[kfay]

Scoring: MP

(1♠)-P-(2♠)-P
(P)-X-(XX)-3♣
(3♠)-P-(P)-?

---

I don't care if you'd rather bid 2NT than 3♣ but do you double here?

[P_Marlowe]

No.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

No not close.

[Echognome]

I wouldn't double here.

I know you don't care, but can I go back and double 2♠? Then partner can decide.

[kfay]

Echognome, on Jan 7 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I wouldn't double here.

I know you don't care, but can I go back and double 2♠? Then partner can decide.

Haha. Yeah maybe I should have done that.

[mikeh]

not close even at mps.

Consider:

the auction (especially the redouble) tells you that partner has already bid a lot of your values

your A's are under declarer.... who will hold most of the missing hcp

trump are breaking very well for declarer

if they fail by one trick, a double is probably gaining at most, on a 12 top, about 2 mps, since the field will usually be in 2♠. While if the double doesn't work, you are losing about 5 or 6 on a 12 top.

add to this the slight chance that the double will help declarer in the play, and the odds seem overwhelmingly in favour of pass


An added factor for an ongoing partnership is that a double of a making contract may dissuade partner from aggressive balancing in the future.

[oldman5757]

kfay, on Jan 7 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(1♠)-P-(2♠)-P
(P)-X-(XX)-3♣
(3♠)-P-(P)-?

---

I don't care if you'd rather bid 2NT than 3♣ but do you double here?

You don't really think you were making 3 ♣, do you? You not only shouldn't double, if you do and they make it, which they probably will, it would be justifiable homicide in any bridge court to shoot you dead. Partner has taken his vulnerable life in his hands and pushed them to the three level, so you are very likely ahead of the field anyway. If they make it, you are average, if they don't, guess what, you are tied for top.

BTW, I would not have doubled 2♠, as someone suggested. I'd really want 4 ♥ to push the auction to the 3 level.

[helene_t]

I would have doubled as well. Not sure if we are ahead of the field anyway as Mike suggests. If p has doubled with six hcps or less he has less than two spades so opps should be in 4♠ if they were lawfull. For all I know the board belongs to us.

I would probably have doubled 2♠ but I can live with pass. 3♣ is a really weired bid but you know that of course.

[cherdano]

You have to double 2♠ IMO, this is not close. Apparently partner knows you and helped you out, no need to punish him for that, just pass out 3♠.

[gwnn]

wouldn't you double 1st rnd on x xxx axxxx aqxx?? you have a spade more but it's the ACE.

[Halo]

I think double is winning Pairs here.

If partner is risking -200 or more to push them to a three level we can't challenge, I have to wonder what he was trying to achieve in this auction.

[MorK]

i don't know why I shd punish my pd for a good balancing double, so a clear pass for me at imps, in matchpoints I would look at my left and then decide to pass or double, but I prefer pass

[MFA]

I think double is ok. I'm not so confident that this will be a standard 2♠ contract board elsewhere, so there could easily be significant value in a successful double.

If -730 will stop partner from balancing vulnerable on some outrageous garbage in the future, maybe that is not so bad after all...

[MFA]

Btw, it IS so terrible to bid 3♣ that I have to mention this too.

[the hog]

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all. What is terrible is to double here, regardless of whether you are playing MPs or IMPs. At Imps it goes without saying. If you need arguments at MPs:
Partner has been brave; don't punish her and force her to reconsider her balancing strategy on future hands.
You are in a pretty good position here; don't waste it.

Yes I agree that 2S should have been doubled for t/out.

[gnasher]

I think it clear to double here: I expected to make three of a minor, I have a pile of defensive tricks, and partner competed to the three level vulnerable. I'm not going to let a fatuous redouble talk me out of bidding my hand.

The people who think that the field will be in 2S should find themselves a stronger game.

[MFA]

The_Hog, on Jan 8 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all. What is terrible is to double here, regardless of whether you are playing MPs or IMPs. At Imps it goes without saying. If you need arguments at MPs:
Partner has been brave; don't punish her and force her to reconsider her balancing strategy on future hands.
You are in a pretty good position here; don't waste it.

Yes I agree that 2S should have been doubled for t/out.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

Yes, there is the old "don't punish partner" - saying. Here I think it's more about respecting partner and do what I have to do.

[cherdano]

MFA, on Jan 8 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 8 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

But you prefer a club lead over a diamond lead, and opponents are likely to bid on.

[MFA]

cherdano, on Jan 8 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

MFA, on Jan 8 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 8 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

Sure, 2NT is a much better bid, but bidding 3C is not "terrible". You have the AQ of C after all.

It's terrible to bid 3♣, because partner could easily have something like 1-4-5-3 or even 2-4-5-2. Then I don't care about the ♣Q. 2NT will always get us to the right strain, since partner is expected to bid his suits up the line.

But you prefer a club lead over a diamond lead, and opponents are likely to bid on.

That's a valid point, although I'm not so sure that they will rescue us, if we do wind up in a 4-3 or even 4-2 fit.