[matmat]

(1♠) - 3♣ - (X) - P
(3♠) - P - (P) - ?

All white, BAM
♠AK9xx ♥QTxx ♦8xx ♣x

1. do you double them here?
2. 3♠ was alerted. when asked 3♠ bidder explains this as "support, 3 cards in spades." you suspect he may have gotten their agreements crossed. do you double here?

[xcurt]

No.

And there is a common misconception about BAM -- that you should double everything you think is going down. This is backward if you think you have a strong team. Winning a board at BAM only requires one of your four players to outplay their counterpart on the other team. Winning a board at pairs requires one of two players to outplay the field on his or her hand.

[rogerclee]

Yes and definitely yes.

[jdonn]

Crack that shizzle! Partner is heavy or else they would be in game, especially given what opener thinks responder has.

BTW if responder does not have a spade raise, but does have a reasonable game bid after a spade rebid, call the director when you see dummy since he probably took advantage of opener's mistaken explanation.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

BTW if responder does not have a spade raise, but does have a reasonable game bid after a spade rebid, call the director when you see dummy since he probably took advantage of opener's mistaken explanation.

If responder has something like....

x
AKxxx
AJTxxx
x

what's he supposed to do after 3♠, alert or no alert? He can't make a bid that's more likely to work after the UI (like 4♦ or 4♥) even if he wanted to.

But if you double, he's completely with his rights to pull to 4♦ now. If you crack it and as a result they find 5♦ making, I don't think the AC is going to be very sympathetic.

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Aug 5 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

BTW if responder does not have a spade raise, but does have a reasonable game bid after a spade rebid, call the director when you see dummy since he probably took advantage of opener's mistaken explanation.

If responder has something like....

x
AKxxx
AJTxxx
x

what's he supposed to do after 3♠, alert or no alert? He can't make a bid that's more likely to work after the UI (like 4♦ or 4♥) even if he wanted to.

But if you double, he's completely with his rights to pull to 4♦ now. If you crack it and as a result they find 5♦ making, I don't think the AC is going to be very sympathetic.

you would double with that hand?

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Aug 5 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

BTW if responder does not have a spade raise, but does have a reasonable game bid after a spade rebid, call the director when you see dummy since he probably took advantage of opener's mistaken explanation.

If responder has something like....

x
AKxxx
AJTxxx
x

what's he supposed to do after 3♠, alert or no alert? He can't make a bid that's more likely to work after the UI (like 4♦ or 4♥) even if he wanted to.

But if you double, he's completely with his rights to pull to 4♦ now. If you crack it and as a result they find 5♦ making, I don't think the AC is going to be very sympathetic.

This hand doubles after 3♣?

[jdonn]

Guys don't humor him and maybe his ridiculous example hands will start to disappear from all the threads....

[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, on Aug 5 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

BTW if responder does not have a spade raise, but does have a reasonable game bid after a spade rebid, call the director when you see dummy since he probably took advantage of opener's mistaken explanation.

If responder has something like....

x
AKxxx
AJTxxx
x

JTFANCLUB'D

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Aug 5 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

you would double with that hand?

No, I suppose I wouldn't. But then, I wouldn't think X there was a support double either.

But you're right, I suppose we should assume at least a minimal level of competence for the opps. So I take back what I said.

[rogerclee]

Jlall, on Aug 5 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

wow, even clee doubles. General rule is if clee doubles below the 5 level it has to be a double!

Yeah, I would double 5♠ too.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Aug 5 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

matmat, on Aug 5 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

you would double with that hand?

No, I suppose I wouldn't. But then, I wouldn't think X there was a support double either.

But you're right, I suppose we should assume at least a minimal level of competence for the opps. So I take back what I said.

You play with three opponents usually?

[mikeh]

I pass

I think that doubling while planning to call the director if they make or escape with a good score (which is what calling the director when dummy has a 'reasonable' game bid amounts to most of the time) is planning to take a double-shot, and I would be VERY reluctant, if I were on the committee, to reward that approach.

In addition to my reluctance to countenance such tactics, I'd also be very, very leery of any argument that dummy, with some 2=4=4=3 or similar 11 count or soft 12 should raise at BAM when there has been a preempt and opener may have been forced to rebid 3♣ on a bad 5=2=3=3, as an example... yes, I know many would pass 3♣ doubled with such a hand, but my guess is that passing with no club trick and a weak spade suit in a poor hand wouldn't occur to anyone capable of thinking that double showed 3 card support!

And please, please don't tell me that we intend to argue in front of the committee that we believed the explanation!

Finally, I think it very unsafe to infer that LHO is minimum based on his 3♠ call. Did we ask whether he thought the double delivered limit raise values? Do we even know if he is aware that 3♠ is non-forcing? I mean, all we know for sure is that he is VERY confused at this point.

Now, if we think that this is a clear BAM double absent the silly explanation, then we should double. But why is it? After all, the double will often cost us at least a trick in the play against a competent declarer, and we may well have already won the board.

BTW, I would never worry about the opps running from the double... that won't happen or, if it did, then I think a director call is warranted.

[jdonn]

Mike I don't understand what you think is so shady about these 'tactics'. I didn't say call the director if they make, I said call when dummy goes down. I think double is the right bid, and on a completely unrelated note I would make sure RHO didn't take advantage of UI. One has nothing to do with the other, and in fact if you don't double you should still call the director if you think RHO may have taken advantage.

Bridgewise I am quite confident in the double. Partner is on a maximum (or at least is much more likely than usual to be on one), as we have 9 and the opponents haven't bid game. Addtionally, how exactly do you expect double to lose a trick? I think it's more likely to gain a trick as we are actually quite weak to double so declarer might play us for an honor or two partner has. Or to think of it similarly, if we don't double and declarer finds out our trump holding he will definitely get the other honors right.

[crazy4hoop]

Not sure how heavy partner may be over there, having overcalled 3♣ rather than 2♣. I would probably not double, as I expect my teammates may be playing negative doubles and might be going plus in diamonds anyway. I don't think I have to try to win this board by myself but I find that the doublers all have valid reasons for doubling and am not saying they're wrong.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Mike I don't understand what you think is so shady about these 'tactics'. I didn't say call the director if they make, I said call when dummy goes down. I think double is the right bid, and on a completely unrelated note I would make sure RHO didn't take advantage of UI. One has nothing to do with the other, and in fact if you don't double you should still call the director if you think RHO may have taken advantage.

Bridgewise I am quite confident in the double. Partner is on a maximum (or at least is much more likely than usual to be on one), as we have 9 and the opponents haven't bid game. Addtionally, how exactly do you expect double to lose a trick? I think it's more likely to gain a trick as we are actually quite weak to double so declarer might play us for an honor or two partner has. Or to think of it similarly, if we don't double and declarer finds out our trump holding he will definitely get the other honors right.

Declarer will finesse the ♠8 holding ♠QJT8whatever if we double. We have the SAK and probably one more trump, then. We need partner to supply two tricks for down 1.

If we double and we're wrong, we're losing a half board when 3♠ is the normal contract, and we're losing a whole board when our teammates are more plus in some other strain, or are beating 3♣ instead of bidding 3♠ -1 without the help from the double.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Aug 5 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 5 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

matmat, on Aug 5 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

you would double with that hand?

No, I suppose I wouldn't. But then, I wouldn't think X there was a support double either.

But you're right, I suppose we should assume at least a minimal level of competence for the opps. So I take back what I said.

You play with three opponents usually?

My partner made a WJO white.

What's the minimum your partners need to do that?

My point was that you shouldn't expect redress if you X and they run. I'm sorry that my horrible example hand took away from that.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Aug 6 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

Mike I don't understand what you think is so shady about these 'tactics'. I didn't say call the director if they make, I said call when dummy goes down.

You're still playing under the 1997 laws I assume.

Under the 2007 laws the correct time to call is after the board is fulfilled. (It's not illegal to call earlier, but not proper procedure any more.)