[mikegill]

In reference to #3

I tend to think double shows a better hand than this. My personal interpretation of this double is "I can't possibly pass, because this is OUR HAND but I don't know what to bid." I don't think this hand is that good - just because i have 12 HCP (11 really since Jxx dubious at best) and partner opens doesn't make it our hand for sure. I wouldn't even be surprised if 3d were the highest making contract for either side. I really have no idea whether or not this is a standard view of what this X means at IMPs. I would expect partner to pass with nothing really else to say and to pull if he has extra shape/offense, and, in particular, 1 or fewer diamonds.

What shapes are even possible for this double? Would I double with a 4531 GF, or would I just bid 3S, since that bid is available, and because I'm worried about missing 4S? It seems like it would frequently be right to X them if partner doesn't have 4 spades. If so, then partner pulling to 4C just because he has 6 seems wrong, but him passing with 4S is then also somewhat dangerous. What if I had that shape and Qxx or Kxx diamonds. Would I bid any differently? What about Ax KQJx Jxx Kxxx. Do you just bid 5c, or do you X - certainly you can't bid only 4c. If you bid 5c, you could find partner with KJxx xx Qx AQJxx and you turned +300 or +500 into -50. So maybe you should be doubling - if so then certainly partner must pull with any hand containing 6 clubs. A 3433 14-count would X here with no diamond stopper (or maybe even with a diamond stopper), and you have no reason to believe that you're making 5c or 3N then.

I guess my point is this - there are a lot of shapes that want to make this X. Most GF balancedish hands with no stopper in diamonds need to make it because they have no other possible bid. If partner is going to require no extra shape (we know he's at least 5-4, or has 6 clubs, but he doesn't know we know that, so he might think 5-4 is extra shape), something better than xx in diamonds, and not a minimum so that he's not scared that 3dX is making, then he's basically never going to pass. This seems bad to me - if we don't have extra shape (like if we have two top diamond losers) then 5m will usually be down and we just need to take our positive score from 3dX, and punish them for having the unspeakable gall to bid in OUR auction. That's why I think a stronger hand is needed - I think this double says "partner, if you have some normal hand, my hand is strong enough that they're NOT making." I expect partner to pass and take the + a reasonable % of the time, since we're really not sure where we're going. He should definitely pull with a small stiff diamond, and frequently with a stiff honor (they might have a 10-card fit then). I think he should usually sit with xx diamonds or better, unless he has a very offensively-oriented hand. For example, I think KQx xx xx KQJTxx should definitely pull, but I don't think this is a "normal hand" by any means. I think ATx Kx xx ATxxxx should definitely sit, even though it has 6 clubs, and ATx Ax xx KTxxxx should probably sit, but it's closer.

Now, at matchpoints, I think this is a clear X. We can't afford setting them two undoubled when we were making 110 or 130, and it's unlikely partner can do anything over 3d. But we can afford the occasional -470, whereas at IMPs that's really really bad.

My opinion on the actual hand is that's it's close between pass and 4c. It's very likely that 3d is going down, and I think it's unlikely that we have a making game. Even if we do, I'm not sure we're necessarily going to be able to bid it while avoiding bad games. So I'll go with pass, but I could be persuaded to bid 4c.

[jdonn]

That analysis is dumbfounding. Double is not game forcing as you seem to suggest, this hand is a little better than you need. Your view that double is game forcing is warped, as is your idea of what partner should sit with. If you double and partner bids 3♥ or 4♣ you are welcome to pass if you don't think you have game. You are completely overthinking a very simple situation. I feel like I'm in bizarro world with this hand, there isn't even a logical alternative to doubling. This hand was a game force when partner opened, and you are downgrading it to not even fighting for a partscore because the opponents' bidding has made one jack in your hand wasted.

[pclayton]

1. Hate 3♥. You said 2♦ is waiting; therefore most play a double negative, and 3♥ would serve this role. 4♦ is clear; pard has a real hand for opening 2♣ with a minor single suiter. Oddly, 3♥ has elicited a useful call out of pard; 5♠. While I'm a leery about trusting the bids in this partnership, I can't do less than 7♦. Pard has a absolute monstrous 2 suiter; 5♠ shows a hand too good for 4♠. Anytime pard needs to open 2♣ with a 2 suiter, it is the Rock of Gibraltar. Frankly, 5♠ should represent a force through 6♦ which is what I would bid if I was busted.

2. (shrug). 5♥ I suppose. The double fit should give us some security.

3. Double. Classic action double; good hand - no clear direction.

4. Hate the system. My hand can hardly be worse. I'll raise to 5♦ instead of 4N or 5♣.

[cherdano]

For me, double on 3) could be anything from card-showing to competitive to action to takeout, but it is definitely not penalty when we are still looking for the right one among 4 possible strains. I am sure the style where this is penalty exists but I hope noone will ever force me to play it.

[mikegill]

I dunno I guess there is just a serious stylistic difference here. I don't view my style of playing this as a "penalty double." I view it as the same as you, a "values" double, but my criterion for "values" is just a Q stronger than yours, or so. I don't think the fact that it shows more values turns it from an "action" double or a "values" double into a "penalty" double as some are calling it. Nor do I think we are game forced if partner pulls the X. Maybe I failed to accurately communicate my thoughts in my previous post.

Because of this extra strength required for the X, I expect partner to pass more frequently than others do and have it be right. It seems like both these styles will gain sometimes and lose sometimes. I feel like that when partner has a normal hand with 2 diamonds that we will frequently want to play 3DX, when we have no diamond stopper and ~25-26 HCP (as we nearly always will if I have a slightly stronger hand and they've bid and raised freely). Our alternative is having partner pull then eventually having to play a 7-card major fit of unknown quality, or 5 of a minor when they're known to be taking the first two tricks. I'd rather take my sure +300 than either of those whenever possible, and my style is geared towards getting this decision right and never having to give up -470 in exchange. If partner has a singleton, he will pull the X, and it will be much, much more likely that we are making game somewhere.

This style loses on this particular hand. I'm kind of stuck - I'd like to bid but I'm not strong enough to X, so instead I have to guess. I could miss 3N if pard has a diamond card and long clubs. It's my opinion that I lose less from guessing to go passively here, than I lose when I have a Queen more and partner pulls my X and we go down in game when we could have collected from 3dX. Obviously, this is not the majority view, but it's just my opinion.

[Foxx]

1) 7♦. Partner's five-six, with all suits controlled. Maybe five-seven. Whatever partner needs, I have it. Even ♠KQJ10x ♥---- ♦AKQxxx ♣AQ, pretty much a bare minimum for partner's bidding, gives us around a 70% chance.

2) 6♣. Yes, I'm taking a real high dive here, and this could easily have me feeling sick after the hand. But partner has extra playing strength and I have six-card support. I'd love there to be a way to show it without going out on a limb. Any heart finesses needed will be working through the overcaller.

3) Double. Action. I want partner to do something intelligent. With 4-2-2-5 shape, the honor location will guide the way for partner. I am prepared to convert 3♠ to 4♣ with opener pretty much marked with five clubs.

4) 4NT if it's natural, otherwise 5♣. We'll have a better idea about where to go if I show where my values are now. What's more, maybe partner is sitting on a four-card club suit, in which case that strain won't play worse than any other.

In the second case, 5♦. Partner's diamonds are sound yet I'm about to put down a junk dummy. Time to hit the brakes.

[jahol]

First deal:

Scoring: IMP

---

I was North and the final contract was 6D (although my partner was thinking very long about what I had). With diamonds 2-2, 7D can be made. In my opinion, 4S (instead of 5S) would not have shown the real power of my hand (what should I bid with just 5-4 distribution, 22-24 points, but not that many tricks in my hand?). During our discussion, we agreed that 4D bid from his side was probably better than 3NT bid.


Second deal:

Scoring: IMP

---

I agree that my 1NT bid was controversial, but it seems to me, that simple 2H raising does not interprete strength of the hand (clubs may start very attractive in many auctions). Finally, I decided to bid 5H (as some of you have proposed) and that was the contract made (after singleton club lead). 6C is the best contract due to HK in the right hand (what can be expected with not bad probability on the base of the auction). Still, I can hardly blame my partner.... Looks like 4H would have been final contract after my 2H bid....


Third deal:

Scoring: IMP

---

In the situation described, south doubled, north (me) bid 3S and south 4C. Should north have passed? I was thinking for a long time (4H is some alternative, I think) and but finally bid 5C contract, which was doubled by E.


Fourth deal:

Scoring: IMP

---

As you can see, 6D is laydown. I would prefer immediate 2D-4D bid from the south.

[Apollo81]

[jdonn]

Overall you were pretty reasonable on these hands.

1: You would pass 3NT with the hand you describe, it sounds like a minimum with no extra shape. On this hand 5♠ was an overbid, partly due to the club loser and partly since your diamonds aren't as solid as they look (why can't partner be like 2515?) If your jack of clubs was a small diamond your bidding was perfect. On what you had 4♠ is plenty, you have already opened 2♣! 5♠ accuses partner of being unable to evaluate his hand.

3: Partner should pass 4♣. Your auction was perfect, it would get you to 5♣ if partner was 4216 instead of defending 3♦ undoubled had you passed. I still can't believe some people would pass. Partner had a 12 count with the least possible shape, and the hands are on a 3-3 break for game!

4: You are right about 2♦ 4♦. The people who didn't want to cuebid for partner had he bid that way should take a good look at his actual hand.