[Winstonm]

IMO the choice here should be made before the session begins - as in understandings with partner. My personal thinking is that the higher the bidding goes the more "card showing" a negative double becomes and the less "negative" shape it shows.

I would treat double here as saying, "Partner, I have too much to pass. Do what your hand suggests knowing that I have some values."

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Jan 25 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 25 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time.  So, there's something to be said for consistency.

Sure, but there is another school of thought that says if you aren't sure what is best, then doing what worked best last time will have you do the best overall. I.e., if you have 3 actions and A will be best 40% of the time, B best 35% of the time and C best 25% of the time then you'll end up doing A 40% of the time, B 35% of the time, and C 25% of the time and thus you'll do the better thing more often.

I would rather do the one that works 40 % 100 % of the time.

What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C? Obviously then you won't know if you are "mixing correctly", but should we mix our strategy since we have uncertainty, so we can at least do better than if we happen to be picking C 100% of the time? Cue Hrothgar.

[Jlall]

Echognome, on Jan 25 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C?

Then I would try to use my superior bridge skill/knowledge/intellect combined with my friend's (aka the forums) collective knowledge and wisdom to initiate a debate after which I would have a better idea of which A, B, and C were. Isn't this the case for every bridge situation?

[dake50]

As an aside, I advise going gut feeling on these types of decision. Specifically, always be aggressive in bidding (or conservative in passing) then at least you get a sense of whether you need to tame down or ratchet up. Or like where your results get you. Even noting too small a sample to have reliable evidence, this at least tunes to your decisions. A know thyself attempt.

[MarkDean]

I guess I am old-school this way, but I would bid my long suit.

[eyhung]

An interesting trick that I just learned about from Lawrence's updated Overcalls book is to play that after :

2M (Dbl) 3M

Double = asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper, or to do something smart without one.

You lose the responsive double for the minors, but that is already of dubious value -- some experts don't even play responsive doubles here.

That might help you on the actual hand -- the problem is that Ax is not a good solo stopper when the opponents bid-and-raise because you can't hold up to cut communications (unless you have 8 fast tricks on the side). But it should be ok if partner has Kx. So now you can play 3NT when partner has a 2nd stopper, and avoid it when he doesn't, and get some input as to the best strain (he'll probably show a good heart suit, for example, if the 4-3 Moysian has play). That seems like a reasonable outcome.

[flytoox]

I dbl. I think both 3N and 4D are kind of bids put all eggs in one basket.

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jan 25 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C?

Then I would try to use my superior bridge skill/knowledge/intellect combined with my friend's (aka the forums) collective knowledge and wisdom to initiate a debate after which I would have a better idea of which A, B, and C were. Isn't this the case for every bridge situation?

My answer was intended tongue-in-cheek.

[mcphee]

I must admit Justin, you post some interesting problems.

A lot will depend on dear partner and how aggressive they are. Another point of contention is, who are the opps. On this hand I expect partner has 2S, not 100% of course, therefore I do not expect them to have some pail as a t/o double. Now we come to the part where should I make the 3N bid with 1 stop needing AKx in D to have a play. AJx will present some hope, so I think this narrows down the options to 3NT or double. It's only 50 a pop, so I think I would take the 3N route. If the dude that raised S has a surprise in store for me, very possible, I will not be shocked.

4H bidders, don't ask me to play, even if it works out.

[Little Kid]

Previously I voted for double but didn't clarify why. Here it goes:

It keeps options open. In addition to letting partner help decide the more profitable strain by judging his own hand, it will help you find out how the hands fit. It feels like a descriptive saying that you have some values but are not quite sure about where you want to play.

- 3NT needs a lot to make without a second ♠ stopper because you can't hold up your stopper to keep LHO out (RHO has 3+♠ usually). After the raise partner often only has 2♠s, so the chance that he has a second stopper isn't that high. Considering that many of the hands you are hoping for (eg. with a full/partial ♠ stopper) could have bid 2NT initially, 3NT will need a nice hand from partner to make because you need 9 tricks off the top. In at least some of the cases where 3NT has decent chances (like Kx♠), he can still bid it after the double. Sure you may find partner with Qx♠ and wrongsided the contract, you can't have everything.

- 3NT may make opposite a good hand, but if he is short in ♠ a suit contract rates to make too opposite extras. If partner has a singleton ♠ I would prefer to be in a suit contract. 4♦ is still a possibility after double. If partner bids 4♣ I will correct to 4♦ and maybe he will infer that I was considering ♥s as a strain which may lead us to 4♥. By correcting 4♣ to 4♦ you will also know you probably don't have a great fit so you won't bid too high. If he bids 4♦, he won't have wasted ♠ values so the nice fit and working points may help us find 5♦.

- Penalty is the final option. If partner ends up having some 4333/4432 or RHO has raised on 2card support, 3♠x might very well be our best spot.

Bidding 4♦ feels like giving up on the 3NT and 4♥ game contracts, which I don't want to do at IMPs.

[andy_h]

The problem with double is whenever partner holds 4 hearts. You would agree that if partner has 2-3 spades we'd have to be the one bidding 3NT in case his spades are of Qx or Jxx (although partner having 3 spades is unlikely). Yes it is true that we can get to an ok 3NT when we double as then partner with Kx will sometimes bid it. But think about partner's problem when he removes our double to 4C. He will do this with say 2(43)4 with no spade stopper, 1345, and 1435 (1444 will probably bid 4D to suggest diamonds and hearts). When we choose the X-then-4D-over-4C sequence, we are telling partner that we have 2 places to play and that is diamonds and hearts. Isn't this what we would do with x44x as it's so important to find the right strain in competitive auctions? So how does partner ever work out when to pass 4D (when we only have 3 hearts) and when to correct to 4H when 5D may be one trick too high?

I also think it's down to 3NT or 4D, and have a slight inclination towards 4♦ as it can still get us towards 4H if partner has 15(34) and bidding 3NT here seems like we need some fast tricks. Basically I agree with gnasher.

[Jlall]

andy_h, on Jan 26 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

I also think it's down to 3NT or 4D, and have a slight inclination towards 4♦ as it can still get us towards 4H if partner has 15(34) and bidding 3NT here seems like we need some fast tricks. Basically I agree with gnasher.

Well done, partner was indeed 1534 and chose to pass 3N, and would bid 4H over 4D.

[CSGibson]

I'm betting that this would make an interesting simulation. I'm also willing to bet that 4♦ is the long term winner, both at matchpoints and imps. Not only is 4 diamonds more likely to be a plus score in the long run, I believe that 5 diamonds is going to make as often as 3N, and that bidding 4 diamonds gives is a chance of getting to 6 diamonds when that is right.

[Jlall]

I spent the first part of my bridge career passing with this hand type and came to the conclusion that that was pretty lol. Since then I've bid 3N on the basis that if 3N is our spot, I'll probably have to bid it. Since then I have gotten like no good results from that.

I am going to start just bidding 4D. Thx BBF!

[FrancesHinden]

Maybe I shouldn't enter this debate now, but I think it's very close between double and 4D. I hate 3NT - partner has made a take-out double, we aren't expecting him to provide a second spade stop and we are light in high cards.

It's important to define what double means. I play it as showing (in theory) two places to play, not promisting or denying four hearts (so e.g. double... 4D 4H shows 4-4 or 4-5 in hearts and clubs). This means that partner will only bid 4H over the double with 5 of them. However, 4D will also get us to 4H if partner has something slightly extra with five hearts, because he'll bid it. I also expect parter to pass the double with a balanced hand including a doubleton spade much of the time, which is likely to be our best spot.

Make the hand Ax KJx J10xxx xxx and double looks more clear.
Make the hand Ax Jxx KJ10xx xxx and 4D looks more clear.

[NickRW]

I think that with this sort of hand in this sort of auction you should not beat yourself up about getting it wrong sometimes. Even if one action can be shown to have distinctly better +EV than all the others I think there will be a lot of hands where it works out wrong.

My gut feel personally is 4♦ - but sometimes you have to admit that enemy preemptive action means you're in a guess situation.

Nick

[MarkDean]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

I spent the first part of my bridge career passing with this hand type and came to the conclusion that that was pretty lol. Since then I've bid 3N on the basis that if 3N is our spot, I'll probably have to bid it. Since then I have gotten like no good results from that.

I am going to start just bidding 4D. Thx BBF!

You're welcome!