[mikeh]

I am with Phil and Josh here: 3N... and I only hope that partner doubled in some semblance of tempo...

Several reasons, most (maybe all) already articulated and maybe better than I can, but:

1. I play 10-12 a lot. While I play a different rescue method, it is clear that LHO has both majors: with ♣s, he'd saty in 2♣, with reds, he'd run to ♦s and with a single suit, he isn't 'scrambling'.. he's going right there. It may be that he has 3=4=3=3, but that is against the odds, since sometimes he'd pass 2♣, and other times he'd bid 2♦ on the way.. hoping to get to a contract that doesn't get doubled... I know about that route, from experience with 4333's

2. I am way ahead of the game: many tables will have silent opps and I would estimate that their bidding gives me about .333 of a trick (yes, this sounds like an ad for Mike777's recent thread about sound openings, but it isn't... I gain here only because of the auction: give LHO my partner's hand and I'd be in a world of hurt right now). As it is, I expect to be able to play this hand close to double dummy.

3. If they have a 4-4 fit, just what am I leading? The ♣ A will be a disaster if dummy hits with 4=5=3=1 and even if dummy is 4=4=3=2, what am I switching to, having perhaps given a tempo to opener's QJx?

If I were defending, I'd lead the trump A and continue, hoping to catch partner with Jxx or Kxx... we're dreaming if we think that he rates to hold 4 trump.

4. If we declare 3N, which is almost certainly the field spot, I expect to score between 65 and 90% of the mps. If we defend I expect to score either 100% or 10-20%.. with the lower score far more likely. I'll play for an expectation of 77.5% by bidding 3N, and let others try for 100 and collect 10.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on May 9 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

Why is everyone assuming 3N will make, or that it's a normal contract? We have a minimum hand, partner could easily just have some kind of 7 or 8 count. Our clubs may not be a source of tricks. I also expect to crush this, partner chose to double and they dont appear to have any tricks.

Dittio - punish the slimy bastards.

[Echognome]

pclayton said:

Pard may have a very good spade suit, or he may not. My personal agreement is that a subsequent double, after one makes a penalty double, is that it promises Hxx.

I personally don't see how this is playable. So your partner will have Hxx under the bidder. Yes it might be the case that opener is something like 3=2=4=4 and is just trying to find the best fit, but I don't see why you'd want to double on Hxx in general. Also with Hxx, it's much more likely that trumps are splitting for opponents. We want to defend when our trumps are 4-2 or, even better, 5-1.

mikeh said:

3. If they have a 4-4 fit, just what am I leading? The ♣ A will be a disaster if dummy hits with 4=5=3=1 and even if dummy is 4=4=3=2, what am I switching to, having perhaps given a tempo to opener's QJx?

Again, why would they have a 4-4 fit? What is partner sitting on over there to suggest defending? Kxx? Maybe if you play Phil's methods. Jxx? I mean partner knows you didn't want to defend, so why would he suggest defending with those holdings? He sees the vulnerability just as well as we do. You suggested that dummy may be 4=5=3=1. Suppose partner is 4=5=3=1! And here we are trying to make 3NT without a source of tricks, in the meantime 2♠ is getting crushed.

[mikeh]

I wonder how many posters have clear agreements as to the degree to which our sequence demands/shows trump strength/high card strength? Phil clearly does, and his agreements about subsequent doubles echoes mine. I suspect that Justin does as well... his objection is, I take it, that partner could be as light as 7 or 8 hcp.. and I agree.

My own agreements are that:

1. My double of 1N established a force through 2♦ by them: they cannot play 2♣ or 2♦ undoubled...if we can't double, we must bid.

2. However, we are not forced beyond 2♦: this is an imp decision, based on a reluctance to have to double a partscore into game when we have no playable fit... maybe I shouldn't play this at mps, but I have never bothered to change my agreements.. probably because I rarely play matchpoints beyond the club level.

3. While my double of 2♣ seems clear (altho I usually play direct double as takeout, so would pass here in my methods), partner does not have to double 2♥. He will not double if his hand is weak with long ♥s.. he has to have some values.

The interesting question is whether our two doubles to date have established a force on our side.

My view is: no. Again, this is probably an imp approach: if neither of us can double or bid, it is unlikely that we are missing much.. on a poor judgement day we might go +100 when we could have been +300 or +110... but we will never be -470.

I am quite prepared to learn why the doubles should create a force.. maybe the double of 2♥ should require him to either double or bid 2N... or an unlikely 3♦ if, say, 4=5 in the reds.

4. Having said all of that, for me, my pass of 2♠ invites partner to double with Hxx. I am known to hold at least 2♠s and maybe 3.. but not 1 or 4. With 1, I'd never allow him to defend, with 4 I'd double.

He knows that we have their side suits controlled.. he'd expect me to lead a trump.. and for us to be able to lead trumps at least once more, and probably twice more, before they score any ruffs. So he SHOULD double with Hxx.

5. As far as I am concerned, if we need partner to hold 4 trump to double, we are going to be waiting a long, long time... especially if we need 4 ourselves!. We may well have them exactly in the hoped-for 4-3 fit and be unable to double because we are 3-3 in the suit!

6. The more compelling reason not to pull is that partner does not need 9+ hcp to double... as Justin observed, we may be too high. As against that, he may well have 9+, or this may be one of those hands where knowledge of the opps' hands allows us to generate 9 tricks on 23-24 hcp... the other day (for what little one hand can tell us) an overcall of my 1N caused my partner to opt for aggression rather that conservatism with his 8 count.. catching me with 15 and 4333 shape... making 10 tricks and I could have made 11, based on being able to play almost double-dummy after about trick 4.

[awm]

This hand come up at a local sectional tournament.

The story is much like Justin guessed: the double of 2♥ was lightning fast (less than one second) whereas the double of 2♠ was after some consideration (something like 7-10 seconds). The double was pulled to 3NT.

Partner has:

♠JTx
♥Kxxx
♦K9xx
♣xx

3NT is definitely not the field contract, nor is it by most measures a particularly good contract. But the clubs are QJx onside and declarer guessed the diamond jack, so 3NT rolled home (630 actually, on a reasonable but non-best lead, but 600 was always available). The most likely result in 2♠X is down two (300 for N/S) although down three (500) is possible on best defense.

The director ruled that "south was always going to bid 3NT" and which seems a strange reason to make a forcing pass. E/W attempted to appeal this ruling, but the director decided (apparently without asking very many people) that a committee would "inconvenience the players" and therefore no appeal would be allowed. The matchpoint difference is admittedly small (difference between 0 and 1 on a 12 top I think).

[jdonn]

I would not bid 3NT if partner tanked before doubling

I'm glad to see my inferences worked out, that 3NT would probably play well, and that we probably were getting a good score here no matter what we did.

[Echognome]

Quote

I wonder how many posters have clear agreements as to the degree to which our sequence demands/shows trump strength/high card strength? Phil clearly does, and his agreements about subsequent doubles echoes mine. I suspect that Justin does as well... his objection is, I take it, that partner could be as light as 7 or 8 hcp.. and I agree.

I think this is a good point. I can only say that I played in the EBU for over four years and faced a weak NT often. My regular partners and I had very clear agreements for what was a fairly common auction. We did not treat our doubles of the mini any different than a weak NT. That is to say, that a double showed around 15hcp or more with a suitable hand for defense.

Quote

1. My double of 1N established a force through 2♦ by them: they cannot play 2♣ or 2♦ undoubled...if we can't double, we must bid.

Well I'm not quite sure whether you mean partner's pass of your double created the force, or if your double created the force, but I suspect the former. For better or worse, we play that partner has to immediately bid over up to 2♦ if he cannot cooperate in doubling. That is for (1NT) - Dbl - (2♦) - ?, pass is forcing, but for (1NT) - Dbl - (2♥) - ?, pass is non forcing. Some play that the penalty double is stronger and partner won't pull with nothing, but we want to allow for weaker (in the sense of 15+) hands so that we can get involved in the auction easier. You make your tradeoffs.

Thus, for me, partner's pass at his second turn created a force to fit.

Quote

4. Having said all of that, for me, my pass of 2♠ invites partner to double with Hxx. I am known to hold at least 2♠s and maybe 3.. but not 1 or 4. With 1, I'd never allow him to defend, with 4 I'd double.

He knows that we have their side suits controlled.. he'd expect me to lead a trump.. and for us to be able to lead trumps at least once more, and probably twice more, before they score any ruffs. So he SHOULD double with Hxx.

Well, this is up to your own agreements. We also play takeout doubles, so the auction would be slightly different (and perhaps longer), such as ...
..(2♣) - P - (P) - Dbl
(P) - P - (2♥) - P
(P) - Dbl - (P) - P
(2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

And it would be up to partner whether to leave it.

Regardless, we would tend to have 4 trumps for leaving it in. However, even in this case where you've agree Hxx or better, does Jxx count? I mean if partner has Kxx, they are getting killed.

Quote

5. As far as I am concerned, if we need partner to hold 4 trump to double, we are going to be waiting a long, long time... especially if we need 4 ourselves!. We may well have them exactly in the hoped-for 4-3 fit and be unable to double because we are 3-3 in the suit!

I don't understand this. What do you mean if we need 4 ourselves? But to answer your other question, I agree that sometimes the opponents wriggle out because we are 3-3 in their suit. I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

I also have no doubt that playing double dummy is helpful. But I want to add that we are overruling partner on this decision if we pull to 3NT. What is it about the hand that suggests this is the right thing to do? Do we not trust partner's judgment on this? Partner *knows* either of us will play it double dummy as well. Partner also sees the vulnerability. Partner may not be sure 3NT is making (and remember that partner expects about as much as we have for the double and yet is suggesting that we should defend). So why are we overruling him?

[un6c]

As awm's partner in the event where this hand occurred, let me add one point that no one has touched upon so far. Those of you who are saying you would pull to 3NT did not comment on the second part of the question "Do you agree with the auction so far?" I think this is really the key: If you are going to pull to 3NT after partner doubles 2♠, why did you pass 2♠ in the first place? Did you learn anything from partner's X of 2♠? Would any action by partner (except an impossible pass) prompt you to not reach an eventual contract of 3NT?

[Gerben42]

I tried to but agree 100%. You pass to see if partner doubles, then he doubles and you... run? This is inconsistent. BTW I agree with the actual auction and taking a plus in 2♠x.

Quote

The director ruled that "south was always going to bid 3NT" and which seems a strange reason to make a forcing pass. E/W attempted to appeal this ruling, but the director decided (apparently without asking very many people) that a committee would "inconvenience the players" and therefore no appeal would be allowed. The matchpoint difference is admittedly small (difference between 0 and 1 on a 12 top I think).

The director got this one backward. 3NT was demonstrably suggested by the hesitation and is therefore not allowed. Roll back to 2♠X. But it gets worse. The director does not have the power to DISALLOW an appeal. He can suggest if you appeal or not but not disallow it. While the first part is just bad directing, the second part is enough to suggest to the ACBL to kick this director out of their database.