[Zelandakh]

This is the follow-on from this thread.

As before, the bidding runs:

Teams

---

I found the answer to this one obvious. So did the expert panel - but they chose a different call to me. I am interested in your views. As usual for MSC-type puzzles, you should assume expert players are in the other 3 seats.

[Cyberyeti]

1♠-1N-2♠ is basically a 2♠ opener a little better, 2♠-(3♥)-X is played for pens by most people (would this be true by a passed hand ?), so should this be, I X.

[Codo]

Obviously I have no clear agreement for this situation and I maybe will never see this happen at the table.
So a priori a double would be take out, but here partner allready denied a minor suit- we usually bid our minor before we rebid the major, so takeo out is out.

So, I can double once in my lifetime for penalty. Lucky me. If partner is not on the same wavelength, we may play 3 or 4 spade..

[fromageGB]

If penalty double is the obvious answer, then 3NT should be the alternative. As 1NT is not forcing, 2♠ is a 6+ card suit, and when this is overcalled by a vulnerable passed hand, that hand probably does not have any spades worth talking about. His bid has improved my hand : I may have a couple of heart tricks, the club looks good for an entry, and I have a couple of spades for obvious finesses through North. 9 tricks looks a good possibility, and it is likely to score more than hearts going slightly off. While a diamond lead may not be a good start, it could be a risk worth taking.

But I am not an expert, of course, so what I may do has no bearing

[ArtK78]

Double. Really, is there anything to discuss here?

[mikeh]

I think that double is horrible.

Assuming that rho is not an idiot, he rates to have a lot of hearts, but has some flaws that persuaded him that overcalling 2♥ or 3♥ was inappropriate.

How's this for a construction (realizing that there is a huge variance possible and the hand need not look like this): Kx K109865x Kxx x?

Maybe we'd overcall 2♥ with that...if so, make the diamond holding weaker. Say Kx K109865x xxx x?

Give partner a good hand in context: AQJxxx Q QJx QJx.

Try beating 3♥.

Now, am I saying that 3♥ is odds on to make? No. But I just gave partner a 15 count (I know, a horrible 15) and a heart honour and the contract is cold.

I think the imp odds here are bad for the double, which imo should definitely be penalty.

Personally, I would pass, since I can't see game making on many layouts consistent with the auction. If game were to make, it would probably be 3N rather than 4♠ but I just don't think we have the horses for game.

I expect to be in a small minority. Note that partner can still reopen with a near 3♠ call: say AKxxxx x Axx QJx, and now I'll convert (tho with some uncertainty).

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-April-15, 12:47, said:

Maybe we'd overcall 2♥ with that...if so, make the diamond holding weaker. Say Kx K109865x xxx x?

Give partner a good hand in context: AQJxxx Q QJx QJx.

Try beating 3♥.

Even on that heap of crap we can beat 3♥ by one I think (1♦, 1♠, 3♥), give partner a more normal holding and we very likely take 300.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-15, 13:08, said:

Even on that heap of crap we can beat 3♥ by one I think (1♦, 1♠, 3♥), give partner a more normal holding and we very likely take 300.

I think you are correct, in that on the layouts I gave, we'd beat it one relatively easily....I didn't give it enough thought. However, going 200 as opposed to 100 isn't that big a deal compared to going -140 against -730

And I did give partner a maximum. All told, I think that expecting 500 here (not 300, they are red) is insulting to RHO, and tends to overestimate our trump suit. The difference may seem trivial, and may on some hands be irrelevant, but I'd be far happier with AJ872 than with AJ743, and I'd double with comfort with AJ97x, but who wouldn't?

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-April-15, 14:26, said:

I think you are correct, in that on the layouts I gave, we'd beat it one relatively easily....I didn't give it enough thought. However, going 200 as opposed to 100 isn't that big a deal compared to going -140 against -730

And I did give partner a maximum. All told, I think that expecting 500 here (not 300, they are red) is insulting to RHO, and tends to overestimate our trump suit. The difference may seem trivial, and may on some hands be irrelevant, but I'd be far happier with AJ872 than with AJ743, and I'd double with comfort with AJ97x, but who wouldn't?

Sorry yes I meant 500, give partner as little as AKxxxx, 9, KQx, xxx and this can easily be a bloodbath. Unless the other side has ♥KQ1098 you have 3 trump tricks and spades may well promote if they do.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-15, 15:43, said:

Sorry yes I meant 500, give partner as little as AKxxxx, 9, KQx, xxx and this can easily be a bloodbath. Unless the other side has ♥KQ1098 you have 3 trump tricks and spades may well promote if they do.

I think it very important to ask yourself what sort of hand would a real-life expert, rather than a self-rated BBO expert, hold to bid 3♥ red v white in an effort to compete for the part-score? Remember that the 1N was non-forcing, and opener made a minimum rebid, such that the odds have to be high that our side was about to play 2♠, especially since we are non-vul and won't be chasing poor game contracts.

Now, that task is made more difficult by the failure of an immediate overcall, which is why I suggested the suits I did.

This was a MSC type problem so I doubt that we'll ever know what would have worked. Indeed, there are some reasons for thinking that this was never a real-life problem to start with, given the auction.

[gnasher]

To make Mike's construction more convincing, we could move ♦J from partner's hand to declarer's, thus preventing the diamond switch at trick two.

However, it seems unlikely that LHO passed over 1NT with xxx - AKxx A109xxx.

[the hog]

Pass is clear for me at Imps. If you are playing a good player, there is a reason for this bizarro sequence. I would x at MPs.

[Zelandakh]

My thoughts on this problem were basically identical to those of Mike and the hog. One of the first things I learned in bridge, from a Culbertson book no less, was that one should expect to beat the opponents' contract by at least 2 tricks before making a tight double. Of course times have changed but here it seems clear that the most likely result is -1, with = possible and an outside chance of -2. To me, that makes the risk of -730 way too high when the normal result is simply converting +100 to +200. Naturally, at MPs the double is a no-brainer.

Anyway, my reason for posting this hand was that I started to wonder whether a penalty double actually makes sense on a hand like this makes much sense under the given conditions - Team game and expert opps. But does takeout make any sense either? A sample comment from an expert in the first thread suggests no:-

HeartA, on 2013-April-08, 11:23, said:

both are penalty, of course. take out? for what? If pd has a minor worth to bid at 4 level, bid it.

If only life were so simple. Imagine holding a 1=0=6=6 hand. Would it not be better to give partner a choice of the other 3 suits than punt one and hope? Sure, it is a small target, but so is the penalty double. And once we add the club to the bag, we can relax a little bit - 11(65) for example?

But perhaps we can also try to climb 2 horses at once with an optional double, showing willingness to penalise - 4 decent hearts, say - and also willingness to compete to 3♠/4m. This is surely going to come up much more often than either of pure penalty or takeout. And it seems reasonably useful too.

So, after thinking about this a little, my conclusion is that it really does not seem such a good bet to keep this double as penalty at IMPs against good opponents. Even when it seems completely obvious at first glance.

Oh yes, as an aside the German Bridge Magazine did tell us how the hand turned out in reality. South holds 12 red cards including ♥KQT9xxx and 3♥X makes comfortably. Despite this, X received 10 points while Pass got only 3. I am still convinced that this is backwards!