[Phil]

x QT9x KTxxx KT9

r/w, Swiss

(p) - p - (3♠) - x;
(4♠) - ?

[pooltuna]

Phil, on May 13 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

x QT9x KTxxx KT9

r/w, Swiss

(p) - p - (3♠) - x;
(4♠) - ?

I can probably handle most choices except pass.

[cherdanno]

I would bid (4N). Maybe they bid 5♠ anyway.

[mohitz]

I think we have plenty to bid something here.

I like 4NT. If partner bids 5♣, correct to 5♦. X might win if partner has 2335(or 1336?). But 4NT gets us to our best fit in all other cases i think.

[Fluffy]

4NT also for me, its a slight overbid in my opinion but its ok. Double second close choice.

[billw55]

huh, I would have thought that 4NT emphasizes the minors and tends to take hearts out of the picture. Therefore I would double. But so far people like 4NT so maybe I am wrong.

[andy_h]

I'd double

[Phil]

The 4N bidders lose 3. The doublers lose 5. The entire hand:

---

I doubled - somehow it felt wrong to compete to the 5 level on my aceless 8.

[cherdanno]

I don't understand double. Well I know it's convertible values or responsive or s.th., but I just think partner will hardly ever pull. Normal takeout shapes can't have a lot of additional offense, so unless he has a void, or maybe when he is 6331, he will leave it in. We can tell from our hand that a void pretty unlikely.
Do we really want to defend their 10 or 11-card fit doubled when we have no aces?

[gnasher]

Phil, on May 14 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

The 4N bidders lose 3.

Maybe. They haven't doubled us yet. Neither opponent's hand is overflowing with defencive cards.

[655321]

Phil, on May 14 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

The 4N bidders lose 3. The doublers lose 5.

I don't understand. Is the rest of the auction (and play, for that matter) cast in stone?

[Phil]

655321, on May 14 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

Phil, on May 14 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

The 4N bidders lose 3. The doublers lose 5.

I don't understand. Is the rest of the auction (and play, for that matter) cast in stone?

The defense to 5D is pretty obvious don't you think?

[655321]

Well, I was trying to make the point that it doesn't make any sense to assign an IMP score for a hand when the problem was a bidding decision in the middle of the auction. Still some decisions to be made in the rest of the auction and the play/defense!

For example, I play double as takeout oriented, and I think it is very reasonable for North to bid over the double. Either an agricultural 5♥ directly, or perhaps 4NT followed by either bidding 5♥ over South's 5♦, or passing 5♦ then pulling 5♦ doubled to 5♥. Lots of possibilities, the auction is not over!

I accept that you and your partner probably play double as more 'values' than 'takeout', so that bidding may not be an option for your partnership. But then, as cherdanno pointed out, double is fairly unattractive.

[Phil]

655321, on May 15 2010, 12:23 AM, said:

For example, I play double as takeout oriented, and I think it is very reasonable for North to bid over the double.

This is a fairly new partnership. This like many other auctions has not been discussed.

I usually play responsive double to the moon in auctions like this. I think 'values' is more expert standard, but 2(443) / 2(533) / (3244) or maybe even 1444 is the typical shape.

What is your usual pattern for one of your takeout doubles?