[ArtK78]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 30 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

The newspaper columns are full of contracts that only make because of a double, when declarer takes some obscure line. That's why you listen to the auction: I agree with Jdonn & Jlall's arguments that a trump endplay is vanishingly unlikely ON THIS AUCTION.

I am sure that was what my opponent thought holding KJTx of diamonds behind me with a side AK when I unilaterally bid up to 5D and I made it because of his double on a trump endplay.

I have to admit, though, with the hand my opponent had, I would have doubled me.

[jtfanclub]

One thing that hasn't been pointed out on this thread is that the auction isn't dead yet.

Suppose dummy has a hand like:

xx
xx
Axxx
Kxxxx

That's a pretty spectacular hand to have across a partner who can make 4♥ across a 0 count with no hearts.

Not only is 4♥X going to make (doubler's partner has a jack at most), but they likely weren't going to stop at 4. They may have tried the 50-50 6♥, down 2, but why get greedy? Maybe they'd have stopped at 5, which turns out to be a lock unless hearts are 4-0 with the 4 on declarer's left....the very holding you turn out to have.

Even in a normal Precision auction, responder is more likely to have the 7 than the 0. In this auction, with responder denying a very weak unbalanced hand, and with 11 hearts likely known a very weak balanced hand is less likely than normal. If there's a bust at the table, it's probably not the 1♦ bidder.

[han]

jtfanclub, on Oct 30 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

If there's a bust at the table, it's probably not the 1♦ bidder.

Please explain why partner is more likely to be broke than the 1D bidder.

[awm]

Declarer has a lot of trumps, so in order to endplay us he's going to have to shorten himself several times, which seems tough since it'd be somewhat surprising to find dummy with more than one entry. On a similar note, declarer's chances to pick up the trump suit rely on dummy having at least two trumps with at least one honor. While this is possible, I bet declarer's trumps are long/good for the 4♥ bid which doesn't leave much for trumps in dummy. Putting these together, I doubt this is going to be a hand where declarer has a big play problem to solve -- probably it just makes or it doesn't.

So it comes down to "is 4♥ going to make"? Declarer should have at least seven hearts and we have four, making dummy and partner both favorites to hold heart shortage. While this does mean dummy is likely to have an unbalanced hand, I don't know that a 4144 zero-count bids something other than 1♠ over 1♥ -- my impression is that bidding would show an actual suit in a weak unbalanced hand? So partner and dummy are roughly equally likely to hold the remaining cards. Seems like double is a good proposition -- yes you will get some -790s in there, but there should be enough +500s to balance it out.

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on Oct 30 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 30 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

If there's a bust at the table, it's probably not the 1♦ bidder.

Please explain why partner is more likely to be broke than the 1D bidder.

Because there's a wide variety of 0-2 point hands that the one diamond bidder could have that do not bid 1 spade over 1 heart. There's also a wide variety of 6-7 hcp hands your partner could have that do not pass 1 diamond.

For example, the 1 diamond bidder could have a 7 count 6-1-4-2 hand but I assume your partner could not. On the other hand, the 1 diamond bidder cannot have a 0 count 6-1-4-2 but I assume your partner could.

That at least one of the two hands is going to be distributional increases the odds that your partner is broke and the 1♦ bidder is not.

[jmc]

I did not double at the table and my counterpart didn't double either. My RHO commented after the match that he thinks I should have seriously considered doubling and, upon some reflection, I thought he was right.

I found it interesting that when it came my turn to bid over 4h, I didn't really even think about it. Clearly it is important to take advantage of the 10 second hesitation. Next time I hope to find the red card.

jmc

[Rossoneri]

Originally I was going to pass without a though...Now, maybe not.

[whereagles]

I don't mind dbl, but I admit I wouldn't have the guts to do it.

[ulven]

Without adding to much to this problem, but yes I agree with Justin, let me add an observation about the newly finished BB in Shanghai.

I've worked my way through most BB's in the last 30+ years, at least the hands preserved, and I've never seen such a flurry of penalty doubles as in Shanghai. So many marginal, speculative and sometimes plain silly doubles. There were lots of successes and a fair number of making contracts and a few redoubled making ones as well (check the final for a couple of them).

Was this a statistical aberation in BB history or has the expert community changed their attitude? Time will tell.

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Oct 30 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 30 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

If there's a bust at the table, it's probably not the 1♦ bidder.

Please explain why partner is more likely to be broke than the 1D bidder.

I don't believe it. While it's true that LHO has denied a very weak distributional hand, he has also denied 8+ points. Give opener 20 and p could still have as much as 13.

Btw, I wonder why opener relayed before bidding 4♥. The answer to the relay was almost forced. Why not bid 4♥ over 1♦? Probably I don't understand their system.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Oct 31 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

Btw, I wonder why opener relayed before bidding 4♥. The answer to the relay was almost forced. Why not bid 4♥ over 1♦? Probably I don't understand their system.

Some people relay just for the sake of it. I've seen this sort of redundancy a couple of times.

In other words, there's might not be any special inference from the 1♥ relay.

[helene_t]

Oh, like the "Practice finese" and "Practice Blackwood", we have the "Practice relay"

[helene_t]

Oh yes of course. When do I ever learn to read the original post of a thread ....

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Oct 31 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

I don't believe it. While it's true that LHO has denied a very weak distributional hand, he has also denied 8+ points. Give opener 20 and p could still have as much as 13.

If opener only has 20, it must be a very distributional 20.

The point is, it's very unlikely for the 1 diamond bidder to be bust. If there are 13 points outstanding, that makes it even less likely that the 1 diamond bidder is busted. So I wouldn't go into a situation like this assuming that dummy will have no entries, or even that the bidding is over.

While it is possible that opener is being stupid, if the declarer is any good this isn't an aggressive game attempt. He knows a lot more about his partner's hand than most people will. He can stop at 2♥, while his opponents playing SAYC will end up in 3♥ at a minimum.

I wouldn't read too much into no slam attempt. Responder isn't barred, and opener would need a heck of a lot to try for slam across what could still be a balanced 0 count.

So if declarer is smart, you have one more trick than declarer is expecting- any kings or queens your side has outside of trump should be finessable. So if declarer was expecting 11 tricks he'll get 10, and if he was expecting 10 he'll get 9 (not including endplays or the like indicated by the X). You have to get him for 500 to make the double worth it, IMHO, and I just don't think that's very likely.

Oh well. I'll let the big boys (and girls) do the rest of the talking.