[ArtK78]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - (1♠) - 2♦ - (4♠)
P - (P) - ?

---

(1) Do you agree with 2♦ on the first round?

(2) Now what?

[mikegill]

I would just pass. I think bidding now is inconsistent with my 2♦ bid the first time. Partner heard my 2♦ and he's the one who ostensibly has our shape.

[rogerclee]

I would just pass, down 2 seems pretty unlikely to me.

[jjbrr]

pass. agree with 2♦

[pooltuna]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 01:35 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - (1♠) - 2♦ - (4♠)
P - (P) - ?

---

(1) Do you agree with 2♦ on the first round?

(2) Now what?

1) I probably would have tried 3♦ which for me is a LR

2) Now I pass and try to beat it.

[Codo]

It obviously depends on your style whether this is a 2 ♦ bid, but it is in mine- not enough strength for a stronger move, not enough shape for 3♦.

Now I am done and pass, wtp.

[PhantomSac]

wow, all serious comments so far... lemme offer up an LOL for bidding anything now.

2D is fine of course, what else could you do?

[jdonn]

I typed a sarcastic comment 10 minutes ago then changed my mind. Way to undo my restraint!

[ArtK78]

I guess I just followed my table feel more than the cards in front of me.

I "felt" that there was something wrong with the bidding and that we needed to move on this hand. So I doubled. I was right, but it wound up costing me 5 IMPs.

Pard, with --- AQxx AJxxx QJxx sat for the double, and we were -590. Diamonds makes either 10 or 11 tricks (diamonds were 4-0).

Should partner have acted in direct seat over 4♠? Having passed 4♠ and hearing the double in passout seat, should partner pull to 5♦?

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

I guess I just followed my table feel more than the cards in front of me.

I "felt" that there was something wrong with the bidding and that we needed to move on this hand. So I doubled. I was right, but it wound up costing me 5 IMPs.

Pard, with --- AQxx AJxxx QJxx sat for the double, and we were -590. Diamonds makes either 10 or 11 tricks (diamonds were 4-0).

Should partner have acted in direct seat over 4♠? Having passed 4♠ and hearing the double in passout seat, should partner pull to 5♦?

Something that surprises me is how a lot of people will pass a bid like 4S, hear from their partner that they want to defend 4S doubled, and then come alive and pull. It is inconsistent; if you were not willing to bid 5D over the set of all hands by partner, you certainly can't bid 5D over the set of hands by partner that have good defense.

Anyway I would have bid 5D the first time.

[cherdanno]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

I guess I just followed my table feel more than the cards in front of me.

I "felt" that there was something wrong with the bidding and that we needed to move on this hand. So I doubled. I was right, but it wound up costing me 5 IMPs.

Pard, with --- AQxx AJxxx QJxx sat for the double, and we were -590. Diamonds makes either 10 or 11 tricks (diamonds were 4-0).

Should partner have acted in direct seat over 4♠? Having passed 4♠ and hearing the double in passout seat, should partner pull to 5♦?

After you have found a fit, doubles are for penalty, not for takeout.

[PhantomSac]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

I "felt" that there was something wrong with the bidding and that we needed to move on this hand. So I doubled. I was right, but it wound up costing me 5 IMPs.

lol

Your double says that you "felt" you could beat them. You were wrong. If you really "felt" that you should move on, then you should move on.

[ArtK78]

There are already 2 posts that state that my double is for penalties.

What hand can bid 2♦ and then have a penalty double of 4♠? Doesn't it make more sense that the double here should say that we need to do something, whether it is defend 4♠x or bid on to 5♦, but we should not be defending 4♠ undoubled?

Given that we are bidding diamonds and they are bidding spades, it doesn't seem all that likely that they are bidding to sac (as opposed to our bidding hearts and their bidding spades). The 4♠ bidder is probably bidding to make. It seems to me that a penalty double is highly unlikely on this auction, and the double should be "cooperative."

I know - the obvious counter is that what hand can bid 2♦ and then want to act over 4♠. Does this mean that we just have to sell out when the opponents preempt? Here is a hand where we should be bidding one more, but it did not happen.

By the way, at the other table the contract was 4♠ undoubled, but the player with my hand passed over the 1♠ overcall.

[ArtK78]

PhantomSac, on Mar 1 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

I "felt" that there was something wrong with the bidding and that we needed to move on this hand.  So I doubled.  I was right, but it wound up costing me 5 IMPs.

lol

Your double says that you "felt" you could beat them. You were wrong. If you really "felt" that you should move on, then you should move on.

No, I did not "feel" that we could beat them. I "felt" that we should do something other than pass out 4♠. That was correct - we belonged in 5♦.

[whereagles]

Double. Pard is either balanced 12-14 or unbalanced with spade shortage. In the 1st case there's no way they're making this and in the 2nd case he'll probably pull the double and we might well make 5♦.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

There are already 2 posts that state that my double is for penalties.

What hand can bid 2♦ and then have a penalty double of 4♠? Doesn't it make more sense that the double here should say that we need to do something, whether it is defend 4♠x or bid on to 5♦, but we should not be defending 4♠ undoubled?

Given that we are bidding diamonds and they are bidding spades, it doesn't seem all that likely that they are bidding to sac (as opposed to our bidding hearts and their bidding spades). The 4♠ bidder is probably bidding to make. It seems to me that a penalty double is highly unlikely on this auction, and the double should be "cooperative."

I know - the obvious counter is that what hand can bid 2♦ and then want to act over 4♠. Does this mean that we just have to sell out when the opponents preempt? Here is a hand where we should be bidding one more, but it did not happen.

By the way, at the other table the contract was 4♠ undoubled, but the player with my hand passed over the 1♠ overcall.

Classic ArtK78 post, I love it.

[lmilne]

whereagles, on Mar 1 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

Double. Pard is either balanced 12-14 or unbalanced with spade shortage. In the 1st case there's no way they're making this and in the 2nd case he'll probably pull the double and we might well make 5♦.

Don't agree with either of these statements. All the need is a bit of distribution and the 19 point game will roll home (possibly with an over), and partner is never going to rip the double.

OP's partner should bid 5♦. It would've been his mistake to defend 4♠, not OP's passout.

[RichMor]

ArtK78, on Mar 1 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

I know - the obvious counter is that what hand can bid 2♦ and then want to act over 4♠.  Does this mean that we just have to sell out when the opponents preempt?  Here is a hand where we should be bidding one more, but it did not happen.

Art,

Yes, we just have to sell out after we offer a single raise and the opps drive to game.

RichM

[jdonn]

I notice you say "we" should be bidding more on this hand, which is true. However don't forget "we" involves two people here.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Mar 1 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

I notice you say "we" should be bidding more on this hand, which is true. However don't forget "we" involves two people here.

I fully agree.

Who should act? The 0454 opener in direct seat over 4♠? The player with a balanced 9 count in passout seat? Neither?

I just find it hard to accept that we have to be -420 on these cards when we can be +400 (or +100 if they bid to 5♠).