leb is a very good thing to play vs weak 2's in my opinion. If playing Leb, ur PD should bid 2NT followed by 3H. Not playing Leb he should just bid 3H and hope you pass.

.. neilkaz ..

I vote for pass. pd still has a chance to balance if he has the strength for you to make a game.

[mike777]

Welcome to the Forums. Your post is great! You may just wish to wait 48 hours before telling us what happened at the table so we are unbiased with our responses. .

Double seems clear, in fact I could have less, then Lebensohl 2nt and rebid 3H showing a weak hand.
Note if playing Leb, partner with a big one suited hand will break the relay and show her suit.

[starfruit]

Thanks for the fast response!
I guess I'll be able to sleep well from now since a double is not clearly wrong.

It was really a horrible time playing as dummy.
It felt like my partner would shoot me if he has a gun.

And sorry i forgot to mention that we did play Lebensohl over this sequence and we went through

(2♠) - X - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦

to play it there.

So you guys were right... we should be be playing in 3♥ as partner should remove to 3♥.

[kenrexford]

This post has made me wonder...

Suppose the pattern was 2452 instead. Has anyone ever considered the merits, or lack thereof, of an ELC after a weak two? If ELC makes sense, does it also make sense, then to enable an ELC after Lebensohl, preferencing 3♦ instead of 3♣ is an ELC would have been performed over 3♣ directly?

Just a thought...

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Aug 2 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

This post has made me wonder...

Suppose the pattern was 2452 instead.  Has anyone ever considered the merits, or lack thereof, of an ELC after a weak two?  If ELC makes sense, does it also make sense, then to enable an ELC after Lebensohl, preferencing 3♦ instead of 3♣ is an ELC would have been performed over 3♣ directly?

Just a thought...

Well, in terms of the merits, it seems to me to be tied up in the overall concept of whether ELC is a good treatment. I know that some very good players use it, but I am a sceptic (as are many players whose opinion deserves more weight than mine). While it is true that it is nice to be able to double with 4 in the unbid major and a longer ♦ suit with minimal values, it is also true that there are hands on which it is nice to be able to double and then bid ♦s to show a hand too good for an overcall.

I suspect that ELC may be best at mps rather than imps if only because the gain from the use of ELC appears mostly (not always) to be on the minimal-opening-hand type of double, with 4=5 or 4=6 while the gain from the double and bid = big hand school appears to arise when game (or slam) may be in the offing.

However, for me the death knell for ELC is the horrible propensities of opponents and partners to make bids for which my ELC sequence is unprepared.

Thus LHO bounces in their major and my partner, if not attuned to ELC, bids 5♣ or, conversely, passes out of fear that I hold an ELC hand and I am instead classically 1=4=4=4 and we make 5♣ or it is a good save.

I expect that this problem would be exacerbated over a weak two opening, in that 3rd seat is even more likely to bounce to the 4-level after a weak two than after a 1-level opening, and is more prone to be wide-range... either taking an immediate save or bidding to make or merely applying pressure.

That actually raises a completely off-post topic: should ELC'ers alert their double? Surely the opps have a right to know, since I am far more likely to want to make a tactical, two-way bounce against ELC bidders than against the classical school, where 4th seat can safely assume 1=4=4=4 opening hand or near-equivalent.

[kenrexford]

I hear the thoughts against ELC after a weak two, and find them persuasive. However, perhaps as Devil's Advocate, I can see a slight but but perhaps important distinction.

The ELC-prepared T.O.X after a one-level opening is done to be aggressive, with the level enabling some reasonable alternatives. In contrast, the WK2 cramps space, such that a prepared ELC seems to occur, in a sense, by accident. What I mean is that, although 2425 pattern would be wrong for a T.O.X over a 1♠ opening, it is an agreed solution for most after a WK2♠.

Thus, the pattern for what would be an ELC-prepared T.O.X occurs by force of pressure, even if not "agreed," when a WK2 is doubled.

In that scenario, then, the question on whether to double with "ELC shape" is moot, as it is done anyway. I am curious about the second part of the equation, namely whether the X-P-2NT-P-3♦ and X-P-3♣-P-3♦ auctions are more useful for for showing strength (as opposed to a direct 3♦, a strong bid itself) or for showing the 2452 (or 4M/6♦?) pattern.

If ELC principles apply here (perhaps only here and not at the one-level for the partnership), then there is a "better" solution for the 4333/3433 Advancer when responding to the T.O.X, namely 3♣. Why? You increase the chances of landing in a 5-3 (or even 6-3) fit. If the contract is failing, rank of trumps is irrelevant. A wrong-side-shortness 4-3 ain't all that better than a 3-3 fit, but a 5-3 fit is MUCH better than either.

[the hog]

You have to X on these hands else as has been mentioned, you will be shut out of too many auctions. Waiting for partner to balance is losing Bridge.
As others have suggested, you partner should have opted for 3H, preferably with a Lebensohl sequence to show a weak hand.

[whereagles]

Agree with hog. You have to bid now because pard may be long in spades and thus reluctant to balance. Dbl is the more flexible option. If pard bids diamonds.. well tough luck

[helene_t]

As others have said, your double was normal. Maybe partner was afraid that you would get too entousiastic if he opted for 3♥ and you had a strong hand with four hearts. Even so, I think 3♥ from partner would have been better, but 3♦ was no big mistake. 60% blame to bad luck and 40% blame to partner.

[mr1303]

Anyone for passing 2♠ doubled?

Not that you can guarantee it will go off, but is 3♥ or 3♦ going to be any better?

[helene_t]

Yes, passing 2♠ looks resonable. A gamble, of course. But what isn't?

[starfruit]

I think 2♠X can easily be the winner, provided you don't mind the occasional
-670. That would actually have been my choice on the table.Appears to be 1 off given either side can manage to obain a ruff.

Here's the whole deal :

Scoring: IMP

---

A 6-5 hand for the 2♠ preempt!! 2♠X probably will make after losing 2 "top" trumps, 1♦A plus 1-2 ruffs by north throughout he process.
Dummy ♣s are strong enough to stop any forcing game while playing on ♥s will either be too slow or not enough to force. I may be wrong though.