[lamford]

---

IMPs. Your turn.

[Hanoi5]

Wow. I think I'd bid 6♣. Partner is on lead and I'm not sure he'll lead ♦A and another.

[rhm]

I would certainly not pass but bid 6♣.
I would not have opened 1♥.
I would have preempted.
3♥ would have been my choice at these colors.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

My partner did surely not double on club or heart tricks. If he does, it is his problem. And if he has 2 tricks in diamonds and spades, I like to defend. If he has fewer tricks, he had not doubled.
So I would pass if this is a one heart opening in our system.

[rhm]

Codo, on 2012-September-24, 03:43, said:

My partner did surely not double on club or heart tricks. If he does, it is his problem. And if he has 2 tricks in diamonds and spades, I like to defend. If he has fewer tricks, he had not doubled.
So I would pass if this is a one heart opening in our system.

The only thing I can agree here with is that partner should not consider the ♥K as a defensive asset.
Why he should value diamonds differently from clubs escapes me.
But to assume that your partner needs 3 defensive tricks to double 5♠ in a competitive sequence where you have opened the bidding is silly and asking for a disaster to happen.
When you opened the bidding and your partner thought he could not beat 4♠ you are not going to beat 5♠ with this hand.
The RDBL only confirms this. East will have tricks, which means he will have diamonds well covered. If you are lucky they might not make an overtrick.
Minus 1200 to the bad guys.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

rhm, on 2012-September-24, 04:06, said:

The only thing I can agree here with is that partner should not consider the ♥K as a defensive asset.
Why he should value diamonds differently from clubs escapes me.
But to assume that your partner needs 3 defensive tricks to double 5♠ in a competitive sequence where you have opened the bidding is silly and asking for a disaster to happen.
When you opened the bidding and your partner thought he could not beat 4♠ you are not going to beat 5♠ with this hand.
The RDBL only confirms this. East will have tricks, which means he will have diamonds well covered. If you are lucky they might not make an overtrick.
Minus 1200 to the bad guys.

Rainer Herrmann

1. If you look at KQJxx of clubs, how many values are possible in partners hand?
2.So, what hand do you expect from partner if he bids this way? Would he double with xx,AKxxx,xxx,Axx? Why should he, because he holds one trick? But what about xxx,Kxxxx,Akxx,x or similar? ISn't this the minimum for his double?
3. The double was penalty, else we had seen a footnote. We did not promise a lot of defence in our hand- we passed 5 ♠ already.
4. This hand is a 1 HEart opening for this pair. How many defensive tricks will partner expect from me to have? I hope at most one, else we should play your opening style.
5. Partner did bid 5 ♥, he never calimed that we cannot beat 4♠, he thought that 5 ♥ is a winning descission.
6. The XX shows what? I bet a heart void, but we do not count on heart tricks at all.

[rhm]

Codo, on 2012-September-24, 04:43, said:

1. If you look at KQJxx of clubs, how many values are possible in partners hand?
2.So, what hand do you expect from partner if he bids this way? Would he double with xx,AKxxx,xxx,Axx? Why should he, because he holds one trick? But what about xxx,Kxxxx,Akxx,x or similar? ISn't this the minimum for his double?
3. The double was penalty, else we had seen a footnote. We did not promise a lot of defence in our hand- we passed 5 ♠ already.
4. This hand is a 1 HEart opening for this pair. How many defensive tricks will partner expect from me to have? I hope at most one, else we should play your opening style.
5. Partner did bid 5 ♥, he never calimed that we cannot beat 4♠, he thought that 5 ♥ is a winning descission.
6. The XX shows what? I bet a heart void, but we do not count on heart tricks at all.

Not my experience.
Maybe your partners are stronger than mine.
I have found no good partners, who will assume you contribute nothing to the defense when you have opened the bidding and then subsided.
I also do not believe this to be winning Bridge in the long run, no matter how weak your one bids can be, but assuming you are not playing a strong pass system. Opponents could get away with murder
I doubt that many pairs have discussed beforehand what to do with such a specific hand.
They probably have only agreed to aggressive openings like the rule of twenty or similar.
I deem it more likely that the RDBL is based on 3 or more hearts and a strong hand and that East is deducing that preemptor must be short in hearts.
Of course without agreement partner's double suggests defense, but if he thought at these colors 5♥ to be the winning decision over 4♠, it is extremely unlikely that his double is based on enough defensive tricks opposite this hand.
As I said in another thread such doubles after partner has shown a fit for you should be considered as suggestive.
I guess your chances of getting 3 tricks on defense are well below 10%, while your chances that 6♥ goes for less than their vulnerable game, maybe much less, are reasonable.
Nothing indicates that East West have misjudged their prospects.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

rhm, on 2012-September-24, 05:47, said:

Not my experience.
Maybe your partners are stronger than mine.
I have found no good partners, who will assume you contribute nothing to the defense when you have opened the bidding and then subsided.
I also do not believe this to be winning Bridge in the long run, no matter how weak your one bids can be, but assuming you are not playing a strong pass system. Opponents could get away with murder

Rainer Herrmann

Obviously- look at the hand- the OP is allowed to open with around one trick in defence. He is not playing a Culbertson system. His partner is aware of this, he plays the same system. You may or may not like this approach, but this is not the question he asked.

Quote

I doubt that many pairs have discussed beforehand what to do with such a specific hand.
They probably have only agreed to aggressive openings like the rule of twenty or similar.

Of course they have not discussed this particular hand, but why should they? Why did partner double? Did he wanted to warn us, because we are in the pass out seat? No we were not. Was he suggesting to sacrifice? No, he was not. Did we put him into a forcing pass sequence? No. He simply thinks, he can beat them opposite something what we call an opening bid- and he knows that we have no big defence. We passed 5 ♠ already.

Quote

I deem it more likely that the RDBL is based on 3 or more hearts and a strong hand and that East is deducing that preemptor must be short in hearts.
Of course without agreement partner's double suggests defense, but if he thought at these colors 5♥ to be the winning decision over 4♠, it is extremely unlikely that his double is based on enough defensive tricks opposite this hand.

You are good in constructing hands, so which hand does partner hold for 5♥ + double? I give him something like xxx,Kxxx,AKxxx,x and both 6 ♥ and 5 ♠ are down. And this is about the worst defence I would double with... Of course opposite you, I would need much less for a penalty double. You will have your two quick tricks or so...

Quote

As I said in another thread such doubles after partner has shown a fit for you should be considered as suggestive.
I guess your chances of getting 3 tricks on defense are well below 10%, while your chances that 6♥ goes for less than their vulnerable game, maybe much less, are reasonable.
Nothing indicates that East West have misjudged their prospects.

Of course your partner misjudged his bids and E/W are flawless? Yes, maybe I have stronger partners then you have. At least I trust their bidding more then I trust my opponents.

[lamford]

Codo, on 2012-September-24, 06:24, said:

Obviously- look at the hand- the OP is allowed to open with around one trick in defence. He is not playing a Culbertson system. His partner is aware of this, he plays the same system. You may or may not like this approach, but this is not the question he asked.



Of course they have not discussed this particular hand, but why should they? Why did partner double? Did he wanted to warn us, because we are in the pass out seat? No we were not. Was he suggesting to sacrifice? No, he was not. Did we put him into a forcing pass sequence? No. He simply thinks, he can beat them opposite something what we call an opening bid- and he knows that we have no big defence. We passed 5 ♠ already.



You are good in constructing hands, so which hand does partner hold for 5♥ + double? I give him something like xxx,Kxxx,AKxxx,x and both 6 ♥ and 5 ♠ are down. And this is about the worst defence I would double with... Of course opposite you, I would need much less for a penalty double. You will have your two quick tricks or so...



Of course your partner misjudged his bids and E/W are flawless? Yes, maybe I have stronger partners then you have. At least I trust their bidding more then I trust my opponents.

Thanks for your views. It was a UI case. Partner doubled slowly after first going to the bidding box and then retracting her hand and then thinking again. We asked for a ruling from a English TD, who was inclined to disallow 6H which was chosen, but consulted two of the EBU panel who did not think Pass was an LA.

Appeal time has now lapsed, as it was 12 hours after the decision in a match played privately. I shall put this on the Laws Forum, as I thought Pass was an LA, but the first two replies on here suggested it was not.

[Fluffy]

I think partner's double just means that he bid 5♥ to make, that he thinks it is our hand and doesn't want to get stealed, with subminimum defence I think pulling is right, either RHO is right or he is a joker, unless I know some funny stories about RHO I'd pull.

[jogs]

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 06:43, said:

Thanks for your views. It was a UI case. Partner doubled slowly after first going to the bidding box and then retracting her hand and then thinking again. We asked for a ruling from a English TD, who was inclined to disallow 6H which was chosen, but consulted two of the EBU panel who did not think Pass was an LA.

Is there another popular game which has this UI problem? Does partner's doubling slowly change the meaning of the bid?

Fluffy, on 2012-September-24, 07:31, said:

I think partner's double just means that he bid 5♥ to make, that he thinks it is our hand and doesn't want to get stealed, with subminimum defence I think pulling is right, either RHO is right or he is a joker, unless I know some funny stories about RHO I'd pull.

I agree. A double just says it is our hand.

Now the question is should any pair who hesitates be automatically penalized?

[lamford]

jogs, on 2012-September-24, 08:03, said:

Does partner's doubling slowly change the meaning of the bid?

No, but it does show she was considering other bids, presumably 6H and Pass. I tend to agree with you that the UI rules are too restrictive, and if someone makes the majority choice they should have fulfilled their obligations. But that is not the Law, which has these "70% or 80% unwritten rules" depending on jurisdiction.

[PhilKing]

Why did we pass at our previous turn?

FWIW I would have opened Four Hearts.

[jogs]

Forget to add. I would have open 2♥ and bid clubs if given a chance.

2♥ - 4♠ - 5♥ - 5♠
pass - pass - X - pass
?

Now it is a easy pass, since I promised no defense.

[ArtK78]

Interesting question - what would we have done if RHO had not redoubled? Persumably parner's double says that he bid 5♥ to make, and that we should do something intelligent. The situation after partner's double is a lot different that the sitaution over 5♠, as partner could have had a purely preemptive hand when he bid 5♥.

Given that we know that partner bid 5♥ to make, I think it is clear to bid 6♣ now. This could be a hand where both sides make 11 or more tricks. Passing the redouble caters only to those hands where the opps make less than 11 tricks and our side making less than 12 tricks. While, a priori, that covers the vast majority of bridge hands, most of those hands are not consistent with the auction that has taken place.

RHO's redouble is either very greedy or an effort to get us to bid again. I would go with the former, as most players are not so devious. Besides, I am looking at my hand, which provides enouugh evidence that both sides may be making a lot of tricks. I bid 6♣.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2012-September-24, 10:32, said:

RHO's redouble is either very greedy or an effort to get us to bid again.

I was RHO, and judged we were down in the match, as we started the stanza 20 IMPs down, and had a poor card in these 8. Making 5Sx would have lost the match by 5, and we needed to make 5Sxx to win the match by 2. With hindsight of course. South (actually West at the table) stated she would have passed out 5Sx but the redouble made her run, fearing it could cost the match!

[lalldonn]

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 10:43, said:

I was RHO, and judged we were down in the match, as we started the stanza 20 IMPs down, and had a poor card in these 8. Making 5Sx would have lost the match by 5, and we needed to make 5Sxx to win the match by 2. With hindsight of course. South (actually West at the table) stated she would have passed out 5Sx but the redouble made her run, fearing it could cost the match!

If she was about to pass 5♠X and a swinging opponent who is down in the match redoubles, how can pass no longer be an LA?

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 10:43, said:

I was RHO, and judged we were down in the match, as we started the stanza 20 IMPs down, and had a poor card in these 8. Making 5Sx would have lost the match by 5, and we needed to make 5Sxx to win the match by 2.

I congratulate you on your keen and very precise assessment of the state of the match.

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 10:43, said:

With hindsight of course.

Phew. That makes me feel better.

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 10:43, said:

South (actually West at the table) stated she would have passed out 5Sx but the redouble made her run, fearing it could cost the match!

Interesting. I am not sure that I agree with lalldonn that this makes passing a logical alternative. It appears that the causal relationship between the hesitation prior to the double and this player's action was broken by the intervening redouble. She professes that she would have taken one action - pass - had there been no double but now takes another action - bidding - due to the redouble. The reason given is state of the match. It is far from clear that the slowness of the double entered into this player's decision making process.

I don't agree with her initial assessment of the situation in the absence of a redouble. However, hearing the redouble, she arrived at the same conclusion as most of us that bidding one more is the right course of action. I would let the result stand.

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-24, 10:59, said:

If she was about to pass 5♠X and a swinging opponent who is down in the match redoubles, how can pass no longer be an LA?

Passing 5♠xx is a higher variance action than passing 5♠x. That might change it from an LA to a non-LA.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-September-24, 11:46, said:

Passing 5♠xx is a higher variance action than passing 5♠x. That might change it from an LA to a non-LA.

Few players take into account the variance of the likely scores when making a decision. And partner should have considered the variance when doubling Five Spades. She should be saying "I am pretty certain this is going off". If the double had been "do something sensible", then South would have said so to the telephone referee.