Help
We have a nice opening hand, with 5 controls and a decent but not great ♥ suit. Absent interference, we'd not even consider playing in a partscore. Does the opposition action change our minds on that? If not, where are we going and how do we get there?
Not surprisingly, this hand generated a lot of different opinions.
The most popular choice was 3♥. Phil probably summarized the thoughts of many when he asked 'how high do you want to get opposite xx xx AQx KQJxxx?', while adding that he doesn't think that his opening bid across from partner's is worth game. Ng was not as analytivcal: 3♥, what else? but that comment probably came from the same thinking. Double expressly downgraded to 'game-invitational' values, which seems right to me: the downgrading, that is. I remain in doubt as to the best call.
The consensus panel choice was the overall second-most popular call: double. I think this reflects a trend in expert practice that has been growing for at least the past 20 years or so. Eric Kokish, a fellow Canadian, has been one of the forces behind this trend, at least in NA. Doubles of low-level contracts are increasingly played as 'action' or 'card-showing' doubles. In one of my partnerships, we used the term: 'Do something intelligent'... only to find that sometimes we didn't...
And that is the problem with the double, as I see it. These doubles are often left in.
There is a world of difference between Axx AJxxx Kxx xx and Ax AJxxxx Kxx xx, in terms of one's ability to defend a low-level partscore.... yet if we'd double with the current hand, surely we'd double with the first as well? How is partner to act 'intelligently' when our defensive, and offensive, potentials are so radically different. For one thing, a holding of Qx in ♥ makes 4♥ a good proposition opposite our actual hand, even if partner has, say, Jx or Qx in ♠... but if we were 3=5=3=2, we'd probably want to defend, especially opposite Qx... we lead a trump and we likely get to pull 3 rounds immediately since LHO rates to hold the K.
Does this mean that double is 'wrong'? I'm not brave enough to make any positive statement on that. See if the doublers can convince you of their case:
Fred: double; for me this just means that I have a good hand with no clear bid. Most likely I will rebid a (forcing) 3♥ next.
Justin used almost identical language as did other doublers such as keylime. Ritong was less expansive: double followed by 3♥ or 4♥ if needed.
Temp3600 added that his double showed values that couldn't be shown any other way: which is a good paraphrase of 'card-showing'
My worry about double is that it may end the auction. It would (almost assuredly) with Frances, whose view was that BPO methods do not define the double so she and Jeffrey revert to their agreement which is that this is a penalty double (which she understandably did not use)
My worry was not mitigated by any comments from the doublers, all of whom seem to assume that partner WILL bid... even tho I have never seen any expert define 'card-showing' as meaning 'takeout': yes, most card showing low level doubles are taken out, but most is not all, and partner will be passing with most 3 card ♠ holdings. Maybe we can survive that, and maybe +300 or even +100 will be a good score compared to a sea of -50's our way. But are we so sure of ourselves that we want to roll the dice?
For those unprepared to double, the majority choice was the self-explanatory 3♥ underbid... well, perhaps not an underbid at all given the auction. Frances chose 2N, on the basis that if partner holds Qx, we probably need to declare: she felt that all other bids were non-descriptive and that this hand is not worth a game force.
Another school of thought refused to accept that this hand was no longer game force strength. One of them doubled anyway: Ben felt that double was better than his alternative choice of 3♠ since double made it easier to get back to ♥s.
But most of the game going group chose the cue-bid... in the hope, usually, of getting partner to bid 3N. We have seen that this is probably worng if he bids it on Qx, altho he might well choose not to. And where do we go if he can't bid 3N? This is hardly the trump suit to commit to 4♥ opposite a possible singleton or xx.
Dwingo suggests he is passing 4♣ if partner can't bid 3N: I'm not at all sure that this approach would gain a lot of expert support (the cue is ostensibly gf, and then we pass) but there is no doubt that 4♣ may be the limit on the hand. Other 3♠ bidders did not comment. so their intentions over 4♣ remain unknown...perhaps even to themselves.
Even after the advantage of reading all the answers, and the various comments, I am still uncertain of the best action... which is a sign either of a failing mind or of a good problem (or both). Double was predictably the expert choice, but experts do sometimes fall too much in love with 'flexible' bids.. thank god no-one called their double 'flexible'. Sometimes one has to make a decision even tho one would prefer to duck it around to partner. I am a big one for allowing partner input, but I am inclined to go against the expert panel here and vote for 3♥.
Having said that, as moderator, I think I am bound to give the double 100, since it was the consensus expert choice. We 3♥ wimps have to be satisfied with 90. I am disappointed by this, because my primary goal in offering to moderate was to score 100 on each problem
The scores:
double 100
3♥ 90... sometimes coming second is ok
3♠ 70 demoted because it is a uni-directional call sans followup
2N 70 upgraded despite being a solo effort
3♦ 60 not bad if partner can bid 3♥ or 3N, awful otherwise
