[kenrexford]

♠A ♥Jxxxx ♦Ax ♣KQxxx

Second seat. Teams.

1♠-2♠-3♥(LIM+)-4♥-
4♠-P-4NT-P-
5♦-P-5♠-P-
P-?

Is passing the only logical alternative here? Does it depend on your field? If so, is there a field where something other than pass is a logical alternative? What field?

[mcphee]

I am pleased to give them the opportunity to redble.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would pass.

They made a slam try, and stopped
in nowhere land, what do I want more?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

First and foremost, bidding at the 6 level is competely ridiculous.

The opponents are resting in 5 Spades, having made a try for slam. Long, long ago I heard a saying "the five level belongs to the opponents". Now you're asking whether its reasonable should sacrifice in 6 hearts?

Look at the hand:

1. You have good defense (A pair of bullets and a side KQ)
2. You have an absolutely miserable trump suit
3. Unless the opponents are playing a very deep game and psyched Blackwood, they made a slam try. Odds are, they have a pair of Aces as well.

I don't think that there is any logicial alternative to pass. In particular, if its [somehow] "right" to sacrifice over 5♠, then it MUST have been "right" to take action over 4♠ a couple rounds earlier. You could have shown your club suit and explored a double fit. There is just no conceivable way that one can reconcile the original pass with a call at the 6 level.

In theory, one might decide to double 5 Spades. You're on lead. If clubs behave, you rate to collect a Spade, a Diamond, and a Club. Even so, I'd be a bit leery about doubling. The opponents made a try for slam and it doesn't look to have been based on power. I suspect that they the Blackwood bidder might have some shape. Admittedly, he made a simple cue bid showing a limit raise+ rather than splinter or making a fit jump. Even so, something smells fishy.

[jtfanclub]

I might X if we were behind enough.

The humorous thing is, they might have 11 tricks but no trasportation to it. For example.

QJxxx
void
Kxxxx
AJx

across

Kxxxx
AKx
x
Txxx

Easy 11 tricks after a club lead...except that they can't get to the AK of hearts to sluff those clubs. In fact, they'll lose a club, a club ruff, a diamond, and a spade.

[MFA]

No logical alternative.

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Jan 8 2008, 06:39 AM, said:

I might X if we were behind enough.

The humorous thing is, they might have 11 tricks but no trasportation to it. For example.

QJxxx
void
Kxxxx
AJx

across

Kxxxx
AKx
x
Txxx

Easy 11 tricks after a club lead...except that they can't get to the AK of hearts to sluff those clubs. In fact, they'll lose a club, a club ruff, a diamond, and a spade.

This 10 count is making a slam try opposite pard's limit raise?

[cherdano]

Opener didn't make a slam try, Phil. Even so, JT's construction doesn't seem to have anything to do with the bidding, no matter who is responder. Which of these two hands would bid 4N?

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Jan 8 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jan 8 2008, 06:39 AM, said:

I might X if we were behind enough. 

The humorous thing is, they might have 11 tricks but no trasportation to it.  For example.

QJxxx
void
Kxxxx
AJx

across

Kxxxx
AKx
x
Txxx

Easy 11 tricks after a club lead...except that they can't get to the AK of hearts to sluff those clubs.  In fact, they'll lose a club, a club ruff, a diamond, and a spade.

This 10 count is making a slam try opposite pard's limit raise?

I think it matches the bidding.

Opener has only one key card, and yet bid game across an invite. He was pretty obviously stretching. Responder bid 4NT asking for key cards, even though he must have at most two (you have two in your hand, opener showed one), and I assume he doesn't have a void because then what's the point of 4NT?

So responder (the bottom hand) vastly overestimated partner's hand and bid 4NT. Except...change that K♦ to the A, and it makes 6 if trumps split 2-1. Change the Q♠ to the ace, also makes 6. How can 4NT be an overbid when it takes only two keycards to make slam, across a partner who opened and accepted an invite?

[bhall]

Double is a logical alternative.

But I don't think we can be required to double on the basis of partner's actions (e.g., a slow 4♥ followed by a fast pass of 4N). The opponents' bids clearly indicate their expectation of making 5♠, and they should not be rewarded for so trivial a reason when they happen to be right.

A rough rule is: Double on the expectation of a two-trick set. At MP, this rule is frequently bent, but seldom so at teams. Where is the fourth defensive trick?

[DWM]

Cannot see the point of a double in teams I am sure the imp gain loss is somewhere else. why risk a -ve on a board when you have a good chance of a nice +ve (unless you are needing to look for the swings)

[jdonn]

I would rate double as not being a logical alternative, even though it's the closest there is to one.

[Apollo81]

Passing is the only logical alternative unless you define LA as "a call that has some merit"

Double has a tiny ounce of merit here.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jan 9 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Is passing the only logical alternative here?

No double is worth consideration anytime they get to the five-level or above and you have two aces.

[kenrexford]

Interesting conflict of opinions.

I held this hand and faced the problem of partner scooping his bidding cards up and into the bidding box and visibly acting irritated that I was thinking. Whereas I had decided that pass was clearly right, I felt that I must nevertheless opt for the double because of this UI and did so. The contract made. (Dummy held AKx in hearts and a stiff club, six trumps.)

Fortunately, our partners bid this to slam and went down, making the net impact little.

I was praised later in private by the opponents for what they believed to be ethical behavior. My teammates, however, especially partner, felt that doubling under the circumstances was ridiculous. No one on my team, let alone partner, even recognized the fact, confirmed by the opponents, that partner had induced the problem of having to decide whether I had a logical alternative. I wanted to confirm here whether others saw the same problem or agreed with my teammates that there was no logical alternative to passing.

[655321]

kenrexford, on Jan 8 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I held this hand and faced the problem of partner scooping his bidding cards up and into the bidding box and visibly acting irritated that I was thinking. 

Wow.

My opinion is that Pass is so clearcut I would not have doubled, but I agree with your opponents that you acted ethically. Sometimes at the table we are not certain which alternatives are logical, and have to make our best guess at the time.

But your partner's actions...

[mikeh]

Ken, I think you did the right thing, even tho I agree that pass was the obvious call absent partner's action.

I also strongly feel that no committee should have punished a pass, because I really don't think that double has much merit, in a bridge sense. You are clearly not protecting a score your way, and, equally clearly, a double is hoping for a one trick set, such that the possible gain from double is relatively low compared to the risk.

Having said that, scooping up one's cards before the auction is over is such egregious behaviour that I think your double was a good action.... I hope that your partner later comes to realize the importance of proper tempo at the table in these auctions.

[blackshoe]

The question is "would a significant percentage* of this players peers do something else?" If they would, that's an LA.

*"significant percentage" is defined in some jurisdictions as about 25%, in others as about 30%.

Double may be worth considering; that doesn't make it an LA.