[mikeh]

Imps red v white, we hold in 4th chair Q7 A4 KQ8652 1082. LHO deals and passes, to partner who opens 1♣. We respond 1♦ and LHO makes a takeout double, as a passed hand. Partner bids 1♠ and RHO annoys us by bidding 3♥. Now what?

The responses fell into 2 primary groups: we see 7 doublers and 6 3N bidders, with lesser votes for pass (1), 5♣ (2), 4♣ (3) and 4♥ (1).

The lone passer was Justin, who understandably wasn't happy with his choice: it is just that nothing else looks better and he hopes partner can bail him out. He rejects the card-showing double on the basis that it will get him too high too often, and 3N will work poorly unless partner has the ♦A (Ed: and even then, there is no assurance that Ax in ♦ will allow us to run the suit, altho the imps odds overwhelmingly favour bidding the game if that is the sole issue)

Fred was one of the main proponents of double, but with less optimism than in hand 3: 'These DBLS always look good on paper, but it would be naive to consider such calls as anything other than the buck-passing, stalling tactics that they really are.'

I'm actually more inclined to double on this hand than on the other, but I agree with the general tenor of Fred's description. Fred argues that the double keeps 3N in play, but I tend to doubt this: partner will not usually be looking at a source of tricks and a ♥ stopper: he will often be 4=2=2=5 on this sequence: it is a sure thing that the opps have a 9+ fit in ♥s.

Ritong makes a 'typical I dunno double', looking to play in minor. He, as I think most would agree, expects some shape from partner.

Keylime hated the hand, but decided to double to see what partner would do. he really feared a 4=3=1=5 opposite, but I strongly doubt that the opps are bidding this way on an 8 card fit.

Phil explicitly plays partner for shape and hopes he holds the ♣J to make his choice of 5♣ more appealing.

The 3N bidders seem to take the approach that bidding 3N can be a tough job, but it falls to the player with the stopper to make the bid.

Frances' reasoning may or may not convince you: 3N, perhaps one of the minors will run. She noted that, if not, it was only going to be in hundreds. Nothing else appealed to her.

The 4♣ bidders appear to be making a gentle move towards game, and may find partner with the hand he needs to make 5♣. However, I suspect that they will rarely, if ever, find ♦s if that is right, as it may be on some layouts.

My vote goes to the double, primarily because I very much doubt that partner is going to leave it in. He should draw the same inference as I do that the opps are on a 9 card fit, so will not leave it in with a doubleton... and if he has a stiff, he will either have 10+ black cards or a very useful hand for ♦s. What am I going to bid over 4♣? Well, maybe we have another BPO hand?

If he stalls via 3♠, my 4♣ should be (I hope) enough.

The scores:

double 100
3N 90
4♣ 70
5♣ 60
Pass 50
4♥ 30

The score for 4♥ is low partly because it was a solo effort and mostly because I think is overbids the value of the hand. If partner bids the expected 4♠, any minor bid now sounds like a slam try.

[inquiry]

I hated this hand... as is obvious as i had nothing interesting to say about it. I went with double over 3NT, saying confidently (but with no real conviction)....

"Board 4... DBL, no other real choice... distant second is 3NT."

[keylime]

I was loathing this hand. I spent 35 minutes thinking this over before double hit the table.

[whereagles]

I bid 3NT with little qualm, although I'm pretty sure it's a screw-up if pard doesn't have the diamond ace.

[pclayton]

Was torn between 4♣ and 5♣ myself. Very tough problem.

At least I don't give my pard an ethical headache with my slow double

[JLOGIC]

I still really like my pass. WD Jlall!