[Bbradley62]

IMPs. East should bid 3♠?

---

[georgi]

should, but the double looks more concerning.

[mgoetze]

georgi, on 2012-January-24, 07:52, said:

should, but the double looks more concerningpretty normal.

FYP.

[jamegumb]

I think GIB's long had a problem understanding the maxim that "takeout doubles should be taken out". (Perhaps it runs simulations to indicate that this rule shouldn't be followed, but for whatever reason I've ended up surrendering quite a few doubled contracts while GIB sat on a 5-card or longer unbid suit.)

[barmar]

3♠ is the book bid, but sims overrode it in 10 of 11 tests. It's mostly dealing partner hands near the max (it assumes South is just raising the preempt with a weak hand), but not enough to raise to 4♠. So it think it's going to play in a part score, but should be able to set the opponents 1 (and sometimes 2, when it might be 3♠+2).

Unfortunately, in this case opener has a minimum, and it works out badly.

[barmar]

When I changed the vulnerability to none, it only passed in 5 of 11 sims.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-January-24, 16:53, said:

It's mostly dealing partner hands near the max...

Is this related to the fact that the description of the re-opening double includes "16-22 total points", when partner might be weaker?

[gwnn]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-24, 10:11, said:

georgi, on 2012-January-24, 07:52, said:

should, but the double looks more concerning pretty normal. more concerning

FYP.

FYFYP.

[Bbradley62]

Variation on a theme?

---

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-25, 19:21, said:

Variation on a theme?

I don't get it, what's the theme?

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-25, 19:48, said:

I don't get it, what's the theme?

In this second hand, East made a questionable second takeout double, which got his partnership in trouble. West did the something similar in the original hand. Similar, admittedly not exactly the same...

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-25, 23:06, said:

In this second hand, East made a questionable second takeout double, which got his partnership in trouble. West did the something similar in the original hand. Similar, admittedly not exactly the same...

Ah, OK. Well, as I've implied, I consider the double in the first hand a lot less questionable than the one in this second hand.

[gwnn]

Double there (when your partner passed and opponents both bid) should promise quite a good hand, at least 15 with a singleton, but usually more. It does not pay to play doubles as "I have a shortness! I have a shortness!". And if somehow partner has a penalty pass, he can double for penalties.

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2012-January-26, 02:59, said:

Double there (when your partner passed and opponents both bid) should promise quite a good hand, at least 15 with a singleton, but usually more. It does not pay to play doubles as "I have a shortness! I have a shortness!". And if somehow partner has a penalty pass, he can double for penalties.

For the second hand, I definitely agree with you. For the first, I think you fail to appreciate that one opponent preempted, and the other made a minimum non-forcing raise of that preempt. Of course we all know that 3♦ can be very much a tactical bid, but the majority of the time this bidding tells us that we have at least half the deck. In this kind of situation, especially at matchpoints, it is imperative that the partner who has shortness in their suit act, as the other may not be able to. East might have a 5233 hand just short of a forcing 2♠ bid. Is he now going to balance into 3♠, just to discover that West had only 2 spades? No, of course not - and that's why this double is necessary.

[gwnn]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-26, 08:42, said:

For the second hand, I definitely agree with you. For the first, I think you fail to appreciate that one opponent preempted, and the other made a minimum non-forcing raise of that preempt. Of course we all know that 3♦ can be very much a tactical bid, but the majority of the time this bidding tells us that we have at least half the deck. In this kind of situation, especially at matchpoints, it is imperative that the partner who has shortness in their suit act, as the other may not be able to. East might have a 5233 hand just short of a forcing 2♠ bid. Is he now going to balance into 3♠, just to discover that West had only 2 spades? No, of course not - and that's why this double is necessary.

Because there is a case (qualified with a 'might have') where double will work out well, double is necessary. That is not my kind of logic.

No, I don't fail to appreciate that one opponent preempted and the other made a minimum non-forcing raise of that preempt. Because one opponent preempted, the "minimum non-forcing raise" can be made with quite a strong hand. Maybe you fail to appreciate that?

[jamegumb]

jamegumb, on 2012-January-24, 12:55, said:

I think GIB's long had a problem understanding the maxim that "takeout doubles should be taken out". (Perhaps it runs simulations to indicate that this rule shouldn't be followed, but for whatever reason I've ended up surrendering quite a few doubled contracts while GIB sat on a 5-card or longer unbid suit.)

Yes, I screwed up the defense here late (though I suppose it's possible that declarer has QT6 in spades and Qx in hearts, in which case playing the spade king before the jack would be foolish). The double still needs to be taken out:


http://tinyurl.com/7aa7q5b

(And this is why it's so dangerous to double with shapely hands and GIB as your partner. I knew better.)

[jamegumb]

jamegumb, on 2012-January-30, 11:23, said:

Yes, I screwed up the defense here late (though I suppose it's possible that declarer has QT6 in spades and Qx in hearts, in which case playing the spade king before the jack would be foolish). The double still needs to be taken out:


http://tinyurl.com/7aa7q5b

(And this is why it's so dangerous to double with shapely hands and GIB as your partner. I knew better.)

Yes, I know better. Yet it still happens:

http://tinyurl.com/72hj9d9