[CSGibson]

The situation is thus: You are in the middle of the pack in a Sunday swiss, fourth of 6 rounds, and the previous four boards have all been 1N or 2 of a minor hands; in other words, no real swings. Then the following hand comes up.

Scoring: IMP

(P)-1♣-(P)-1♥,
(P)-1N-(P)-P,
(X)-P-(P)-?

---

RHO seems uncomfortable when he passes his partner's double. Would you XX, bid 2 clubs, or pass it out? Would your decision change if you were vul? How about if they were vul?

[gnasher]

I certainly wouldn't allow the fact that the first four hands have been partscores to affect my decision. We might be 20 IMPs up at this point. There are few things more annoying than to have a good card ruined by a teammate who took some antipercentage action because he thought we needed a swing.

Nor would RHO's discomfort influence me much. He may have been thinking about what the double meant, wondering how strong his partner was, or simply taking his time over a decision that might swing a lot of IMPs.

Assuming that partner's 1NT denied four spades, and that the double was for takeout, I bid 2♣, which looks like the normal action at any vulnerability.

Edit, in case the corollary wasn't clear: if partner can still have four spades, I pass.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-May-22, 01:46

[hotShot]

1) How do you know there are no swings? Opps could have tried to make some double trouble, maybe someone overbid to 3 or tried to play 2NT instead of 2 in a minor.
2) If you don't have reason to believe that other team has better players, be patient. Your chance will come, in fact it think it's there right now.
3) Lets count:
Your partner does not have 4♥, he does not have 5♠ most likely not even 4. So he should have 7+ cards in the minors. I guess his shape is 4333 or 5332, I don't see much benefit in playing ♣, playing NT seems a good idea.
Opps seem to have an 8-card ♠ fit. Since points seem to be split between opps and both did not overcall, they will be 4-4.
I would pass.

[the hog]

Pass. I am certainly not ashamed of my bidding to date. I'd rather play 1NT than a possible Moysian 2C. I also don't buy the fact that he may not have 4S. How else would he bid with a 4-3-3-3 shape?

[Free]

Why did I pass the previous round?

Now 3♣, as I would've played without opps intervening (2NT was puppet). Let's hope it's enough to keep them out of their ♠ contract.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on May 22 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

I also don't buy the fact that he may not have 4S. How else would he bid with a 4-3-3-3 shape?

Partner had an easy 1♠ bid available, if his ♠ had some quality he should have bid them. If they were xxxx, our 1NT contract is even better, because we have more values in the other 3 suits.

[brianshark]

It's not a judgement situation. Either systemically he must rebid 1♠ with a 4 card ♠ suit and 1NT denies such, or he must bid 1NT with a balanced hand and 1♠ would show an unbalanced hand (5-4 or 4441).

Anyway I pass.

[gnasher]

brianshark, on May 22 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

It's not a judgement situation. Either systemically he must rebid 1♠ with a 4 card ♠ suit and 1NT denies such, or he must bid 1NT with a balanced hand and 1♠ would show an unbalanced hand (5-4 or 4441).

Can't it be systemic that with a balanced hand and four spades opener uses his judgement?

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on May 22 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

Assuming that partner's 1NT denied four spades, and that the double was for takeout, I bid 2♣, which looks like the normal action at any vulnerability.

Why do you think double was takeout? Most good players play this as a penalty double (I've both gone for and taken some juicy penalties on this auction).

Particularly if they play the (sub-optimal) method where 1C P 1H 1NT is the other two suits, they are even more likely to play double as penalties here.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

Why do you think double was takeout?  Most good players play this as a penalty double

Oh well, I already knew I wasn't one of those.

I think double as a limited or otherwise flawed takeout double comes up rather more often, and is in consequence more useful, especially at matchpoints. Perhaps this is a situation where in theory one should vary one's methods according to the form of scoring.

At the table, obviously, I would find out what the double meant.

[655321]

1) Agree with Gnasher that the preamble is completely irrelevant. Seriously, just play bridge! You don't need to make a different bid for every different score - just make the best bid every time (I know ) and you will win more than your share.

2) I would pass 1NTX. 1NT is a fine contract - we have around half the deck each, we probably have a club fit, and they probably have a spade fit. No need to redouble, we will probably make somewhere from 6-8 tricks. I prefer to play 1NT than to defend 2♠, or to play 3♣. The double doesn't make much difference.

[benlessard]

Easy pass.

Its quite rare that i bypass a 4 card suit after 1H. We are not in a Walsh situation.

1C---1H
1S that show an unbalanced hand is really not standard.

For me by default a XX is sos when we have showned no game aspiration.

1453 would be my perfect shape to XX but that would give opps 9S. so a XX probably show a 2443 shape.

[the hog]

benlessard, on May 22 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Easy pass.

Its quite rare that i bypass a 4 card suit after 1H. We are not in a Walsh situation.

1C---1H
1S that show an unbalanced hand is really not standard.

For me by default a XX is sos when we have showned no game aspiration.

1453 would be my perfect shape to XX but that would give opps 9S. so a XX probably show a 2443 shape.

Well Ben, I'd argue that these days bidding 1S on a 4-3-3-3 is not standard, unless you are playing some versions of Polish Club or a very old fashioned style. I think you'll find that most like to treat a balanced hand as a balanced hand. Anyway it is a moot point. I am still passing

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on May 22 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

Well Ben, I'd argue that these days bidding 1S on a 4-3-3-3 is not standard, unless you are playing some versions of Polish Club or a very old fashioned style.

Isn't it standard in France, too?

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

Why do you think double was takeout? Most good players play this as a penalty double (I've both gone for and taken some juicy penalties on this auction).

What does a penalty double look like on this auction?

[helene_t]

Jlall, on May 22 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

TimG, on May 22 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

Why do you think double was takeout?  Most good players play this as a penalty double (I've both gone for and taken some juicy penalties on this auction).

What does a penalty double look like on this auction?

Good hearts and a good hand.

It was a passed hand. Isn't it somewhat speculative to double on a 10-count even with good hearts? Opps could have 14+10 HCPs between them.

[kfay]

I don't understand this double.

Also, wouldn't 1NT by LHO have been takeout? I thought a lot of people played a sandwich NT by a PH.

Anyways, I pass this. The opps made a mistake, clearly. Either that or LHO forgot to open and then decided to be crafty... I really have no clue what's going on but I doubt we'll go down.

Actually I can see this going down, but not much. More likely to make, though, since the opps seem to be daydreaming right now.

[the hog]

TimG, on May 22 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

Why do you think double was takeout?  Most good players play this as a penalty double (I've both gone for and taken some juicy penalties on this auction).

What does a penalty double look like on this auction?

I think Frances may well not realise that the X passed twice beforehand.

Yes Gnasher its standard in France, so i am told, but have the french been known for system's innovations? I think not.