[pclayton]

Red / Red

♠AKJ9xx ♥KJx ♦AKQ9 ♣---

1♣ on left, pard passes RHO bids 1♥. You double (feel free to disagree).

2♣ on left, 5♣ on right.

Now what?

[whereagles]

Dbl coz we might belong in diamonds.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Apr 28 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

You double (feel free to disagree).

I disagree. I don't want to be faced with a high level decision without first getting my primary suit into the auction.

[manudude03]

Agree with double the first time, hate overcalling with that many playing tricks. Now, count me in for another double, but wouldn't be that surprised if partner left it and it made. I expect -2 or so if it was left in though, and if partner runs, well there's a good chance of where he runs to will make.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

X

I am pretty sure, I would have doubled, the first time.
Luckily they are red, I think red vs. green, I would
bid 5S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

Hard to disagree with the first double, not like you expect it to be above 4♠ next round. Now I double again.

[ArtK78]

Much too good to overcall the first time. Besides, you can handle any response from partner.

Have to double 5♣. If we play in 5♣x, I would be surprised if they made it, but I have been surprised before.

[kenrexford]

Quadruple.

[neilkaz]

5♠ for me noting pard passed up the chance to bid 2♦ earlier and I expect to make it quite often and if somehow we have slam, he knows I have a huge hand.

5♣x will sound too much like a penalty double to my PD's at this level on this auction and while I don't like bidding 5 over 5, I suspect 5♠ makes quite often.

[ArtK78]

neilkaz, on Apr 28 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

5♠ for me noting pard passed up the chance to bid 2♦ earlier and I expect to make it quite often and if somehow we have slam, he knows I have a huge hand.

5♣x will sound too much like a penalty double to my PD's at this level on this auction and while I don't like bidding 5 over 5, I suspect 5♠ makes quite often.

Of course it is a penalty double. But in this context it is a penalty double with shortness in clubs. In other words, a great offensive hand that is unwilling to defend 5♣ undoubled.

[han]

Jlall, on Apr 28 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

First X is clear...

I expected you would bid 4S.

[Free]

Agree, although I usually play 2♣ as showing ♠ and ♦ with longer ♠. Without this, a Dbl is clear imo.

Now Dbl, the most flexible call.

[awm]

I think double being "flexible" here is a myth.

Partner didn't have enough shape to bid spades or diamonds over 2♣. There is virtually no chance that partner is bidding over 5♣ if you double.

This is not to say that double is necessarily the wrong call, but if you think partner will pull the double any significant fraction of the times that 5♠ or 5♦ is making, I think you're deluding yourself.

My view is that 5♠ will very often make here. What do we need to make 5♠? Not a whole lot. And while 5♣ will usually go down one or two, it's also quite possible that 5♣ makes. So I'd try the 5♠ bid. The IMP scores seem to imply that even if I am bidding 5♠ when both five-level contracts are failing more often than I actually make 5♠, it may still be favorable to bid it.

[Codo]

I think the double is flexible in a way:
It shows any strong semibalanced hand from the example hand up to
AKxx, KJx, AKQx,Jx.

So I share Adams doubt that partner will take it out quite often. He needs at least a 5 card suit, so double buries any spade contract.

[dcvetkov]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2008, 02:39 AM, said:

awm, on Apr 29 2008, 02:20 AM, said:

Partner didn't have enough shape to bid spades or diamonds over 2♣. There is virtually no chance that partner is bidding over 5♣ if you double.

Def agree.

Quote

My view is that 5♠ will very often make here.

I think this is an overestimate. There is some chance that partner will have no entry, or only one entry that will not be good enough to pick up hearts for 1 loser. I think losing 2 hearts and 1 spade is a very real possibility.

I also think that we get down 2 more than down 1 by a lot, especially on hands where we can make 5S.

I agree with all this.

I expect partner to be complete bust here, and even losing 3 hearts is not hard to visualize, unless queen of spades is un dummy. This hand will play everything from declarer;s hand.

Bidding 4S first time is not so crazy as it looks and it may buy the hand. I mean, do you really expect perfect cards to fish for slam here?. Even if is it a possibility there is no way to find out if partner has the right queens you need.

[pclayton]

Double is leading the poll 2:1. As many of you can surmise, I tried 5♠ smacked by LHO. Mentally I estimated when I made this poll that double would beat 5♠ by at least 3:1, since doubling these high level contracts with a distributional hands with some defense is popular. Roger's hand from the LA regional is a good example. Decision over 5D

Pard put down xxx Axx Txxx xxx. Stiff ♥Q lead gave me 1050 when spades didn't break. Fortunately for the doublers, diamonds are 3-2, otherwise 5♣ is rolling.

I really don't know if what I did was that wise, however consider a few things.

1. The opponents are vulnerable. Do you really think you are getting this -2 very often? Frankly if you trust your opponents, I think -2 is less likely than =.

2. If the opponents are sane, pard has a maximum of two or three clubs on this auction. RHO has some extreme shape which includes five hearts and possibly 6. Therefore, pard either has some real spade support, or some undisclosed diamond length. It's too late to get to diamonds (please don't suggest pard is pulling a x to 5♦ on xx xxxx Jxxxx xx) unfortunately. Spade support is great news, but even diamond length mitigates my downside.

3. I figured at worse I'd be turning a +200 (if I doubled) into a -200 when I bid 5♠ (and got x'd). If either 5♣ was wrapping and /or 5♠ is, bidding on is a huge gain. Again, +500 against 5♣ just seems very remote to me with a hand this offensive.

4. It's entirely possible that the opponents will concede that 5♠ is making and take a dive at 6♣. Give yourself something like void, Axxxxx, xx, Kxxxx as East here. I would strongly consider 6♣ when pard can't double 5♠. Don't we frequently "bid one more" with freaks? Now doubling looks profitable.

I guess I'm not so glib about these situations and ready to concede "WDO, +200, lose 11". This is a real swing and I think its a bear of a decision.

Perhaps I haven't had enough of these go against me where I'm bearish on bidding.

[dcvetkov]

Nice hand, but Iam not sure if this proves anything. yes, it is usually wise to bid with distribution, even 5 over 5, hoping that 1 of the contracts makes

Ace of ♥ in dummy? What are the odds for that? Its much more likely that partner has , say queen of ♣, or nothing, then some very useful ace.
Opponents must bid on their good looks.

Proves what I know, anyway

[pclayton]

dcvetkov, on Apr 29 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

Nice hand, but Iam not sure if this proves anything. yes, it is usually wise to bid with distribution, even 5 over 5, hoping that 1 of the contracts makes

Ace of ♥ in dummy? What are the odds for that? Its much more likely that partner has , say queen of ♣, or nothing, then some very useful ace.
Opponents must bid on their good looks.

Proves what I know, anyway

Yes the ♥A was golden, but the ♠Q or even the ♦10 alone give me chances here.