[DarrenE]

[HIDDEN]

Scoring: IMP

---

North deals and opens 1♥
You Pass
South bids 1♠
Partner bids 1N (agreed as 16-18 Bal)
North bids 4♠
Your Call?

Sorry added twice!

[Rossoneri]

Would be tempted to X, but it would depend on who partner is....

[Dirk Kuijt]

Dbl can't possibly be right. After all, look at the pros and cons for double:

Pro
1. We have 21-23 HCP
2. We have at least 2 spade tricks
3. We have at least 6 spades

Con
1. It is a forum hand

The cons win by a mile (kilometer for the non-Americans).

[mohitz]

Something is weird. I think partner meant 1NT as minors!

[Mbodell]

It is clear from bridge logic that someone doesn't have the hand they are promising. Most likely it is partner. It is very unlikely that all red North psyched both the 1♥ and/or 4♠ call. And it is weird to psych in response when partner has opened. Therefore bridge logic is sufficient to tell that it is likely partner who doesn't have his call.

Partner has somewhere between 0 and 1 ♠ and doesn't have the A. Partner also has at most 3 hearts. This seems like it is a minor oriented hand from partner. I mean maybe partner bid it with something like K Ax Kxx AKxxxxx, but that doesn't leave a lot of good cards for the opponents to have. Maybe Qxxx KQxxxx Axx - for the opening bidder and Jxxx - Qxxxx Qxxx for the responder all fits, but most likely partner just has minors (and thinks that's what 1nt is) or else he's fibbed with a too weak hand intentionally.

Don't double and give away the situation, pass and hope to set them 1 due to bad splits in all the suits.

[the hog]

I can't understand these comments about partner having the minors. I am assuming from the op that this is a regular partner, with whom you have played many times and discussed system till the cows come home. On that basis, you KNOW what partner has for his 1NT bid, 15-18 and NOT the minors and this is a clear double. However if you think your partner may have psyched, which may well be the case, then I would pass. However you don't NOT double because you think he may have the minors.

[jdonn]

1♠ is occasionally bid as a psych but that's infrequent and very rare to the point of being virtually unheard of when vul. And opener would never be psyching like this also vul. So partner must have meant 1NT as minors even if that's not our agreement, since it's very common to have misunderstandings over what this 1NT shows.

I would add that even if responder did psych we don't have a game here (at least not one we were about to bid) with opener being so strong, so we would get a very good score for defending 4♠ undoubled down 300 or 400 anyway. I think doubling is just wrong. Not hopeless since even opposite minors they could be down, but certainly not something I would do in this situation.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Apr 15 2010, 01:09 PM, said:

snipped
it's very common to have misunderstandings over what this 1NT shows.

I disagree with this if you are playing with your regular partner with whom you have spent countless hours of system discussion. If you haven't discussed system, what is the point of playing as you are flying blind?

[jdonn]

Either you have seen something about "playing with your regular partner with whom you have spent countless hours of system discussion" in the original post that I don't see, or you are forcing your own assumptions on me for no reason. All I see is that we have an agreement. Well people forget or mess up their agreements all the time, especially in a situation like this where there are two relatively common agreements.

And I'm sorry that you don't see any point in playing any other way but I do so all the time with very few problems. Even here where there is likely a "mistake" we may have a hand to figure that out, like we actually do, and no harm is done.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Apr 15 2010, 12:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 15 2010, 01:09 PM, said:

snipped
it's very common to have misunderstandings over what this 1NT shows.

I disagree with this if you are playing with your regular partner with whom you have spent countless hours of system discussion. If you haven't discussed system, what is the point of playing as you are flying blind?

Well, maybe a cow flew by and partner forgot everything you have discussed. The point that you have no game your way whether partner has minors or not is still valid. If the opps have made a big mistake, you will bring back a nice gain undoubled. If partner has made the mistake you will bring back a push undoubled, or a minus 5 or minus 8 doubled.

Is this one of those "fielding a misbid" things?

[the hog]

jdonn, on Apr 15 2010, 01:19 PM, said:

Either you have seen something about "playing with your regular partner with whom you have spent countless hours of system discussion" in the original post that I don't see, or you are forcing your own assumptions on me for no reason. All I see is that we have an agreement. Well people forget or mess up their agreements all the time, especially in a situation like this where there are two relatively common agreements.

And I'm sorry that you don't see any point in playing any other way but I do so all the time with very few problems. Even here where there is likely a "mistake" we may have a hand to figure that out, like we actually do, and no harm is done.

Well he did post in this forum and not in the Beginner's forum, so I think my assumption is not unreasonable.

[jdonn]

Well it doesn't belong in that forum, a beginner wouldn't be capable of realizing partner probably doesn't have 16-18 balanced here.

Although I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. That if you are playing with an infrequent partner or have failed to spend "countless hours" discussing your system you are a beginner? That if you have a system misunderstanding you are a beginner? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that, despite how it looks at first glance, you aren't falling into your past pattern of slinging insults around when you have no argument to make.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on Apr 15 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

Is this one of those "fielding a misbid" things?

I think this is a serious issue. I voted in the other thread to pass. I have a partner with whom this 1N is very clearly documented as 16-18, but it hasn't come up for a while and I would still pass.

But if every time 4♠ makes the score is going to be adjusted to 4♠x making on the grounds that I have fielded a misbid, then maybe I should double anyway so at least I can gain when 4♠ goes off.

[Fluffy]

this really sounds like a UI problem rather than judgement one.

my gut reaction seeing this hand is: partner has minors and has misbid. So I would pass at the table. I have to be almost 100% sure of it being natural NT to double.

[helene_t]

Agree with Josh.

[P_Marlowe]

X.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

I believe partner, I don't like to base my actions on partner forgetting something as simple as this. If I'm right, I'll trust my partner's calls less, if I'm wrong partner won't trust me anymore.

If partner has his hand, it probably means LHO has 3♠ with a ♥ void with less than 2/1 strength. He didn't want to bid 1NT, so he choose the smallest lie.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on Apr 15 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

this really sounds like a UI problem rather than judgement one.

Well, if the fact that the opponents think they have an 8 or 9-card fit, are vulnerable, and think they can make game is UI to me, I guess my pass will be adjusted. I might not be calmly accepting that adjustment, even if the rules regarding deportment say I should.

[Cascade]

Does anyone play double as takeout or convertible values here?

[aguahombre]

Free, on Apr 15 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

If partner has his hand, it probably means LHO has 3♠ with a ♥ void with less than 2/1 strength. He didn't want to bid 1NT, so he choose the smallest lie.

If lefty has that, we still don't have game anywhere; the final contract will not be duplicated at the other table, and we will still gain a lot by passing. Double is a no-win call.