[CSGibson]

Scoring: IMP

(2♠)-P-(P)-?

---

I see three options with this hand: Pass, X, and 3♥. Which would you choose (unless you have a 4th option, in which case I'd love for you to choose from my 3 options and also explain what you would prefer to do)

[Fluffy]

3♥, double its too penalty oriented

[dicklont]

3♥.
When partner has trap passed Dbl would be nice, but when he bids a correction to 3♥ would show a much stronger hand.

[whereagles]

Dbl or 3♥, depending on who pard and LHO are

[mike777]

I'll try x.

[ArtK78]

3♥ looks clear to me.

Suppose you double. Are you planning to pass 3 of a minor by partner? If you double and bid 3♥, you should have a much better hand than this.

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass. That is not a common occurrence.

[655321]

3♥ for me.

Even though I would like to double with this hand type, and I do approve of double in principle, the sad fact is that we have exactly 2 defensive tricks. So, if partner passes 2♠X with 4 tricks, we will punish the opponents to the tune of 100. This might be OK with nothing better (e.g. if we are 1444 with 2 Aces), but here we have many more tricks with hearts as trumps. And anyway, perhaps partner has fewer than 4 tricks in defense.

Pass is not an option.

[brianshark]

We're in the balancing seat - we only need 2 defensive tricks and we certainly have them. Partner is almost certainly marked with 4+ ♠s and a penalty pass of his is quite likely given responder's pass. Our heart suit is crap and even though partner could still have the death holding of KQx in support, we may still be able to establish the tap.

If partner bids 3m (via leb if you play that) then I'll be content enough to pass (I have 3 card support and a singleton and nice shape) even though I know hearts is likely to be a better part-score. But I think it's well worth the risk of catching opener for a nice penalty. People pre-empt on trash these days. You've got to catch them.

So mark me down as a doubler.

[Free]

Dbl: I can handle every suit my partner bids, and if he passes I have 2 tricks for him (he'll probably lead his singleton ♥, so I can give him 2 ruffs)

[Edmunte1]

My points of view:
-3♥ is an opthimistic call with 7 1/2 losers hand, and partner will take too often the wrong decision, throwing us over board;
-double may work well in many boards: partner has an average of 4+ spades and may be trapping, our aces and minors suits intermediattes will work well in defense, though partner maybe expects a little more. Even if partner will bid 3NT, opps frequently will have no comunication and our length in hearts will provide the necessary tricks if partner has some liaison in hearts. But of course sometimes it may work out badly.
-pass - nobody died from an small gain.

I think at table i would have bid pass.

[3for3]

ArtK78, on Dec 22 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass. That is not a common occurrence.

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass. That is not a common occurrence.

Art, this is not correct. 3♥ does not have to be right; far from it. Partner is entitled to hold some ordinary 3145 or some such where playing in the minor was just as good or better.

Danny

[mikestar]

I voted 3♥ originally, but I am coming to think X would have been better at IMP. A nasty close decision--this hand could be a textbook example of why preempting pays.

I think 3♥ would still be the best of a bad lot vs. NV opps at MP, while X is a standout vs. V opps at MP.

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on Dec 22 2008, 06:58 AM, said:

3♥ looks clear to me.

Suppose you double. Are you planning to pass 3 of a minor by partner? If you double and bid 3♥, you should have a much better hand than this.

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass. That is not a common occurrence.

yes, if I double, then I'm expecting to pass 3 of a minor. Partner knows I might only have 3 for a take-out, so the suit requirements are met, if that's what's holding you back.

[han]

I wouldn't double, 3H for me as well. Must confess my first reaction was pass.

[han]

CSGibson, on Dec 23 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

Partner knows I might only have 3 for a take-out, so the suit requirements are met, if that's what's holding you back.

"Well partner, too bad we went down 2 in our 4-3 fit while we could have made 3H in our 6-3 fit. But on the upside, at least our suit requirements were met!"

[CSGibson]

han, on Dec 22 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Dec 23 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

Partner knows I might only have 3 for a take-out, so the suit requirements are met, if that's what's holding you back.

"Well partner, too bad we went down 2 in our 4-3 fit while we could have made 3H in our 6-3 fit. But on the upside, at least our suit requirements were met!"

yeah, there's always that.

[foo]

CSGibson, on Dec 22 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

West,None,IMP,
x_JT98xx_A9x_ATx

(2♠)-pa-(pa)-??

I see three options with this hand: Pass, X, and 3♥. Which would you choose (unless you have a 4th option, in which case I'd love for you to choose from my 3 options and also explain what you would prefer to do)

If 2S promises 5-10 HCP, call it 7-8 on average, and we have 9 HCP; pard rates to have (40- 16 or 17)/2= ~12 HCP

We do not rate to have a game or even enough HCP to belong at the 3 level.

This is IMPs, not MPs. Being pushy about partscores is not what IMPs is about.

In addition, our long suit has horrible suit quality, and 8/9 of our values are A's in our short suits.

Despite the 6 card H suit, this looks like a defensive hand in this auction.

Finally, our hand combined with the auction implies pard has S length.

Pass.

[cherdano]

foooooooooooooooo

3♥ sounds right.

[cherdano]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

I wouldn't double, 3H for me as well. Must confess my first reaction was pass.

No worries it wouldn't be your reaction at the table.

[foo]

cherdano, on Dec 23 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

foooooooooooooooo

3♥ sounds right.

Yell all you want. That does not refute the logic I presented above.

If you disagree, then address the bridge issues I brought up.