[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

(1♦) X (2♦) 4♠
(5♦) X (P) ?

---

[rogerclee]

Pass, down 3 seems reasonably likely with our stiff club, and Jx of diamonds means that making 5S is not that likely.

[mikeh]

Unless LHO is known to be the type who frequently takes phantom sacs, I'd place him/her with 6 diamonds and shape and partner with extra values and something like 3=4=1=5 shape. I bid 5♠. I'm not going to posit hands for partner....suffice it to say that I expect to make 11 tricks opposite an extra-values double more often than I expect to go plus 500 against 5♦.


While -50 against +300 is a real possibility, my experience is that in a mp field there will be enough tables not saving that I need to try to protect my 420/450.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on Sep 16 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

Unless LHO is known to be the type who frequently takes phantom sacs, I'd place him/her with 6 diamonds and shape and partner with extra values and something like 3=4=1=5 shape. I bid 5♠. I'm not going to posit hands for partner....suffice it to say that I expect to make 11 tricks opposite an extra-values double more often than I expect to go plus 500 against 5♦.


While -50 against +300 is a real possibility, my experience is that in a mp field there will be enough tables not saving that I need to try to protect my 420/450.

Yep. 5♠ at the table, opposite my partner. The only worry on the forum is that either the first double or the second double, or both, would not have occurred. Will wait for the full deal on that matter.

[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

---

(1♦) X (2♦) 4♠
(5♦) X (P)   5♠

-50

[Siegmund]

I already said I had a big spade suit and nothing else. I have nothing extra in offence; I have the SA, better for defence than KQJxxx(x) in spades, and I have the jack of diamonds. Why would I pull?

[bucky]

jillybean, on Sep 16 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

(1♦) X (2♦) 4♠
(5♦) X (P)   5♠

-50

Why did North double 5♦? Is there anything that hasn't been shown by earlier double?

[mikeh]

jb I hope you weren't North....I don't think you were, btw...but North's 2nd double is beyond bad.

Now, maybe he/she felt that your 4♠ established a forcing pass, in which case the double was appropriate, but (if so) North needs to think a little deeper about this sequence.

While 4♠ is game, it is a bid that denies significant values....all 'strong' hands start with a cuebid then spades, so 4♠ is a bid that is semi-preemptive in nature....yes, it shows a hand that has at least some expectation of making but not on hcp strength....on offensive values, not two-way values.....hence pass cannot logically be played as forcing.

Put another way: if S wants to force to game and establish fp sequences S bids 3♦ then spades.

As for the comment about having nothing extra offensively, I had to laugh. AQJxxxx and a side stiff? I suspect that that poster (mistakenly) thought that double was penalty...maybe your partner intended it that way, but that is NOT the way most good pairs play it...I am certain that most experts play the double as strength-showing and that your pulling to 5♠ is 'expected' on hands with extra offence and minimal defence, as this one is.

[Siegmund]

Which part are you laughing at? You dont believe that South will usually have a good 7-card suit for a jump to 4 (he could have jumped to only 3, and would have with KQJxxx xxx xx xx)? You dont believe that people who have 7-card suits almost always have side stiffs? You dont believe that an ace-high 7-card suit is only about half a trick better than a king-high 7-card suit for offense, but about a full trick better for defense?

Yes, partner made a takeout double once so he hasnt magically acquired a diamond stack. But the double, in preference to a 5S bid or a non-forcing pass, shows a hand with extras AND interested in defending.

I don't consider it a remotely close decision to leave the double in as South. (Of course holding the actual North cards I wouldn't have considered doubling a second time - I would bid 5S as North but consider 5S-vs-pass reasonably close.)

[cherdanno]

Siegmund, on Sep 16 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Which part are you laughing at? You dont believe that South will usually have a good 7-card suit for a jump to 4 (he could have jumped to only 3, and would have with KQJxxx xxx xx xx)? You dont believe that people who have 7-card suits almost always have side stiffs? You dont believe that an ace-high 7-card suit is only about half a trick better than a king-high 7-card suit for offense, but about a full trick better for defense?

It's quite normal to jump to 4S with, say, 5224 shape and minimal values for playing game. I assume you think that hand would cuebid, but that would be a mistake when slam is extremely unlikely and both opponents are bidding - you would rather make things difficult for them by bidding to your game directly.

[neilkaz]

mikeh, on Sep 16 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

jb I hope you weren't North....I don't think you were, btw...but North's 2nd double is beyond bad.

Now, maybe he/she felt that your 4♠ established a forcing pass, in which case the double was appropriate, but (if so) North needs to think a little deeper about this sequence.

While 4♠ is game, it is a bid that denies significant values....all 'strong' hands start with a cuebid then spades, so 4♠ is a bid that is semi-preemptive in nature....yes, it shows a hand that has at least some expectation of making but not on hcp strength....on offensive values, not two-way values.....hence pass cannot logically be played as forcing.

Put another way: if S wants to force to game and establish fp sequences S bids 3♦ then spades.

As for the comment about having nothing extra offensively, I had to laugh. AQJxxxx and a side stiff? I suspect that that poster (mistakenly) thought that double was penalty...maybe your partner intended it that way, but that is NOT the way most good pairs play it...I am certain that most experts play the double as strength-showing and that your pulling to 5♠ is 'expected' on hands with extra offence and minimal defence, as this one is.

Great post, mikeh, and one that echos some of the discussion I had sitting with a world class friend when he was commenting on a major event on viewgraph as this sort of thing came up a few times.

North's double is a classic example of bidding the same values twice. North can't even be certain that 5♦ is set here and sometimes opener has a ♠ void. I understand North's desire to want to punish the opps' sac, but is it a sac? and what does North hold that his original double didn't show.

Bad partnership bridge by North.

However, I see hand after hand where players bid 5 over 5 incorrectly but inspite of that, I'd likely try 5♠ also.

Anyhow, Kathryn, unfortunately I think you were headed for a rather bad board as soon as 5♦ was bid. How much worse was -50 than +100 (5♦x-1)?

.. neilkaz ..

[aguahombre]

4S down one? not entirely double dummy.

[rogerclee]

never mind

[jillybean]

I was south, phew I'm not so concerned about a bad board here (-50 vs +100) than the decision I had to pass or pull. At this level, there are precious few deicisions that I make with any confidence.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on Sep 16 2010, 10:59 PM, said:

I was south, phew    I'm not  so concerned about a bad board here (-50 vs +100) than the decision I had to pass or pull. At this level, there are precious few deicisions that I make with any confidence.

I think you mean at the level of your partners. It is hard to have confidence in your decisions without trust in you partner's choices.

[jillybean]

I have a lot of trust in my partners choices. Perhaps this was a little off, but typically this partner does not cause me any grief

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on Sep 16 2010, 11:43 PM, said:

I have a lot of trust in my partners choices. Perhaps this was a little off, but typically this partner does not cause me any grief 

Remember the old Peanuts cartoons? Linus didn't have much luck trusting Lucy to hold the football for him.

[neilkaz]

jillybean, on Sep 17 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

I have a lot of trust in my partners choices. Perhaps this was a little off, but typically this partner does not cause me any grief

This would be an excellent situation to discuss with this partner since you'll certainly face more high level decisions like this and it is important for both of you to be on the same wavelength to cut down the times one or both of you is just guessing.

[bucky]

jillybean, on Sep 17 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

I have a lot of trust in my partners choices. Perhaps this was a little off, but typically this partner does not cause me any grief

Well, what is that you trust? Do you trust the second X being pure penalty, being extra value, or being repeating the message shown by first X? Without knowing which one it is, you cannot possibly make intelligent decision, no matter how much trust you have.

[jillybean]

bucky, on Sep 17 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

jillybean, on Sep 17 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

I have a lot of trust in my partners choices. Perhaps this was a little off, but typically this partner does not cause me any grief 

Well, what is that you trust? Do you trust the second X being pure penalty, being extra value, or being repeating the message shown by first X? Without knowing which one it is, you cannot possibly make intelligent decision, no matter how much trust you have.

The double is (should be) showing values, happy to sit for penalty if I have more offence.