[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Jan 11 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

My take: double by South was light....in its favour is that such doubles are usually passed...anytime N has his usual semi-balanced hand and anytime he is simply weak, he will pass.

not sure what you mean by semibalanced, but having 3 diamonds how many are left for partner?, you shouldn't expect partner to pass very often IMO. not often enough at least.

[billw55]

655321 said:

But North's 6♣ seems insane to me.

gwynn said:

Your partner gets a -100 on a 10 scale for his ridiculous pull. It has to be one of the worst bids in the decade.

cherdanno said:

I also disagree with 6♣

Nigel said:

I don't hate North's 6♣

whereagles said:

North's 6♣ is normal

Siegmund said:

I have no idea what North was smoking

jdonn said:

north should bid 5NT

mikeh said:

As for North....here I have great sympathy

lol

[gwnn]

NOT gwynn.

g
w
n
n

[billw55]

ahhh, my apologies good sir! Serves me right for trying to pronounce it

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Jan 11 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 11 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

My take: double by South was light....in its favour is that such doubles are usually passed...anytime N has his usual semi-balanced hand and anytime he is simply weak, he will pass.

not sure what you mean by semibalanced, but having 3 diamonds how many are left for partner?, you shouldn't expect partner to pass very often IMO. not often enough at least.

semi-balanced includes 4441, 5431, 5422...does that help?

The fact that I have 3 diamonds and that rho appears to have 8 (or more) doesn't mean he can't have these shapes.....he will pass with these shapes unless he has significant offensive values. He should also pass with most unbalanced hands...all of those without significant offensive values.

The direct double of 5♦ constitutes a prediction that the defenders will usually (not: always) take at least 3 tricks on defence coupled with an assurance that the doubler has sufficient transferable values to not disappoint a partner who pulls.

Whether you see N's hand as a clear pull, surely all but those marching to their own drummer concede that N's pull could easily have been correct opposite many, many normal doubles by S. But S didn't have a hand that matched the definition I set out above. While others will have slightly differing defintions, I would be surprised if any expert expressed the view that my definition was grossly misdescriptive of expert standard.

[MFA]

South can't double with this. North should pull to 5N, over which south should bid 6♥ (not 6♣, disagree with jdonn - too pessimistic to try to cater to specifically ♣+♠ when partner could have all sorts of 2- or 3-suiters with various lengths).
I'll mark it: 65% to south.

[hanp]

655321, on Jan 11 2010, 12:55 AM, said:

For example on this hand, after 5♦ P P X P, 5♥ is horrible to me, and passing seems clear.

I think this is a non-argument. Of course south will pass the double with a balanced hand and a trump trick!

There are enough hands where a takeout double can lead to finding a good spot of our own. I think it is probably the single most useful call that we still have available to us so I don't want to give up on it.

We'll have to pass with the penalty doubles, but how often do we get a trump stack after RHO opens at the 5-level? With balanced hands we can still double whenw e are strong enough, when partner passes it can be right.

[bid_em_up]

My initial reaction was to give North 100% for pulling the double. Then I actually looked at the South hand.

100% South for doubling with this hand. Too weak and wrong shape. What is he going to do when partner bids 5S (or even 6)? Cry?

[jdonn]

Why would anyone be so upset to miss 6♥ anyway? After a 5♦ opening I'd be surprised if it's even 50% that trumps are breaking. Meanwhile that also gives scary-high odds that east will be able to double for the lead of a black suit.