[2200]

Red vs white, Matchpoint, Partner opened normal 1H in 3rd seat, RHO bids 3C, holding:

♠AKxxx
♥10x
♦xx
♣Qxxx

I immediately felt unhappy. Knowing that even if we don't have game, it's likely to get at least 300 if I can whip, unfortunately, it just cannot be reached since double is for takeout. If I pass, I would put too much pressure on partner. What if his hand is bare minimum? We probably will get a quiet 100 or 150, sth cannot be too satisfied.
So I decided to double. Just as I expect, parnter bid 3D and I had to convert to 3H. Parnter had:
♠x
♥Q9xxx
♦KQJxx
♣AJ
struggled for a while, and -200 wasn't even too bad(avg below). But I hate the result.
Is there anything I can improve, or it is simply sth wrong with the modern theory of takeout double?

[Fluffy]

with lenght in opps suit pass is always an option, if aprtner has shortness in clubs he will reopen, often with a double. If he doesn't then he will pass but you probably have a missfit.

[karlson]

Well if -200 wasn't too bad, then I imagine your "unsatisfying" +100 or +150 would have been a fantastic score.

With no guarantee of either a fit or game values, there's nothing wrong with defending undoubled occasionally.

[2200]

karlson, on 2011-May-13, 10:23, said:

Well if -200 wasn't too bad, then I imagine your "unsatisfying" +100 or +150 would have been a fantastic score.

With no guarantee of either a fit or game values, there's nothing wrong with defending undoubled occasionally.

Thanks for the suggestion.
I've checked the field, though admittedly not too strong. -200 gets us about 30%, and +100 will be 70% of the matchpoint. But still, this is matchpoint, when you see a chance of sure 300 you hate to settle down for 100.

If pd dbl, you have another decision to make, whether sitting for 300 to 500, or go for 600(my choice since it's red).

[aguahombre]

2200, on 2011-May-13, 10:53, said:

If pd dbl, you have another decision to make, whether sitting for 300 to 500, or go for 600(my choice since it's red).

The hand you gave for opener probably will not reopen, even though sort of short in clubs, because of his lack of strength and fear of spades.

If he does reopen with 3D or double (holding a hand which should do that), your thoughts about going for game are reasonable. Am trying to find the 3 "♠nt" card in the bid box.

[Phil]

karlson, on 2011-May-13, 10:23, said:

Well if -200 wasn't too bad, then I imagine your "unsatisfying" +100 or +150 would have been a fantastic score.

With no guarantee of either a fit or game values, there's nothing wrong with defending undoubled occasionally.

And if partner does double, our hand looks great for 4♠.

[2200]

-200 will still get us low avg, because the field is weak. In a good field, I assume it will be close to zero.

It reminds me the board Cohen lost in 98 World Open Pairs, which cost the title. You've already seen a top, but it simply cannot be reached.

[NickRW]

2200, on 2011-May-13, 10:53, said:

I've checked the field, though admittedly not too strong. -200 gets us about 30%, and +100 will be 70% of the matchpoint. But still, this is matchpoint, when you see a chance of sure 300 you hate to settle down for 100.

Well, you should remember that bidding is something of an art, competitive bidding especially. You can't always get the best possible result, but have to settle sometimes with the best result possible.

Also, if you study the results along with the hand records of some relatively high class games, you'll notice quite a high number of "weird results". So +100 may not have been a bad score even in a good field.

Nick

[dake50]

Weasel solves this: slo-o-w double wants to penalty;
in tempo is takeout.
Haven't many seen this solution?
Of course they just happen to get this one right.
And director has too little to adjust.

[Yu18772]

Being quite aggressive bidder, I was given an advice by a world class player "Matchpoint or IMP - your first priority should be to ensure that the score is on your side, how much is secondary".
I know how you feel, but all in all the advice works.

[P_Marlowe]

2200, on 2011-May-14, 02:38, said:

-200 will still get us low avg, because the field is weak. In a good field, I assume it will be close to zero.

It reminds me the board Cohen lost in 98 World Open Pairs, which cost the title. You've already seen a top, but it simply cannot be reached.

Maybe - but usually there are boards, that also did cost.

The standard MP recommendation is, not to try to win the tournament with every boards,
and to remember, that it is possible to loose the tournament on a single board.

With kind regards
Marlowe