[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

---

West North East South

 2♦    Pass  Pass  3♣
 Pass  Pass  3♦    Pass
 Pass  4♣    4♦    Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Or it may be quicker to answer,, what went right?

[Cascade]

2♦ Fair - some might object to having a side four-card major

Pass (N) Standard

Pass (E) Fair - some might raise to 3♦ or possibly even bid 2♠

3♣ Normal

Pass (W) Normal

Pass (N) Normal - I suppose someone might find a raise

3♦ Fair

Pass (S) Normal

Pass (W) Normal

4♣ Fair

4♦ I wouldn't compete this high with a balanced hand

X Sorry doesn't have enough tricks on which to double

Final Passes All normal

[dburn]

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont like 4C, I dont like 4D, but I can accept those bids,
but X is just ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

I don't like the 2♦ opening much.
I strongly prefer 2NT to 3C by South in fourth seat.

South's final double is normal at matchpoints, but crazy at imps.

[Codo]

I dislike 2 ♦ (good four card major in first seat).
I prefer 2 NT to 3 ♣, but 3 ♣ is okay too.
3 ♦ and 4 ♣ are absolute normal.
4 ♦ is crazy in my eyes, but never critisze success.
The double is normal at mps, just did not work.

[kenberg]

I have a maybe whimsical question about the result, if it is easy to find out. How much did the double cost?

Here is why I ask. My first thought was that even at mps the double might not be as normal as claimed. Partner certainly has given you no reason to think he has anything except some clubs and maybe some shape and you don't have four tricks or even a probable three. But then, on second thought, it could be one of those hands where you can reason: If 4D is making then they probably have a good mp score just by bidding it so I want to double if they are going down, accepting the 0% instead of the 10% if they are making.

So minus 130 and minus 610. Much difference in mps?

As a general fact I have found that when the opponents bid exactly 4m and take exactly ten tricks I often don't get many matchpoints.

[Winstonm]

Everyone hates the 2D but it produced the good result - is there a lesson here or simply result merchanting. Guilty.

I would bid 2N also - but I don't find 3C all that objectionable.

[helene_t]

I think East should consider at his/her first turn whether s/he wants to compete to 3♦ and if the answer is "yes" then bid 3♦ now, which is more efficient than later.

Maybe s/he was afraid that W would interpret 3♦ as invitational, but it isn't.

[the hog]

Everybody doesn't hate the 2D bid. 2D is fine. East should raise to 3D.
On your given auction I agree with Uwe's comments.

[neilkaz]

2♦ ..I am OK with this at MP, but pass at IMP with a mediocre suit for a weak 2 and a 4 card ♥ suit and noting that 2♦ doesn't preempt all that much, IMO.

Responder has a clear raise to 3♦ here, IMO.

I'd have balanced with 2NT rather than 3♣ and esp. at MP since it scores better and may lead to a nice game.

When responder competes to 4♦ here, he has to think why he didn't bid 3♦ initially which would likely buy the hand.

OK I also would have been seduced into doubling 4♦ here at MP but, pass at IMPS as my Q of ♦ is clearly worthless.

[jillybean]

4♦ made but shouldnt have. Opps misplayed then I gave it back, bottom board.
(I was south)

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

I wasnt so much concerned about the result but rather if the double was justified.
Easts initial pass had me thinking he had a much weaker hand. I dont get these doubles right very often and I dont understand the different tactics between MP and IMPS.

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Jan 4 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

4♦ made but shouldnt have. Opps misplayed then I gave it back, bottom board.
(I was south)

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

I wasnt so much concerned about the result but rather if the double was justified.
Easts initial pass had me thinking he had a much weaker hand. I dont get these doubles right very often and I dont understand the different tactics between MP and IMPS.

Looking at your traveller:

The difference between 4Dx making and 4D making is only 6.25% of a board because most people are going positive with your cards (even though 4C looks as if it should be off to me).

With the opponents NV, marginal matchpoint doubles are less tempting than when they vulnerable. As a thought experiment, suppose that EW were vulnerable.

At imps, if you make a marginal double for one off you are converting either -130 into -710, or +100 into +200, so you need to be about 6:1 to be beating it to double. Simplistically, at matchpoints, if everyone else is making 4C your way for +130 then passing 4D gets 0% whether it makes 9 or 10 tricks; doubling is the only way to try and get any expected matchpoints no matter how unlikely it is to go off.

At love all, it's slightly different. If everyone else is being allowed to play 4C your way, doubling only gains if you are beating it by 2, as +100 is still beaten by +130. However, if 4D is making exactly 9 tricks passing or doubling will still have no effect on your matchpoints compared to the 4C bidders whether or not 4C is making. On this hand, you are really only comparing with people defending diamonds. That means you should double if it's going off, and pass if it's making.

[kenberg]

The likely cost of being wrong is part of the calculation of whether the X is right.

What Frances says all seems right. And my guess that the X didn't cost much seems right as well.

If, by cost analysis, we see X as right for S only when we think we have a better than 50-50 shot at setting it I am not so sure I would double.

As the cards lie it looks to me as if a fairly reasonable line against fairly reasonable defense brings the contract home. Something like:

Club lead to Ace.

Diamond, S rising, anther club ruffed.

Run the spade 9 losing to the Q

Now? A heart is wrong, a club is a sluff ruff, maybe the D queen as an escape. (Declarer could have closed that exit but S could hold AQx).

Now the 7 of spades. The plan is to pitch one heart on the AJ spade combo and another, later, on the long spade, getting to dummy via the diamond ten. This seems like a reasonable plan. Perhaps it can be countered by brilliant defense but I think it is both a plausible plan and apt to work.

I sometimes find this much decried "resulting" to be a useful start on deciding whether the result should have been anticipated. (A couple of hours ago I also doubled a 4D contract making. My error I think. Especially since I could have set it.) Obviously the spade spots here are useful and no one anticipates who is holding which spots. However, one can pretty much assume the diamond Q is useless and that Ds are 6-3, splitting 2-2 as you know. Partner's length in clubs is a minus, and he seems to have little strength.


So even though 4D makes (if I am right that it does make) only with the help of the happy spade spots, it still seems to me that the S player would be hard pressed to say during the auction just where the four defensive tricks will be coming from.


I'm not quite claiming the X is wrong but I don't think it is a clear-cut mp call. I would go very easy on myself or partner here regardless of the choice and regardless of the result.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

At love all, it's slightly different. If everyone else is being allowed to play 4C your way, doubling only gains if you are beating it by 2, as +100 is still beaten by +130. However, if 4D is making exactly 9 tricks passing or doubling will still have no effect on your matchpoints compared to the 4C bidders whether or not 4C is making. On this hand, you are really only comparing with people defending diamonds. That means you should double if it's going off, and pass if it's making.

But some may be defending 3♦. Against those, you won't gain by doubling, but you can lose. (If its going down, you are beating them anyway.)

[vuroth]

5555!