[rwbarton]

MP club game.

---

After 1♣ and 1♥ were alerted and explained, West jokingly alerted 2♣ and volunteered the explanation "He has clubs".

We dropped a trick on defense but -790 would have been the same 2 on a 12 top.

[ggwhiz]

The blame here goes to East and West.

I would have bid directly over 2♥ with the South hand but if I was in the field you probably end up with 3 out of 12.

[FrancesHinden]

Doubling 4H is definitely wrong.
You know what's happened, at least to the point that you know RHO didn't mean 2C as natural.
I gave this as a problem to a couple of people (the ones sitting on my sofa) and they bid 4S over 4H. They considered 5C but were concerned about a very poor club break (from LHO's preference back to clubs followed by raising hearts, LHO must have 4 clubs). They thought RHO had the reds, rather than the majors.

It might depend a bit on whether RHO asked about 1H before bidding 2C.

[gszes]

N already showed a willingness to play 2c x therefore with a normal
min and nothing special to say N would just pass 3c since you would
x that again. When N x 3c they are taking a proactive stance about
clubs letting you know they have clubs also. This in conjunction with
rho running from 3c to 3h should have been a strong enough clue
that your side belongs in clubs not x opps in hearts. Worst case scenario
is your side will end up in 5c even if you dont bid it to make certainly is
should be worth bidding as insurance at imps.

N pass of 4h was very good showing a hand that might be willing to play
at the 5 level this iseither due to power or heart shortness no matter the
reason it seems to make little sense to x 4h here.

part of this is a system problem but mostly it was not thinking about the 3c x
bid and subsequent pass over 4h so i blame south around 75% and 25%
goes toward system making this hand more difficult.

[jjbrr]

I'd pass 2♣

Edit: Oh double is penalty. That doesn't seem as good, but fine. N needs to do something better than double 3C then pass throughout.

[mikeh]

There is a lot to discuss here.

Firstly, what I suspect would be a minority view, and one that might be being influenced by seeing all hands.....I think S could consider and maybe choose passing over 2♣. Assuming responder's double, should he make one, is takeout, we will defend many times it is right to do so, while allowing partner to show extra shape should he bid rather than double.

However, at this heat and scoring, double is awfully tempting.

After the double, the spotlight turns to N. North's double of 3♣ suggests a reflexive bid rather than a thinking decision.

He has a stiff heart!!!! Opener passed 2♥ and Advancer ran to clubs. A moment's thought would have persuaded him that Overcaller had short clubs and (very) long hearts.

Another moment's thought would have persuaded him that his double didn't promise anything of substance or length in clubs. Say he held 5=4=3=1 with about 8-10 hcp. Opener already hammered 2♣, so they sure as hell aren't making 3!

So N was in possession of a lot of information: the opps have at least 9 hearts (had S held 4 surely he would have doubled), and West has fewer than 4 (or he'd have sat for 2♥)....East has at least 6 hearts, and cannot possibly hold more than 2 clubs (S needs at least 4 to double, and West needs at least 3 to pull) and probably holds 0-1...why psych a doubleton?

I would pass as N, wait for the inevitable correction to hearts and then bid clubs naturally.

So I think the double of 3♣ was an error.

When opener didn't double 3♥, truly loud warning bells should have gone off for North. His double of 3♣ shouldn't be read by anyone as a trump stack.....the opps are scrambling and N's job is to apply the hammer to 3♣ when he has defence to hearts!

So S's pass of 3♥ in essence should deny even a useful 3 card holding. And then came the raise.

While I won't pretend that all should be clear, I will assert that N has all the info he needs over 4♥ to bid 5♣. There is zero possibility that his side belongs in spades, and very little possibility that defending 4♥ is right.

I think that N simply lost track of what an intelligent S would think about the double of 3♣. So he thought he'd shown primary clubs, when in reality he might well have made the double with as little as a stiff.

[rwbarton]

We play in a game-forcing auction (established here by the 1♥ bid) double from either side is penalty and pass is takeout-ish/no clear direction. I thought that was a pretty common agreement, if not standard. So, in that context, I don't understand for example South passing over 2♣ hoping North will double, or North hypothetically doubling 3♣ with 5431 shape, that would be a pass for us.

[lalldonn]

North doubled clubs then didn't double hearts. What was south doing doubling 4♥? I would have bid 4♠ since surely I couldn't have a three card fit at that point, then north would have pulled to 5♣ with his bad spades. Everything prior to south's double of 4♥ seems obvious to me by both players so south gets all my blame.

[mikeh]

rwbarton, on 2012-August-03, 14:21, said:

We play in a game-forcing auction (established here by the 1♥ bid) double from either side is penalty and pass is takeout-ish/no clear direction. I thought that was a pretty common agreement, if not standard. So, in that context, I don't understand for example South passing over 2♣ hoping North will double, or North hypothetically doubling 3♣ with 5431 shape, that would be a pass for us.

I truly don't understand that last comment. Partner doubled 2♣ for penalty, and we have a bare gf with no fit and a 5431 with opps at unfavourable and we don't double? Why the f*&k not?

Wouldn't pass suggest that we are open to doing something other than defending, at the 3-level, a contract partner said was a mistake at the 2 level? And with 5=4=3=1/5=3=4=1, why on earth are we even thinking of anything other than double? Now, if our hand offered slam prospects, I can see passing but otherwise it appears to be nonsensical.

As for the original idea of passing 2♣, you might want to consider the type of club suit a non-idiot will hold red v white. It is trivial to construct hands on which the opps make 7 tricks.......your spots are so bad that RHO might (will) take 5 trump tricks if he holds KJ10987x and they could easily score a couple of side winners when partner has a poor hand for his positive. As I said, passing would be a tough call, but not insane.....give me AQ87x and now double is unquestionably the best call. Spots count, especially at the low levels.

[rwbarton]

mikeh, I can't figure out what you think the difference between a double and a pass over 3♣ is.

Edit: I mean, we already passed out 2♣x. I don't think there is any chance if North passes and East passes that South will do anything but double. In this situation, then, based on our general rules about doubles in GF auctions, I think double just shows club length. Why shouldn't North show what he's got? I mean sure, possibly North would do better to bid 4♣ now or bid 5♣ next round but I don't understand passing here.

It sounds like maybe you think double of 3♣ is penalty of hearts? That agreement may well have merit but I wouldn't want to invent it at the table. And it doesn't seem obviously necessary anyways, that's what we have a forcing pass over 3♥ or 4♥ for, no?

[rwbarton]

I guess this is just one of those situations where the message according to agreement of a call ("partner, we are likely to score well in 3♣x") is redundant and so it becomes a question of what the natural generalization of that message is. If it's "partner, I have clubs" then double is clear; if it's "partner, we are likely to score well by defending whatever the opponents try to play" then pass is clear. All I can say about that is that I think partner and I were on the same page about the double, and it sounds like some of the other posters are on that page too (though they may well be influenced by seeing the hand that doubled).

[mikeh]

rwbarton, on 2012-August-03, 17:09, said:

I guess this is just one of those situations where the message according to agreement of a call ("partner, we are likely to score well in 3♣x") is redundant and so it becomes a question of what the natural generalization of that message is. If it's "partner, I have clubs" then double is clear; if it's "partner, we are likely to score well by defending whatever the opponents try to play" then pass is clear. All I can say about that is that I think partner and I were on the same page about the double, and it sounds like some of the other posters are on that page too (though they may well be influenced by seeing the hand that doubled).

Your agreement, that double of 3♣ shows clubs, works on this hand. How often do opps make psychic short suit overcalls red v white? Since opener doubled for penalty in a situation in which responder would often be happy to pass with a stiff, just how many clubs will responder hold when the opps aren't psyching?

In my games, I can't remember a red v white player making such a bid....maybe others see it as a common enough occurence that they design their bidding around it...as you seem to.

If the other 3 players have even a semblance of their bids, N's maximum club length will be 1. If so, then we don't need double to show an impossible holding (unless the opps do this sort of lunacy often). If we don't need double to say the red v white opps are idiot psychers, then we need it for something else. To me, it makes sense that double simply says I have no interest in anything else....if you, partner, thought that defending 2♣ was best unless I had an unusual hand....well, I don't have one and I'm happy to defend 3♣.

That allows pass to mean something else.....probably a hand with mild slam interest or better (we can pass then pull to show the better, and respect the likely double with the mild), while an immediate bid would be a strong suggestion of shape and strength.

This seems to fulfill one of the main aims of system design....maximizing the hand-types one can show while optimizing our ability to play for penalties.

However, this sequence will probably never be duplicated in your bridge playing career so maybe this is much ado about nothing...tho I think the mental processes are worth considering.

And, for what it is worth, I do suspect that most of the other posts here have been influenced by seeing the hands, in terms of the analysis of the early auction (not their views of the final action).

It would have been interesting to post a N hand with say Kxxxx KJxx Qxx x with the auction through 3♣ and see what votes double would have got.

[gnasher]

Mike, with the North hand you seem to be argung that it's correct to pass 3♣ and then bid 5♣. Why is that better than doubling 3♣ and then bidding 5♣?

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2012-August-04, 00:10, said:

Mike, with the North hand you seem to be argung that it's correct to pass 3♣ and then bid 5♣. Why is that better than doubling 3♣ and then bidding 5♣?

I don't say it makes any difference to the final result, but (for the reasons I set out), it remains my view that doubling 3♣ was an error in that, it seems to me, this player felt he could/should pass 4♥ doubled because he had 'already shown' his clubs. IOW, barton seems to say that doubling 3♣ promised a penalty double based on club length and strength.

Of course, in my view N had an easy bid of 5♣ over 4♥ rather than making a fatuous forcing pass. That's why I see this debacle as (almost)all N's fault...S had every reason in the world to play N for better defence against hearts...I mean wtf was S supposed to play N for having?

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on 2012-August-04, 08:47, said:

I mean wtf was S supposed to play N for having?

spades (he bid spades)
clubs (he doubled clubs for penalty)
short hearts (he failed to double hearts for penalty having shown spades and clubs, and also the opps bid 4H r/w in our GF auction).

[JLOGIC]

Just trolling a little, in all serious obviously north should bid 5C. His partner didn't double 3H, and doubled 2C for penalty...and the opps bid 4H lol. Not sure what he was thinking.