[mikeh]

Well, due to an email screwup at my home, I failed to acknowledge a 21st set of responses! But I will edit the earlier posts to include the full 21 votes, and the missing set was not from a member of the 'expert panel' so does not affect the scores.

We hold 5 AQ AJ10763 A1098 and open 1♦ at imps with none vul. LHO overcalls 1♠, partner bids 2♥ and RHO makes a nuisance of himself with 4♠.

This problem got the largest range of answers, altho several of them were solo efforts, without comment.

Also, the problem suffered (or benefited) from two basic issues.

One issue that has to be met head-on is the meaning of 4N: a call chosen by 4 responders.

Ritong felt that 5♣ would promise 5 cards in the suit, thus '4NT basically shows 6+♦s and exactly 4♣s, or some big hand'.

So he had, systemically for him, a relatively easy 4N.

Fred stated that 'for me' 4N would be keycard for ♥s. Justin agrees with Ritong on the meaning of 4N, but rejected it as 'too commital'. Phil felt that it showed '2 places to play', while commenting that he actually had 3!

The other 4N bidders did not comment, so I cannot tell the meaning they intended.

This either makes this problem of dubious use, or of significant use, in that perhaps we can refine our basic methods by a discussion of the 4N bid.

Personally, I am firmly in Fred's camp... perhaps because we are both Canadian? While I am not a big user of keycard, there are times when it makes good sense to haul it out, and this is one of them.

The conditions for its use are perfect. Partner has shown at least invitational values and the opps have announced that they hold a very large number of ♠s. Accordingly, there will be a not-insignificant number of opening hands on which we truly do want to know how many keycards partner holds... with no other logical way to explore slam intelligently.

This is not at all like 1♦ [P] 1♥ [4♠]: on this auction I would treat 4N as the long ♦s with secondary ♣s hand.

The difference is that on the problem hand, there is a much higher probability that ♥s will be a viable high-level trump suit than on the second. On the posted hand, responder has shown both values and length, while on the second, he really has shown neither.

As against that, using it as keycard gives us a problem with the hand type we now hold.... especially if we were to move the ♥Q into the ♣ suit: x Ax AJ10xxx AQ109.

I cannot pretend to know mathematically which approach is the better: I do think that not having keycard when we need it is likely to be more of a problem than not having the 6-4 meaning when we need it. Justin, for example, had the 6-4 meaning available to him yet rejected it, which suggests that, for him, the family of 6-4's for which 4N is appropriate is relatively small.

Onto the other choices: double was the clear preference, garnering 10 of the 21 votes, led by 3 of our panel members.

Frances based her call on an interpretation of 2♥ with which I disagree: that it did not promise invitational values, so that opener's pass of 4♠ would be non-forcing. I may be mistaken about BPO standard, but my sense was that 2♥ should be invitational or better. That does not mean that I disagree with her opinion that a pass would be non-forcing (see Justin's comment).

Frances indicated that if 2♥ were at least invitational, she would make a forcing pass and pull partner's double, altho she did not specify what she would bid.

Her double was takeout.

Justin also felt that Pass would be 'DEFINITELY non-forcing, there is no way we are in a force over 4♠ as partner has only forced to the 3-level'.

But Justin felt that his double would usually be left in. He felt that it was 'Really awful. I expect partner to typically pass here....Passing is possible to increase the chances that partner bids, but I fear a passout too much and I won't know what to do if he doubles...'

Fred agrees on the non-forcing nature of pass, and says that his double, as with earlier hands, announces 'I have a good hand with no good bid'. This sounds like agreement with Justin's interpretation of the double.

PMarlowe ducked the forcing/non-forcing nature of the pass by voting for Pass if forcing and double otherwise. I sympathize with him, and this is the other area in which this problem is either deficient or useful.

Ng was the only expert panelist who felt that pass would be forcing: which is why he chose that call, commenting that double would be a weakness bid.

We have seen many discussions in this forum on forcing pass situations, and there is considerable room for legitimate disagreement. I once had the pleasure of several days of intensive coaching from Eric Kokish (and once, a couple of days from Fred, using Eric's material), and Eric had literally over 100 sample auctions which each of our 3 partnerships had to identify (as individuals, not pairs) as forcing or nf... and I know that Eric's ideas are not precisely the same as, for example, Eddie Kantar's.

I don't pretend to have any special expertise on the subject, but I would treat this as a non-forcing pass. It is easy to construct many hands on which opener has a minimum opening hand, responder has a light invitational hand, and 4♠ is cold and we get clobbered at the 5-level. While no-one suggests that the forcing/nf meaning be worked out on the fly based on such reasoning, surely recognition of this reality should play a role. For me, one of the basic rules is that when we are not in a gf sequence, passes are only forcing if they are below the level to which we have forced ourselves. Here, I think all would agree that the 2♥ bid, as Justin said, forced us only to the 3-level... to 3♥, as far as I am concerned.

Accordingly, 4♠, being beyond our level of force, can be passed out.

Minority views included keylime's 5♣, which he expected to lead to a red suit slam. I think he is being a little optimistic.

The other minority views included 5♦, 5♠ (a call I really think has to deliver a first round control, in that it is a grand slam try) and 5N, presumably intended as choice of slams. However, if we were looking at void Kxxx AKQJxx Axx, I suspect that we'd like it to be grand slam force. There was also one vote for 6♥.

The breakdown was 10 for double, 4 for 4N, 2 for pass (intended as forcing), and 1 each for 5♣, 5♦, 5♠, 5N and 6♥.

The expert panel voted 4 for double (I get another 100), and 1 for each of 4N and Pass. However, the Pass gets downgraded because the expert panel otherwise saw that as definitely non-forcing, and everyone, incuding the passers, wanted to keep the auction alive.

The scores:

Double 100
4N 60
Pass 50
5♦ 40
5♣ 40
5N 30
6♥ 30
5♠ 20

The low scores for the also-rans reflects the substantial vote for the double and the problems inherent in the other calls, including the risk of a misunderstanding. Double is far from perfect, but it conveys extra-values and lack of a great ♥ fit.... AQ is good but not as good as AQx, given that the opps can probably play 2 rounds of ♠s to force a ruff with the Q.

[inquiry]

I agree that pass of 4♠ is not forcing, so pass is not an option. Like Justin and Henri, I happen to also agree that 4NT shows 6+♦ and clubs. Also, like justin, i think this is NOT the hand for 4NT despite having this shape. The reason is more than I have six diamonds.. i also have AQ doubleton in my partners suit. IF i bid 4NT, I am AFRAID I give up on hearts as a strain. The fact that I double, includes hearts as a possible spot. I think this is something your comments about not bidding 4NT overlooks. And it shows a willingness to go on, so all three strains are in play.. this is why I prefer DBL to 4NT. My specific comment was....

Board 6...DBL, When I am lost and don't know what to do, I double. Here, I have no idea what is right so I will double. If partner leaves it in, I do have 3 aces!! The other option is 4NT takeout with long diamonds and shorter clubs. This is not the hand for that.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

Frances based her call on an interpretation of 2♥ with which I disagree: that it did not promise invitational values, so that opener's pass of 4♠ would be non-forcing. I may be mistaken about BPO standard, but my sense was that 2♥ should be invitational or better. That does not mean that I disagree with her opinion that a pass would be non-forcing (see Justin's comment).

That's not what I said or, at least, not what I meant. I actually said

Quote

...2♥ is only forcing for a round, and therefore pass is non-forcing...You could argue that 2♥ implies at least invitational values and therefore pass should be forcing

which would have been much clearer if I'd added one more word:
You could argue that BECAUSE 2♥ implies at least invitational values....

In a similar(ish) auction:
1S (2H) 3H* (4H)
where 3H shows a 3-trump raise to 4S based on high cards, I play pass over 4H as forcing although by general principles it isn't (we have only forced the 3-level so can't be forced at the 4-level) - just because it's vanishingly unlikely that we want to defend 4H undoubled, and opener can easily have a decentish hand not certain whether to defend or bid.

This auction isn't close enough to that one for me to play forcing pass, not least because 2H can be quite stretched and we don't have a certain fit, but it's always worth double-checking with yourself about these auctions.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Jan 3 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

<snip>
PMarlowe ducked the forcing/non-forcing nature of the pass by voting for Pass if forcing and double  otherwise. I sympathize with him, and this is the other area in which this problem is either deficient or useful.
<snip>

.-), I personally play, pass as forcing, i..e. I
have answered the question for myself,
assuming that 2H was forcing,
which is BBO / North American standard
as far as I recall.
But I have learned, that the majority of posters
on this forum, would treat a pass as non forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The given hand, is a good reason, why it
makes sense to play pass as forcing.
You will pay off sometimes, but less, if
you open sound, ... and the sound opening
reduces the weight of your counter argeuments.

[keylime]

I don't think 5♣ should have been a minority vote of such poor score. I'm showing a 2nd suit and very offensive hand. If I double and pard has their 10 count that's promised, I don't think I'm going to be bringing back a good score to my team, especially if they hold a soft Q♠ over there.

My opp has fired at the hand with 4♠. They are willing to bring back -500 at worse for a +2/3 imp loss. If they're willing to take seven tricks, certainly we're not overly far from game/slam zone. Yes I wholehearted agree that double is takeout, but to what? What will pard do on a 2-5-2-3 hand and a better than average hand? 4NT, asking for clarification (there's a train wreck waiting to happen)? 5D and miss a 6C slam if I'm x-x-6-5? Pard with any preference in diamonds will take me back there unless he/she is on 4 clubs themselves. It's IMPs, we just want the contract we can make.

The fact that I own 1♠ and that I got three bullets with the unexpected Q♥ for pard is golden. I would be worried if I held 0/2 spades; zero spades because I might overvalue my hand, and 2 because now by implication pard's on a six bagger in hearts. I firmly believe telling pard where you live is a lot clearer than doubling, which definitely shows cards, but no clear direction - I do not want to hang pard.

This is a good hand to ask pard about; will do so when he returns home today.

[inquiry]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

I don't think 5♣ should have been a minority vote of such poor score. I'm showing a 2nd suit and very offensive hand. If I double and pard has their 10 count that's promised, I don't think I'm going to be bringing back a good score to my team, especially if they hold a soft Q♠ over there.

I think 5♣ got a generous score. See below... .

Quote

Yes I wholehearted agree that double is takeout, but to what? What will pard do on a 2-5-2-3 hand and a better than average hand ? 4NT, asking for clarification (there's a train wreck waiting to happen)? 5D and miss a 6C slam if I'm x-x-6-5?

First with 2523 partner will ask for a new deal.. so lets make it 3523.... for this discussion.

If your xx65, THAT is when you bid 5♣. Your 5♣ rates to play in clubs when your partner is 3523 (in a 4-3 with a 6-2 available), and worse, when he is 2-6-2-3 since he is NOT going to rebid a six card suit missing the AQ at the five level. Five clubs here has to be show a five card suit. This is why some of us play 4NT as showning 6 diamonds and 4 clubs. The DOUBLE will land you in hearts when it is right (partner has six or strong five), so with the anticipated 3525 he might pass, with strongish spades, or he might bid 5♥ with strong hearts (KJT9x for example). Or he might bid a scrambling 4NT. Note your three ACES make it much less likely partner will leave the double in, and if he does, well, it might be for the best.

Quote

I firmly believe telling pard where you live is a lot clearer than doubling, which definitely shows cards, but no clear direction - I do not want to hang pard.

With AQ support for your partners (at a minimum) five card biddable heart suit an dwith only AT9x of clubs, is CLUBS (at the five level) really where you live? I mean, I could bid 4NT to show 4♣ and LONGER diamonds (talk about telling partner where I live, that is MUCH more descriptive than your 5♣) and choose not to because of my HEART SUPPORT... which makes double (imo) a better bid than the descriptive 5♣. Your 5♣ bid 1... misdecribes your hand, 2.. denies any interest in playing in hearts, and 3... may get you a level too high where your last positive score is 4♠ doubled. .......

Quote

My opp has fired at the hand with 4♠. They are willing to bring back -500 at worse for a +2/3 imp loss

4♥ may well have been the limit of for our side, and if partner has KQx Kxxxx xx Kxx we will collect our +300 to +500 for 4♠x and move on the the next hand quite happily.

[keylime]

Ben,

If pard is 2-5-3-3, here's the problems I have:

1. What is 4NT? I know how I play it with Larry but good/bad 4NT is not part of the method. If I had this tool available then this hand is far easier.
2. When I double it, what is pard going to do next? Where is his takeout? C'mon, you can't tell me he/she is going to bid a "false" five clubs....
3. Even tho I myself constantly state "take the sure profit", I don't buy at all that gaining +300/+500 is of the best potential benefit. If pard overcalled 2♥ with a soft Q of spades (or for that matter, K of spades), shouldn't they themselves have extra values/distribution to have bid 2♥ in the first place when I'm staring at their A-Q?
4. I can get back to five hearts. Pard should realize I do NOT deny heart values by bidding five clubs because I've taken a free bid at the five level to begin with; I should NOT have doubleton spade - it's either void (here I definitely double with 0-3-5-5 and 0-6-4-3 shapes) or stiff or tripleton spade.

As forementioned, it's a great discussion hand with Larry. I better call him later today.

[inquiry]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

Ben,

If pard is 2-5-3-3, here's the problems I have:

1. What is 4NT? I know how I play it with Larry but good/bad 4NT is not part of the method. If I had this tool available then this hand is far easier.
2. When I double it, what is pard going to do next? Where is his takeout? C'mon, you can't tell me he/she is going to bid a "false" five clubs....
3. Even tho I myself constantly state "take the sure profit", I don't buy at all that gaining +300/+500 is of the best potential benefit. If pard overcalled 2♥ with a soft Q of spades (or for that matter, K of spades), shouldn't they themselves have extra values/distribution to have bid 2♥ in the first place when I'm staring at their A-Q?
4. I can get back to five hearts. Pard should realize I do NOT deny heart values by bidding five clubs because I've taken a free bid at the five level to begin with; I should NOT have doubleton spade - it's either void (here I definitely double with 0-3-5-5 and 0-6-4-3 shapes) or stiff or tripleton spade.

As forementioned, it's a great discussion hand with Larry. I better call him later today.

I will not comment on how you play 4NT.... that is up to you.

If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦... why in the world would he ever bid 5♣ with that? This is also true if you bid 5♣ btw.

Not sure I understand your point 3... +300 or +500 at imps will not be bad should partner decide to defend he will have spades,,, if he doesn't defend, he will not. Seems a simple concept. I am not, btw, hoping to defend, but then I can't see his hand.

Point 4, I find it totally unreasonable that you can get back to hearts if you bid 5♣. For one thing 5♣ might very well end the auction if your partner passes. And are you really planning on correcting 5♦ should partner bid it to 5♥? I can't imagine you can get to 5♥... but if your partner bids 5♥ over 5♣ (which I guess is possible), I imagine you will "correct" to 6♥'s.

I think there are very good reasons why you were the only person to bid 5♣, that all have to do with the mischaracterization of the hand by that bid, the poor quality of the suit, and the undisclosed "heart" fit. I think only one of the other choices that someone voted for that is worse than 5♣, and that is 5♠, which is forcing to slam and inviting grand slam without defining trumps yet (I would take it as agreeing hearts, BTW, and showing FIRST ROUND control of spades).

I will admit that both 5♣ and 5♠ will work out great some of the times, but I simply can not imagine that I would ever consider either of them at the table when holding this hand.

[FrancesHinden]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

4. I can get back to five hearts. Pard should realize I do NOT deny heart values by bidding five clubs because I've taken a free bid at the five level to begin with; I should NOT have doubleton spade - it's either void (here I definitely double with 0-3-5-5 and 0-6-4-3 shapes) or stiff or tripleton spade.

As forementioned, it's a great discussion hand with Larry. I better call him later today.

This is where everyone else disagrees. What would you bid with

xx
-
AQ109xx
AKxxx

or

x
x
AK10xxx
KJ10xx

or

x
-
KQJxxx
AQxxxx

These are all down-the-middle 5C bids, and they are a long way off the hand we actually have.

[pclayton]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 05:48 AM, said:

I don't think 5♣ should have been a minority vote of such poor score. I'm showing a 2nd suit and very offensive hand. If I double and pard has their 10 count that's promised, I don't think I'm going to be bringing back a good score to my team, especially if they hold a soft Q♠ over there.

My opp has fired at the hand with 4♠. They are willing to bring back -500 at worse for a +2/3 imp loss. If they're willing to take seven tricks, certainly we're not overly far from game/slam zone. Yes I wholehearted agree that double is takeout, but to what? What will pard do on a 2-5-2-3 hand and a better than average hand? 4NT, asking for clarification (there's a train wreck waiting to happen)? 5D and miss a 6C slam if I'm x-x-6-5? Pard with any preference in diamonds will take me back there unless he/she is on 4 clubs themselves. It's IMPs, we just want the contract we can make.

The fact that I own 1♠ and that I got three bullets with the unexpected Q♥ for pard is golden. I would be worried if I held 0/2 spades; zero spades because I might overvalue my hand, and 2 because now by implication pard's on a six bagger in hearts. I firmly believe telling pard where you live is a lot clearer than doubling, which definitely shows cards, but no clear direction - I do not want to hang pard.

This is a good hand to ask pard about; will do so when he returns home today.

The problem is that you have the worst possible spade holding for this auction. I am far from confident that pard can cover my 5 non-spade losers.

With that being said, I really don't like double either. I understand double reflects modern thinking when its interpreted as "I have a good hand but no clear bid". Certainly this hand is a poster child for this treatment.

Ben stated:
"If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦... why in the world would he ever bid 5♣ with that? This is also true if you bid 5♣ btw".

I couldn't disagree more. Why should pard ever pull to 5♦ with a 2=5=3=3? Pard should pass.

Personally I think double shows 'convertible values'; showing a willingness to play or defend, but only if pard has some extra shape. More like: Kx, Ax, AKxxx, Qxxx. If pard has x, KQxxx, Qxx, Axxx (A very minimum 2♥ call, without extra shape),

My first bridge partner gave me a lesson I will never forget: "Don't double without trump".

(continued)

If you play 4N as key card a la Fred and Mike, and pass isn't forcing, double is 'foisted' on you (to quote Ira Rubin). I don't think using 4N as key card is unreasonable, however, in all my years of reading MSC's (and this hand type comes up a LOT), 4N seems to be played as takeout universally.

The more I read this thread, the more I like the following approach:

1. 4N = key card

2. Double = penalty oriented, "red flag"; usually a minimum with serious doubt about our ability to take 11 tricks in anything.

3. Pass = forcing. Yes, forcing! The current trend of this being a non-forcing sequence caters to a very small spectrum, where a) both of our hands are minimum, b ) we can't make anything at the 5 level and , c) we can't set 4S.

The subject hand is a great forcing pass, if it was available. It replaces Fred's double as "I have a good hand, but don't know what to do".

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

Ben stated:
"If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦... why in the world would he ever bid 5♣ with that? This is also true if you bid 5♣ btw".

I couldn't disagree more. Why should pard ever pull to 5♦ with a 2=5=3=3? Pard should pass.

The section you quoted me for was in response to Keylime's statement about double and partner bidding 5♣... he said,

Quote

pard is 2-5-3-3, here's the problems I have:
... (snip to his 2nt point which is he holds 2533 and I double)....2. When I double it, what is pard going to do next? Where is his takeout? C'mon, you can't tell me he/she is going to bid a "false" five clubs....

That is my quote was directed towards Keylimes discussing that about partner bidding (or not bidding) 5♣ over double, that bid would never be on the radar with such a hand... if partner is going to bid he is going to bid 5♦. So my quote was basically saying (see ESPECIALLY the second half of the quote).... that if I double, partner rates to bid 5♦ INSTEAD OF a "false" five clubs. I also expect partner with 2533 to pass if he has some defensive tricks... but with that holding one of them would be in spades.. without a spade trick and a hand too good for a negative double, he would have something like:
xx KJxxx Kxx KQx.. take awaya king, and he would use a negative double isntead of 2♥.

Quote

Personally I think double shows 'convertible values'; showing a willingness to play or defend, but only if pard has some extra shape. More like: Kx, Ax, AKxxx, Qxxx.  If pard has x, KQxxx, Qxx, Axxx (A very minimum 2♥ call, without extra shape)

Three aces look convertible to defense for me...

Quote

My first bridge partner gave me a lesson I will never forget: "Don't double without trump". 

Here is one that I have been taught much too often by butal experience... don't pass a takeout double when short in their suit. Now, is 4♠-X truely takeout? I think most of us doubling are thinking it is card showing, and willing to entertain takeout. Others play it as penalty (where you need trumps), and still others play it as takeout (well, I play this double as "takeout" but with understanding that it can be passed even without a trump stack).

[mikeh]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

I don't think 5♣ should have been a minority vote of such poor score.

Hi Dwayne

The minority vote issue is not a matter of my thoughts about the bid: it is a reflection of the reality that a reasonable broad cross-section of thinking bridge-players... those interested enough to read the forum and dedicated enough to spend the time to answer the problems... did not consider 5♣ to be a viable choice: indeed, of those who commented, you are the only person to even mention the bid.

The actual score is not based solely on being in a minority of 1: on another problem, I awarded a solo effort a decent score, but I did so because it was consistent with the intent of the panel, and was a bid that had been expressly mentioned by at least one other expert panelist as a possible bid.

I do still think, after reflection, that 5♣ is misdirected. Yes, it would perhaps be convenient for it to mean this type of hand, but (as Frances points out) it will almost certainly be interpreted by partner as at least 5♣s.

So there is a very real danger that 5♣ will be the final contract opposite, say, xx KJ10xxx Kx QJx or even xx KJ10xxx KQ Qxx.

And that is truly a horrible thought... down in 5♣ when double brings in 300... I am not naive enough to expect partner to pull a double with that kind of hand... so I am not comparing it to a missed game.

Indeed, the very high probability of collecting 300 or 500 against our game is a strong reason to dislike the double... but not a reason to choose 5♣. To me, the panel vote reflects the reality that double is akin to democracy: democracy is the worst form of government ever invented, except for all the rest, which are worse.

[keylime]

Mike,

I understand the rationale but I confess that if I'm the only one to think of five clubs, either I'm way out in left field (wouldn't be first time) or I view this hand significantly differently than the rest.

4NT could be interpreted so many ways and that is why I chose 5♣; it was the least ambigious call I could make that's forcing. I'm not a big proponent of doubling with this hand just because its playing strength is high enough to entertain doing more, especially at IMPs. I would venture to say that maybe double shouldn't have received such as solid backing as it did in the scoring, i.e. 80-90 instead of 100.

Put it this way. I sent email to the team that I'll be playing with in Nashville and the first answer (which I never considered) was 5NT, pick-a-slam! Go figure...

[pclayton]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

I sent email to the team that I'll be playing with in Nashville and the first answer (which I never considered) was 5NT, pick-a-slam! Go figure...

I considered 5N in my first run through this problem.

However, if you need to bid a slam (for whatever reason; maybe its rubber bridge and you are $20 short), I think the best approach is 4N followed by 5N. I think this implies tolerance for all suits (not just two) and promises 6 diamonds (if pard bid 5 - rounded).

5N is just too wild IMO. I considered it, but you are really playing pard for the nuts.

[FrancesHinden]

keylime, on Jan 4 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

4NT could be interpreted so many ways and that is why I chose 5♣; it was the least ambigious call I could make that's forcing.

OK, this is why you are seriously out in left field.
No-one else would dream that 5C is forcing.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

The more I read this thread, the more I like the following approach:

1. 4N = key card

2. Double = penalty oriented, "red flag"; usually a minimum with serious doubt about our ability to take 11 tricks in anything.

3. Pass = forcing. Yes, forcing! The current trend of this being a non-forcing sequence caters to a very small spectrum, where a) both of our hands are minimum, b ) we can't make anything at the 5 level and , c) we can't set 4S.

The subject hand is a great forcing pass, if it was available. It replaces Fred's double as "I have a good hand, but don't know what to do".

So your suggestion is to play a combination of pass as forcing == combined with 4NT as keycards. I assume you would be in favor of 4NT as keycards but pass as not forcing, or 4NT as longer diamonds and 4 clubs but pass as forcing.

I guess playing both agreements has much more merit than one or the other. But bitter experience has shown me what you already said, the hand with no heart fit, long diamonds and shorter but real clubs is a common holding on auctions like this. And if you have to bid 5♣ with that hand, you will end up in the wrong strain much too often. There is a reason it has become "universal" to give up on 4NT as key card on these auctions. The reason is you can place some keycards in partners hand for his bid (in this case you KNOW he has the heart king -- of course he might not, but that is very unlikely). And you get a good idea about wasted values. especially if partner pulls your two way takeout double. So keycard asking is not as important (if we have a great hand, we are going to bid slam, if we have an offensive hand we are going to bid to the five level and partner with "better" than expected and a fit is going to bid slam).

Also on THIS hand, I would be a little worried about leaving a double in after I made a forcing pass. Sure my pass suggested willingness to bid on and showed more than a minimum (which I have), but partners double on this auction just shows no clear direction. After all, our pass just showed extra values (since no double) but not as much as this hand has.

As an aside, I will also need some metarules developed where 4NT is the 6-4 type hand and where it is keycards if I were to adopt this rule, as there are other auctions where I surely am not going to give up on this treatment everywhere.....

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Jan 4 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

Ben stated:
"If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦... why in the world would he ever bid 5♣ with that? This is also true if you bid 5♣ btw".

I couldn't disagree more. Why should pard ever pull to 5♦ with a 2=5=3=3? Pard should pass.

The section you quoted me for was in response to Keylime's statement about double and partner bidding 5♣... he said,

Quote

pard is 2-5-3-3, here's the problems I have:
... (snip to his 2nt point which is he holds 2533 and I double)....2. When I double it, what is pard going to do next? Where is his takeout? C'mon, you can't tell me he/she is going to bid a "false" five clubs....

That is my quote was directed towards Keylimes discussing that about partner bidding (or not bidding) 5♣ over double, that bid would never be on the radar with such a hand... if partner is going to bid he is going to bid 5♦. So my quote was basically saying (see ESPECIALLY the second half of the quote).... that if I double, partner rates to bid 5♦ INSTEAD OF a "false" five clubs. I also expect partner with 2533 to pass if he has some defensive tricks... but with that holding one of them would be in spades.. without a spade trick and a hand too good for a negative double, he would have something like:
xx KJxxx Kxx KQx.. take awaya king, and he would use a negative double isntead of 2♥.

Quote

Personally I think double shows 'convertible values'; showing a willingness to play or defend, but only if pard has some extra shape. More like: Kx, Ax, AKxxx, Qxxx.  If pard has x, KQxxx, Qxx, Axxx (A very minimum 2♥ call, without extra shape)

Three aces look convertible to defense for me...

Quote

My first bridge partner gave me a lesson I will never forget: "Don't double without trump". 

Here is one that I have been taught much too often by butal experience... don't pass a takeout double when short in their suit. Now, is 4♠-X truely takeout? I think most of us doubling are thinking it is card showing, and willing to entertain takeout. Others play it as penalty (where you need trumps), and still others play it as takeout (well, I play this double as "takeout" but with understanding that it can be passed even without a trump stack).

In broad strokes:

I think there's a wider berth than you think between a 'convertible values' double and a "I have a good hand but don't know what to bid" (GHBDKWTD) double. To me, a CV double says, pull if you have extras or extra shape, but in reading your paraphrased comment (repeated again, (for clarity, NOT because I think you are an idiot ):

"If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦"...

If double is takeout oriented, which seems to fit into the "GHBDKWTD" meaning, then 5♦ is automatic, since pard likely has 5 or 6 and its a playable trump spot.

If double is CV, I think pard rates to pass with something like: xx, KJxxx, Qxx, KQx. 5♦ is cold, and 6♦ aint bad. 4♠ is probably -2 or -3, which is still lose 4/lose 7 against 5♦ (caveat; Im assuming we are r/w, I forgot the vul).

The best argument for double is if pard has something like: xx, KJxxx, Kx, Qxxx
(a hand many (especially Mike) would not bid 2♥ on). Double rate to get 300 and 5♦ is far from certain.

[whereagles]

I think I bid dbl, meant as take-out since we haven't yet agreed on a suit. We're ok with any bid pard makes, including pass.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

The best argument for double is if pard has something like: xx, KJxxx, Kx, Qxxx
(a hand many (especially Mike) would not bid 2♥ on). Double rate to get 300 and 5♦ is far from certain.

You know your moderator

I would negative double that hand, but I do play in a partnership in which our style would get me bidding 2♥ if you gave me the ♥10... or maybe even the 9...I just don't have to like it

I assumed, as moderator, that not everyone views the universe through such unclouded eyes as mine (I know some will think I meant that seriously ) so in the scoring, and in my comments, I assumed that we COULD systemically be about as weak as that hand, but no weaker.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

In broad strokes:

I think there's a wider berth than you think between a 'convertible values' double and a "I have a good hand but don't know what to bid" (GHBDKWTD) double. To me, a CV double says, pull if you have extras or extra shape, but in reading your paraphrased comment (repeated again, (for clarity, NOT because I think you are an idiot ):

"If partner is 2533 and you double, partner rates to bid 5♦"...

If double is takeout oriented, which seems to fit into the "GHBDKWTD" meaning, then 5♦ is automatic, since pard likely has 5 or 6 and its a playable trump spot.

If double is CV, I think pard rates to pass with something like: xx, KJxxx, Qxx, KQx. 5♦ is cold, and 6♦ aint bad. 4♠ is probably -2 or -3, which is still lose 4/lose 7 against 5♦ (caveat; Im assuming we are r/w, I forgot the vul).

The best argument for double is if pard has something like: xx, KJxxx, Kx, Qxxx
(a hand many (especially Mike) would not bid 2♥ on). Double rate to get 300 and 5♦ is far from certain.

Well, as you see from my initial post, where I quoted what I why I was doubling, I stated... DBL, When I am lost and don't know what to do, I double. Here, I have no idea what is right so I will double. If partner leaves it in, I do have 3 aces!! That clearly comes closer to your broad stroke GHBDKWTD than to CV. I even said that I play the double more takeout oriented but with an understanding that partner can pass (the higher the takeout double, the more likely partner can pass it). But even then I noted if partner passes (which I am hoping he will not), I do have three tricks on defense.

For the record, the vul is white versus white, so your minus minus is wrong. It is lose 100 (-3) or win (100) +3 versus makeable 5D. the hand you showed (xx, KJxxx, Kx, Qxxx) is a negative double for me, so partner would not have that hand. But should he have it, I would expect a pass rather than 5♣ bid. The second hand you showed (xx KJxxx Kxx KQx) I would expect 5♦.. which is probalby a shame as we probably clobber 4♠. On the other hand should partner bid 5♦, I probably will bid 6♦ as that is a fair contract opposite as little as xx KJxxx Kxx xxx (where you might score 5H, 6D, 1C) and partner can not have that little...

On a hand when I hold SPADE legnth and want to hammer 4S, I would pass, expecting partner who has values (2H) and shape shortness (Since I have length) to reopen with a double (if again he is short in spades).