[Little Kid]

Scoring: IMP

(3♦)-?

---

[jdonn]

Not obvious. Ugh I pass. Feels wimpy but 3 in each major and very bad spades, and ace in diamonds is the wrong place to have it.

Obv if you act you would double. I would double 2♦ with this hand but not 3.

[Jlall]

I double, not obvious but I fear having my 3N stolen from me.

[Echognome]

I would pass. Definitely possible I'm being stolen from.

[ArtK78]

I would pass over 3♦ and also over 2♦. Need a better hand to act directly with only 3-3 in the majors.

Partner is aware of this and will balance freely.

[Pict]

I'd pass.

If you compete partner is keen to bid game. In a way it can be even worse after 2D rather than 3D.

[wclass___]

Yes, obvious Pass.

I don't think partner will bid making 3N that often, as i have stopper on my own and normally he will be willing to play 4M as he is likely to have some major length.

Hand isn't offensive nor rich in intermediate honors, selling out with this hand seems like a suicide. Not really keen on winning partscore fight either, so i don't really see what the double would accomplish. Partner can still make his bid and so can opponent.

IMO these rare making games that we wouldn't find with Pass, don't outweight "numbers" we are asking for. Huh... If opponents have preempted quite a lot of good games goes down...

[mikegill]

I would double, but agree not obvious. I would expect partner to pass some pretty reasonable hands in balancing seat, even with a 5cM if he has 3+♦, but my style is generally that the hand with the shortness is responsible for being aggressive. I think pass looks a lot better if RHO is red, since partner will have fewer diamonds on average and therefore be more likely to balance.

[Fluffy]

close for me, and I act sound, so with those many passers I guess I have to pass as well

[655321]

Double for me, but I don't think it is clear. If we had 1 diamond we would have an obvious double, if we had 3 we would have an obvious pass.

The downside of doubling doesn't seem to be numbers - if partner makes a minimum response I don't think we are being doubled very often. It seem to me that exchanging +50 for -100 is a much more common downside. Still, in return we might get to some more making games.

I don't think it is enough to say 'Pass because partner knows I can have a good hand so he will double freely'. Whether or not partner doubles will depend on his diamond length. Here we have 2, which leaves enough for partner to have 2 or 3 quite often. That doesn't mean we should double, just that partner won't always be able to double if we pass.

[Little Kid]

Partner said this was a completely straightforward pass for him. I liked double on this hand because of the aces, the vulnerability and the (relative) shortage in diamonds. With shortage in the preemptors suit I try to act when possible in order not to put too much pressure on partner to bid in balancing seat with length (especially as opener could definitely have only 6♦s at this seat and vul).

Thought I was going crazy here for not finding pass obvious, thanks for the responses!

[rogerclee]

655321, on Feb 17 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

The downside of doubling doesn't seem to be numbers - if partner makes a minimum response I don't think we are being doubled very often.

Really? Wouldn't that give my LHO on average something like a 14 count?

Just want to add that if partner balances with a double we have a very easy 3N bid (very likely to be right), whereas if we had doubled we would be very likely to play a silly 4-3 4M game.

Overall this factor and the likelihood of going for a digit makes this basically a wtp pass to me.

[jdonn]

I think the largest downside of doubling is partner going to 4 of a major and going down too often, perhaps multiple tricks.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious pass. The hand is too flat.

[Siegmund]

Pass is at least moderately obvious. Wishing you could double and then passing reluctantly is a reasonable alternative. I could make myself double 2♦ with these cards, but not 3.

[PhantomSac]

655321, on Feb 17 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

Double for me

♥ I knew I could count on you.

[655321]

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

655321, on Feb 17 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

The downside of doubling doesn't seem to be numbers - if partner makes a minimum response I don't think we are being doubled very often.

Really? Wouldn't that give my LHO on average something like a 14 count?

Certainly we will be doubled sometimes, but I do think that all the Aces offer some protection against being doubled in a partscore - on many of the more marginal hands LHO won't be looking at AQJ of a sidesuit sitting over our King (3 tricks maybe), he will be looking at KQJ instead and won't be sure how many will stand up (one trick maybe).

Being doubled in 4M seems more likely to me, but I still like the initial double.

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

Just want to add that if partner balances with a double we have a very easy 3N bid (very likely to be right), whereas if we had doubled we would be very likely to play a silly 4-3 4M game.

True, although it could be argued that you don't want to play in 3NT when partner has two small diamonds and they break 6-3, so by doubling you cleverly avoid the cold-off 3NT and play a good 4-3 4M game instead.    But yes, perhaps diamonds are 7-2, or perhaps we have 9 top tricks.

Actually if partner can bid 3NT over our double that should be a good contract, and those hands are all likely to be those where partner would pass out 3♦.

[hanp]

I would pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

Move the Ace of diamonds to another suit, than you will find a lot
more company, if you choose to double.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pooltuna]

Doubling with this hand givess partner way too many no win options too often. As a rough gauge you should save X for 6 or 7 loser hands at the bottom end. This one is an 8