[mycroft]

Only "Non-natural" because of the lowered top end of the original pass. But I found it interesting.

You open most 10s NV (in a Precision framework).
Regional Top Flight Pairs, reasonable opponents. Your call?

---

As usual, please comment on "other".

[jillybean]

I'd like a third option for the third question, 'not sure'. I don't know your system with 10 point openers, if you can show this 3 suited hand, I'd open.

I've had my bid, I hope my partner hasn't fallen asleep.

[mycroft]

If you're opening this, you're opening it 1♦ 2+, 10-15 unbalanced, 13-16 balanced. Not sure what would be the best or systemic rebid after 1♦-1♠, of course; 2♣ would at least imply equal or better clubs than diamonds; 2♦ would almost certainly promise 6.

[TylerE]

Open 1D or keep my mouth shut. I lean towards opening 1D with that shape.

[DavidKok]

As far as I know it is common for Precision pairs to play 1♦-1M; 2♣ as "(8)9+ cards in the minors, either suit can be longer", with 8 only being possible on some 1=4=x=y hands on 1♦-1♠ if you do not allow a 1NT rebid. In particular, this hand could have opened 1♦ and rebid 2♣ if it was just a bit stronger.
I think there's a case for a second double (partner will play me for this exact hand - extra shape, 9-count) but I won't bid it at the table. The deal screams misfit. It is likely that 3m is too high, or partner wants to convert to penalties hoping to catch us with a 1=4=4=4. You don't get rich doubling them into game on sub-opening values.

[foobar]

Looks like a "table resulting" hand . All actions seems pretty normal so far, and pass is a standout.

[mycroft]

Very interesting.

Time to come clean, though I seem to have hidden it well; this one is actually a ruling I took.

At the table, they doubled again; but after an (acknowledged by all sides) 30+second tank by East. Who did in fact have the expected 13 flat with J965 of spades. And who did in fact take out partner's takeout double to 3♣, which made.

But of course, the "13 flat with okay spades" is kind of marked from the auction, as long as South is awake. It's definitely marked by the hesitation though.

What I found interesting (and what is definitely interesting based on this thread) is that my pollees onsite - all 4 - were auto. It's just that 3 of them auto-doubled (one even had their double out before I'd finished getting the auction back to him), and one just as auto-passed. And it was one of the auto-doublers who wanted to open 1♦.

Ruling was, given that poll (and thankfully, given this one) "Pass is a LA, almost certain heart lead on the auction allowing 2♠ to make, E/W -110."

I try not to let my own biases bridge judgement affect the rulings, but I do come up with my own opinions. I would have thought, and I would have doubled again. I would not have thought of upgrading this into a 10 count (although I think it would be auto, provided our agreements allowed it, if the majors were switched). Thought that just looking at the West hand, thought that even after seeing the result. I also agree that after a screamingly obvious tank, "I would have thought" becomes "pass".

But I am surprised at how few people had to think with this hand.

Thanks all.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I think you need to act again, but I dont think I would go with a 2nd double,
I dont want to play 2Sx, if this would be the right contract, partner would
have made a call direct over 2S, and if I dont want to play 2Sx, I should not
suggest it.
I think I would go with 2NT, even undiscussed, this should be T/O.

After the tank, you have to pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-July-10, 09:42, said:

Very interesting.

Time to come clean, though I seem to have hidden it well; this one is actually a ruling I took.

At the table, they doubled again; but after an (acknowledged by all sides) 30+second tank by East. Who did in fact have the expected 13 flat with J965 of spades. And who did in fact take out partner's takeout double to 3♣, which made.

But of course, the "13 flat with okay spades" is kind of marked from the auction, as long as South is awake. It's definitely marked by the hesitation though.

What I found interesting (and what is definitely interesting based on this thread) is that my pollees onsite - all 4 - were auto. It's just that 3 of them auto-doubled (one even had their double out before I'd finished getting the auction back to him), and one just as auto-passed. And it was one of the auto-doublers who wanted to open 1♦.

Ruling was, given that poll (and thankfully, given this one) "Pass is a LA, almost certain heart lead on the auction allowing 2♠ to make, E/W -110."

I try not to let my own biases bridge judgement affect the rulings, but I do come up with my own opinions. I would have thought, and I would have doubled again. I would not have thought of upgrading this into a 10 count (although I think it would be auto, provided our agreements allowed it, if the majors were switched). Thought that just looking at the West hand, thought that even after seeing the result. I also agree that after a screamingly obvious tank, "I would have thought" becomes "pass".

But I am surprised at how few people had to think with this hand.

Thanks all.

I figured it had to be a ruling at stake, not the kind of thing you would usually be in doubt about And that may have influenced my choice of "had to think", as I was wondering what was bugging you and if double was really an LA for me.

I have sympathy with your doubts, but of course such variability is intrinsic in polls of so few people, however representative a sample they may be. In my club at least, it's already a struggle to assemble 5-6 peers at the end of a tournament. Now that WhatsApp finally supports Polls I intend to experiment with that instead during fall/autumn, once I have got agreement from club and fellow directors and figured out the best way to flight players, exclude the protagonists, formulate questions, insert hand diagrams, set time limits u.s.w. Hopefully we can reach more statistically significant and objectively verifiable results than in a f2f meeting, although it's far from certain I concede.

[akwoo]

I should come clean as well here - I was the West at the table, and I thought double might be automatic enough to make the call and ask the director and some pollees. (If the opponents hadn't called the director, I would've suggested they do so.)

I probably would've opened with the majors switched, and the rebid over 1D-1S with the actual hand is 2C. That can systemically be made with this distribution, but also with 1=4=3=5, and so 2C is usually passed with equal minors. This is also why partner chose 3C and not 3D over the double.

This was the 5th or 6th largest annual tournament in North America, with something like 120 playing tables in the room. The sampling is about as good as it gets. I'm fairly hard to sample, but easier than the two pairs of juniors in the room (that I know about), or the top pro who was muttering his client was hopeless(*). In this case - I did something questionable, and I'm not going to complain about the sampling. In a small club game with a playing director, I wouldn't have doubled - judgement calls from a director are just too hard and disruptive.

(*) Loud enough for the client to hear but probably not the next table. Said pro has a reputation for doing this. This round was my moral victory for the week, since, besides the overtrick I stole off the client on that hand, on the next hand the pro made the wrong 3N/4M decision and we defended correctly to prevent the overtrick that would've justified the call. (Of course, four rounds later, the other pros handed us two zeros.)

[blackshoe]

My first CO in the Navy was fond of "I am surrounded by incompetents."