[OleBerg]

Scoring: XIMP

---

You opne 1NT, 12-14.

1NT - (pass) - 4♠ - (X)
Pass - (5♥) - Pass - (Pass)
?

[gnasher]

Double. It probably won't make overtricks.

[jjbrr]

Double seems painfully obvious.

[CSGibson]

Double.

[neilkaz]

Another doubler here.

[Jlall]

seriously?

[Pict]

Pass.

I'd give myself less than 50% to take this off.

[jdonn]

Double? Come on last-poster, that is one of the biggest LOLs I've ever seen. Watch them lose control on spade leads even if trumps could be picked up and even if a spade doesn't hold up and even if partner doesn't have any outside tricks.

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Mar 27 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

Double? Come on last-poster, that is one of the biggest LOLs I've ever seen. Watch them lose control on spade leads even if trumps could be picked up and even if a spade doesn't hold up and even if partner doesn't have any outside tricks.

to be fair, he is only stating the odds that he would take it off, not the odds it would go off against competent defense.

[Pict]

If you guys are lucky enough to play vulnerable opponents who convert 4♠ doubled almost certainly off to a 5-level minus score, well done for your choice of competition.

As for the puerile comments about late posters and only on his defence, how pathetic can it get. Put down the glass for a moment and think.

If this hand really is an easy penalty your opponents don't belong in this part of the forum

[CSGibson]

Pict, on Mar 27 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

If you guys are lucky enough to play vulnerable opponents who convert 4♠ doubled almost certainly off to a 5-level minus score, well done for your choice of competition.

As for the puerile comments about late posters and only on his defence, how pathetic can it get.  Put down the glass for a moment and think.

If this hand really is an easy penalty your opponents don't belong in this part of the forum

I think that with trump splitting badly, an obvious tap suit, and good trumps including the T, that this contract will nearly always go off no matter what partner has. Opponents have bid at the 5 level, but there's nothing saying they got it right, and a lot in my hand saying they got it wrong.

Who cares if the opponents "belong in this part of the forum"? Listen to the bidding and look at your hand, it's surely correct imp and matchpoint odds both to X this.

[rogerclee]

Pict, on Mar 27 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

If this hand really is an easy penalty your opponents don't belong in this part of the forum

One could also argue that if you pass then you don't belong in this part of the forum.

[jdonn]

Maybe the opponents are down 1 over your game and made a perfect decision but it's still right to double them. Maybe they would be making or down 1 but are down 2 or more because they are not psychic and didn't know AKTx of hearts would be in one hand. Your comment is ridiculous, great players make mistakes and get too high all the time. If RHO doubled on a good 1345 hand and his partner bid 5♥ on a 1651 do they not belong in this part of the forums?

I mean what are you saying, you check your hand for AKQ of hearts and if they aren't there then pass without looking?

[gnasher]

Another consideration is that the worst that can happen if double goes wrong is a 5-IMP loss - even if they are making, it's inconceivable that they'll know enough to redouble. The potential gains, on the other hand, are much larger: if ♠A wins we might well get 500.

[dburn]

CSGibson, on Mar 27 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 27 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

If you guys are lucky enough to play vulnerable opponents who convert 4♠ doubled almost certainly off to a 5-level minus score, well done for your choice of competition.

As for the puerile comments about late posters and only on his defence, how pathetic can it get.  Put down the glass for a moment and think.

If this hand really is an easy penalty your opponents don't belong in this part of the forum

I think that with trump splitting badly, an obvious tap suit, and good trumps including the T, that this contract will nearly always go off no matter what partner has. Opponents have bid at the 5 level, but there's nothing saying they got it right, and a lot in my hand saying they got it wrong.

Who cares if the opponents "belong in this part of the forum"? Listen to the bidding and look at your hand, it's surely correct imp and matchpoint odds both to X this.

Well, those four spades to the ace and the complete lack of anything in the minor suits do not really amount to "a lot in your hand saying they got it wrong". Unsurprisingly (at least, to my way of thinking) the opponents had nine hearts, one of them had no spades, and you could not beat 5♥ doubled (partner's king of diamonds proved not to be a side-suit trick).

Mind you, declarer had to play it well, but since declarer was Lars Blakset, this was to be expected. Perhaps it was also to be expected that he and his partner would not voluntarily contract for eleven tricks, vulnerable against not, if they expected to go down several.

Still, I am suitably chastened. When OleBerg and I were commentating on the deal this afternoon, I opined that North should not double before I had actually seen that the contract was going to make - I thought it would go one down, but felt that the odds did not favour doubling a freely-bid game at IMPs unless you thought it more likely to go two down than to make. Of course, you might double to protect your position if you thought that 4♠ was going to make, but the auction had suggested what was true: that 4♠ had a bunch of minor-suit losers, so that ought not to have been a concern (although it would have made on a heart lead). If, though, everyone here would double, I guess I was wrong.

[aguahombre]

Of course, we would double. We all missed the most important clue which would lead to not doubling: the fact that it was posted.

[scotty]

I'd like to see the entire hand

[dburn]

scotty, on Mar 27 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

I'd like to see the entire hand

Scoring: XIMP

---

Don't remember the spots and can't find the record, but this was the hand in its essentials. Maybe doubling this East is a long-term winner after all - West didn't have to be quite as suitable as that.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Mar 28 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

Pict, on Mar 27 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

If this hand really is an easy penalty your opponents don't belong in this part of the forum

One could also argue that if you pass then you don't belong in this part of the forum.

Perhaps Lars Blakset doesn't belong in this part of the forum either.
I would have doubled as well, but agree that many comments were infantile. I guess double is not so obvious after reading David's comments.

[kfay]

Did he really pull with this hand? wtf? That's really bad, imo