OK here's story....
- South was an excellent and thoughtful American player, but not a super-expert.
- North was a truly great American player (seriously, one of the very best).
- North and South had played a reasonable number of boards together in the past, but were not a regular partnership.
- I doubt that North-South has discussed any of the 16 questions I presented other than perhaps Question 2 for which they almost surely would have briefly agreed "forcing to suit agreement" (since I believe this is "default expert standard" in the USA).
- Even if North-South had not discussed Question 2, they would have both assumed "forcing to suit agreement".
- South had a nice-looking 3415 with strong clubs.
- North was 6232 and had sufficient values to make a mildish slam try after partner's takeout double.
- South was not sure what to expect when North bid 3S.
- As a result, the final contract was 4S instead of a very good though not laydown 6S.
When I was asked about this hand, my initial reaction was that I did not like either South's 2H call (preferring Pass or 3C) or North's 3S call (preferring 4S).
My reasons for not likely 2H were based mostly on instinct - I guess it goes against the grain for me to bid a 4-card suit before a strong 5-card suit when your hand is strong enough to force to game. Clubs, even though it is a minor, is a real suit too and sometimes 5C is actually the right contract.
But it is not as if I have really spent much time previously thinking about the answers to Questions 3 through 11. I actually suspect that few pairs, even at the highest levels, have substantial agreements in this area and there is definitely no "default expert standard" here. Yet the auction through East's DBL is fairly common. IMO it would be worthwhile for any serious partnership of advanced (or better) players to discuss Questions 3 through 11.
North was able to offer a fairly compelling case as to why 3S *should* be a slam try with long spades, but for me this was a matter of being (probably) right in theory but still being wrong in practice.
My reason for not liking 3S is (as the answers from various posters seem to confirm) that there are several issues, many of them complex and with no obviously clear answers, that impact what North's various possible actions (including 3S) *should* mean from a theoretical point of view. I feel pretty strongly that it is not practical to make a fairly subtle bid in such circumstances while expecting that even an expert partner will be on the same wavelength - there are just to many ways that partner's thinking process can differ from yours.
This is especially true when you have an alternative call that, even if it is only second best from a purely theoretical point view, will clearly get the message across. In this case that would be 4S which to me at least would be an obvious mildish slam try with a long spade suit.
And that to me is the main answer to Question 16: sometimes practically has to trump theory (no, I did not expect anyone to figure out the answer I was looking for!).
In general I found the answers to the questions to be of a higher quality than I was expecting. That was meant as a compliment, not an insult
My main criticism of the answers is that most of the posters did not give enough consideration to some of the less common hands that the takeout DBLer might have. For example:
- There are 3 types of DBL-and-bid-your-suit type hands...
1) 5431ish hands with shortness in the opponents suit and roughly 16+ HCPs
2) Powerful playing hands with plenty of high cards and a long suit that can play opposite a singleton and which do not have support for all unbid suits. Some of these hands are strong enough to force to slam or explore for 7 after partner's cuebid. Yes, I realize that some players don't make takeout DBLs on such hands unless they have an astronomical number of HCPs.
- Normal strength hands with 54 or 45 in the majors. Again I realize that some people will not make takeout DBLs with such hands, but if you do and if you have 5 spades and 4 hearts, maybe South's 2S over East's DBL does not deny 4H as several people seemed to suggest?
- Big 4441 or 5440 hands. Maybe South should bid 4D with these? Maybe that is what 3D should be all about? That would leave room for suit agreement, cuebidding, and RKCB (which the 4D splinter-in-support-of-everything would not).
Several of you did well to notice the degree to which answers to some questions impact the answers to other, but I was somewhat surprised that nobody mentioned an important question that I forgot to ask:
Question 17: What is the expected hand for a jump to 4M in direct response to a takeout DBL?
I was more than somewhat surprised that few (if any) of you seemed to consider that North might have a hand like this for his cuebid:
(where to me a cuebid is normal). This is meant to be an invitational hand. If you think this hand is a game force then make it a little weaker/different.
I have thought about this sequence quite a bit during the past 24 hours and I still don't have answers I love to all of the questions, but one thing I have decided is I think that Question 11 is an important one that (as far as I can tell) few experts naturally consider when asked Questions 3 through 10. My latest thought on this follows (it could easily have a glaring flaw that has not occurred to me yet):
DBLer's Pass over opener's DBL of 2D could mean either "I have a bad hand" or "I have a strong hand with no good bid" (for example, a balanced 18+ with no diamond stopper or one of the two types of DBL-and-bid-your suit type hands). Obviously advancer plays DBLer for the bad hand and DBLer has to then catch up if he has one of the unexpected big hands.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Help
