[jmcw]

Scoring: IMP

East opened 5♦
South bids DBL. pulled to the hopeless 6♣. Down 2 for a loss of 11IMP.

---

.

North argued that South (me) was too weak for a DBL. Well, I'm not so sure! hence the post. Thanks for your replies to this one---

[655321]

North 100%

The way I play, double of 5♦ has no takeout implications at all, it is just cards.
Partner shouldn't even think about removing the double with less than 6-5 shape, or a 7 card suit, etc, and even then pass could be right.

South's double is nothing to be proud of, but I would have doubled too, somebody has to double these contracts or you score something like 150 or 200. But North's 6♣ seems insane to me.

[gwnn]

You were a bit too weak for your x. You get an 8 on a 10 scale. But i would double too to be honest. 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.

[Jlall]

Hmm I actually disagree completely with 655321 for once in my life

[cherdanno]

I hate the double, but I also disagree with 6♣, 5N seems better (and pass expecting 500 would be quite reasonable).
Obviously I think the auction should go 5D p p X AP.

[Fluffy]

south has an easy pass of 5♦, not because lack of strenght (he is a bit weak IMO as well but no biggie), because wrong distribution.

North on the other hand has an easy double of 5♦, then south should pass, but if he decides to bid 5♥ it will be ok as well.

[jdonn]

I blame south. I don't see why he doubled. If he let north double then south would pass, or even if he bid hearts at least he would be in a perfectly non-ridiculous contract. South even knows north is short in diamonds, so if north doesn't double then you probably aren't missing much and can just hope to set them.

[Hanoi5]

Would we be blaming the double so much if the bidding had been 5D-X-P-5NT-P-6H-All pass? All you need is to ruff a diamond in dummy...

I blame North, though South's action is not that clear either. 60-40, 70-30.

[nigel_k]

South 70%.

It's interesting how good players have completely different ideas about how to bid over preempts. I consider double with South completely wrong and would be quite content if it went all pass. Much prefer double by N and pass by S as Cherdanno suggested.

After South's double, it is a choice between pass and 5NT for North. At MP I would just take the 500 and expect that other tables will either miss slam or bid the wrong one. At IMPs against good opponents I think it is very close though.

I don't hate North's 6♣ but South will often bid 6♣ over 5NT with four of them and there aren't that many hands where 6♣ will be best when he has only three. You want to give parter options if possible since he is under pressure and could also have a good hand with a doubleton club eg Qxxx KJxxx Ax AK.

[P_Marlowe]

South has a double?

Sry, South has a Pass, and North has a Double, and South will pass the
double from North.

This means 100% South, or about even, because it is a matter of partnership
agreement.

With kin regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I'd say south.. no shape and a bit weakish for a power double. North's 6♣ is normal, though 5NT is probably better, intending to pass doubler's 6♣ and pull 6♥ to 6♠.

[Cyberyeti]

Near 100% south, double is horrible, how do you want to play 5Sx opposite 5 indifferent spades which is quite a likely result.

I agree S should pass and N should double, which S will pass.

[655321]

Haha, everyone hates the way I play doubles vs 5 level openings. I will try to explain why I like to play this way, although I am sure I won't convince anyone.

I do play takeout doubles vs 4♠ openings, but bidding 5/4 is a lot different from bidding 5/5. Even playing takeout doubles, I would pass partner's 5 level double almost always. For example on this hand, after 5♦ P P X P, 5♥ is horrible to me, and passing seems clear. So if I will almost never be removing a shape-specific double, it seems logical to allow non shape-specific doubles. Singletons in unbid suits, length in their suit, etc. The price for being able to double more often is that the double will be removed even less often than almost never.

The South hand here is now a hand where doubling is plausible (but not clear) under these doubling conditions, when of course it must pass if double is more takeout oriented. If I had opened this hand with 1♥ or 1NT, and the opponents reached 5♦ after RHO showed long diamonds I would not think of doubling. But after a 5♦ opening, I do think that 5♦ is more likely than not to go down, plus double is now the only way to let partner know I have a decent hand. Doubling will collect some numbers opposite hands where partner would just pass out 5♦ (as well as turning -400 into -550 or -800 on bad days).

[Siegmund]

South is a bit subminimum, but I can understand taking that view of his hand. But I have no idea what North was smoking. Even if you give south 40% of the blame there is 200% left over for North.

[Cyberyeti]

Siegmund, on Jan 11 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

South is a bit subminimum, but I can understand taking that view of his hand. But I have no idea what North was smoking. Even if you give south 40% of the blame there is 200% left over for North.

Maybe he expected S to have Qxxx, K10xx, x, AKQx which is much closer to what he's shown than the hand he actually has.

[the hog]

South 100%. This hand does not come close to a double. I would bid 5NT with the Nth hand after the double.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Jan 10 2010, 09:56 PM, said:

Would we be blaming the double so much if the bidding had been 5D-X-P-5NT-P-6H-All pass? All you need is to ruff a diamond in dummy...

And no natural trump loser, no spade ruff, and no unlucky trump loser when West ruffs in from 9x and we later play for him to have had J9x.

[whereagles]

655321, on Jan 11 2010, 05:55 AM, said:

Haha, everyone hates the way I play doubles vs 5 level openings. I will try to explain why I like to play this way, although I am sure I won't convince anyone.

There's a case for playing it like you advocate and a case for playing it otherwise I do prefer the "otherwise" variant.

[jdonn]

Btw even though north should bid 5NT, I didn't give him any blame because south should bid 6♣ over that anyway. How can he risk bidding 6♥ when his partner might have just the black suits?

[mikeh]

The best way to get an objective view of the rights and wrongs of this hand would be to post the S hand as one problem and the North, perhaps a week or two later (or earlier) as another...preferably using a different login name.

As it is, everyone knows that the sequence led to a disaster, and there will be few amongst us who can correctly state that knowledge of both hands and the outcome has no impact on our views.

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.

Against it is that S can't even be sure of a plus score...if LHO is sitting with the nuts...say N's hand with the club K to boot, the redouble will make for an ugly result. Even worse is the scenario that unfolded: partner, short in diamonds and with shape and power plays S for a more prototypical double. There is simply no room for S to be overbidding here.

So I don't like double...the fact that I sympathize with the desire to double doesn't mean that I think it is 'almost ok'...I don't...I think it is an error, and not a minor one.

As for North....here I have great sympathy. You don't need to improve S's hand by much in order for slam to be good, and settling for +300 or +500, which is what N can expect if E has a good 5♦ call, seems a little pusillanimous.

I agree with those who advocate 5N, if one is going to bid. As Josh observes, this should fetch 6♣. Indeed, the fact that several suggested this sequence would lead to 6♥ demonstrates the seductive effect of seeing both hands....I doubt that many would bid 5♥ over 5N if they hadn't seen N's hand.

I personally tend to overbid when faced with N's decision type....so I suspect that I might well have found myself in slam....the only dissuading factor is that the clubs are woefully weak, and I am likely to need to avoid a club loser in any slam we reach....say S has Qxxx KJxx x AKJx....a clearer double...we still rate to fail.

As it is, since N will never go wrong if S passes, and S has an easy pass both initially and after a balancing double, the disaster, tho avoidable by N, is 90% S's fault, imo.