[geller]

Here's a hand from a natl tourney in Japan
IMPs, You're East, and you hold ♠-- ♥J98 ♦ KQJ84 ♣T7653
You're vul, the oppts are non-vul. The bidding goes as follows
South West North East
1♠ DBL 3♠ 4♦
4♠ DBL Pass ?

What call do you make?

[whereagles]

5C. But pass if opps are loonies.

[mike777]

Not sure why we bid 4D, we knew 4s was coming. Why not 4nt over 3s?
If we had bid 4nt then we could just shut up now.

"fought the law"
13-3+1=11tricks
13=total tricks
-3=combined 2 shortest suits between our hands.
+1=assume 22-24 working hcp which equals a plus one adjustment.

Note if only 19-21 working hcp than we would make 10 tricks.

If we assume P is 1444 then:
"law" assumes 12+ 9=21 trumps and zero or plus one adjustment for 21-22 total tricks.
Possible double game swing here.

[scoob]

pass, wtp?

[luke warm]

i don't believe it's possible for me to pass... i'd have to bid 5c... as for 'wtp', there're a lot of potential problems with passing, the biggest being that both 4s and 5c/d might make

[Rebound]

I think the problem here is the free 4♦ call. To me this implies defensive values and as a result, partner thinks he can beat 4♠ and that it rates, based on your call, to be better than 5 of a minor. However, if, over 3♠, you were to call either 4♠ or 4NT, whichever in your style would show the minors only and no interest in hearts, you have no such problem. As it stands, I think you need to leave it in to preserve partnership harmony.

[geller]

Thanks for all the replies. As you might have guessed this problem arose from a slow double by West at his second turn. It appears that there are three votes for 5♣ and two for pass, i.e. this is a small sample but it is NOT the case that 75% of the sample of those of you who were kind enough to answer support pulling the double. This suggests pass is a LA.

But the sample here is too small to be definitive, and may not be comparable to the sample of players in Japan.

Once again, thanks to all.

[FrancesHinden]

Sadly, your only relevant sample is people who thought 4D was the correct call on the previous round or at least those who are prepared to live with it.

I think that that the opinion of anyone who would have bid 4S or 4NT on the previous round is not relevant, because they are clearly not a peer of the 4D bidder.

So you only have 2.5 answers. One bid, one pass, one bid but pass if the opponents are loonies.

You can add me in to the group of people who certainly consider pass possible on the second round.

[helene_t]

5♣. I don't consider "pass" a logical alternative, but it may depend on your agreements. Maybe it is a logical alternative for this player.

[luis]

Object the 4♦ call I think I would have bid 4♠ instead. Perfect call, void in spades and both minors, let pd choose. They are bidding 4♠ anyway so I'd better show my hand ASAP.

Luis

[geller]

I agree with everyone who thinks 4♦ is a terrible choice. But this is what the actual East actually bid at the table. The question is then whether or not pass is a logical alternative to 5♣ after East's 2nd double. It appears to me from the above that the answer is yes.

[han]

I would not have bid 4D but 4NT (I would play 4S as a better hand).

I do not think that pass is a logical alternative here.

[luis]

geller, on Jul 18 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

I agree with everyone who thinks 4♦ is a terrible choice. But this is what the actual East actually bid at the table. The question is then whether or not pass is a logical alternative to 5♣ after East's 2nd double. It appears to me from the above that the answer is yes.

I don't think pass is a logical alternative.
Pd has doubled spades for taekout and you have a void in the suit, only a weirdo can pass 4♠x with no defensive tricks and a void in trumps when pd has doubled for T/O.
I don't like 4♦ but after bidding 4♦ 5♣ is 100% clear

[MickyB]

What Luis said.

[whereagles]

I strongly disagree that 4D is a bad bid. It has lead-directing and save-suggesting value in case opps bid 5S.

[scoob]

perhaps my 'pass' shouldn't be considered as my p's 2nd X is always penalty by agreement - which i'm thinking isn't normal.

[mike777]

whereagles, on Jul 18 2005, 12:30 PM, said:

I strongly disagree that 4D is a bad bid. It has lead-directing and save-suggesting value in case opps bid 5S.

No wonder bridge is so hard for me.

I never understand when p has made a constructive bid or a lead directing bid or save suggesting bid, good grief . No wonder I double so many hands and then find out pard has nothing .

[mikeh]

scoob, on Jul 18 2005, 12:49 PM, said:

perhaps my 'pass' shouldn't be considered as my p's 2nd X is always penalty by agreement - which i'm thinking isn't normal.

[QUOTE]

The second double has to be interpreted within the context of the first double, which was takeout. Partner could not know that the auction would develop in such a way that he would have an unambiguous penalty double at his next turn.

What could a competent partner hold for the second double?

Clearly he has extra values, and the 'wrong' hand to raise ♦.

He could have one of two hand types: a balanced strong notrump, too good for a 1N overcall... say 19 hcp. Or 'extra values'.... say a decent 15+ with no more than 3 ♦.... 2=4=3=4 or 3=4=3=3 are likely shapes, unless you play widely off-shape takeout doubles in which case he may have even fewer ♦.

Opposite the strong notrump hand, you probably want to pass. He might hold 4=4=2=3 shape, and with the opps bidding on distribution (as well as vulnerability) a 5 level minor suit contract will likely be an adventure). Take the plus score.

But opposite the extra values 2=4=3=4, you definitely want to be bidding.

It seems to me that Pass is a LA, given that an in tempo double is consistent with the over-strength NT overcall. A slow double, on the other hand, is more likely to be the second category.

BTW, my opinion may not be worth much since I would never bid 4♦... count me in as a 4N bidder: 4♠ for me would show ♥ as well: likely 0=4=(5-4) or 1=4=4=4 or 5♥ and a 5+ minor, pulling 5♣ to 5♦ with the reds.

[beatrix45]

mike777, on Jul 17 2005, 05:35 AM, said:

If we assume P is 1444 then:
"law" assumes 12+ 9=21 trumps and zero or plus one adjustment for 21-22 total tricks.
Possible double game swing here.

One thing is sure, partner is NOT 1444. With four diamonds she would hardly double. Indeed, this sounds like a card showing double with one, two, maybe three diamonds and at least one spade trick. It's likely a heart hand too good to overcall or a NT hand too good to overcall one NT. Partner likely has 12 to 15 HCP outside of spades. A makable game at the five level will require her to have the right 14. Too iffy for me. I have to pass and hope partner does not have five clubs to the AKQ. Alternate bid is 4NT to cater to the big heart hand.

[geller]

For what it's worth, here's the actual hand.

Scoring: IMP

---