[kenberg]

I'll first give you partner's hand: It's a team game, imp scoring.

---

Your call? What's going on? What are the choices?

South, that's me, has an opening hand and the support double shows three card hear support. Presumably the pass of 2♦ shows nothing in particular except the lack of any clear action.

Me, I would bid one of the following: 2♠, 3♥ or 4♥. Given the vulnerability, a passable 3♥ seems to me to be an underbid. I think I go with 2♠.
Partner chose a double. I fail to see the logic in this.

rogerclee did these lectures on doubles but I can't find them Maybe he addresses this.

This is something of a shaggy dog story since we got a fine result. Both 4♥ and 3NT are makable but at the other table the contract was 4♥ off 1. Here are the two hands:

imps

---

East's only four card suit is Diamonds and he has all the missing high card points.

OK, a good result, but it never occurred to me that pard would have five hearts. I figured he had good values and wanted to play for penalties. Maybe he did mean it for penalties. Or am I supposed to bid 2♥? If he wants to play in hearts, why not bid hearts? If he wants to check for a spade fit, why not bid spades?

[Winstonm]

I think it would be odd to make a penalty double in front of the bidder, so I would take this double must be what we used to call a cooperative double - which is about right on the strength of that hand, anyway.

[Lorne50]

Double looks OK to me.

Firstly N should bid a round earlier if he thinks it is clear to declare the hand, but having passed and seen S pass (which is very likely to be a weak NT hand) N is looking at a reasonable 10 count but only an 8 card fit with a singleton in partners suit and 70% of his points in an oppo suit. Chances for game can't be that good but 2♦ 2 or 3 off is a reasonable gamble.

[kenberg]

Lorne50, on 2013-October-15, 16:56, said:

Double looks OK to me.

Firstly N should bid a round earlier if he thinks it is clear to declare the hand, but having passed and seen S pass (which is very likely to be a weak NT hand) N is looking at a reasonable 10 count but only an 8 card fit with a singleton in partners suit and 70% of his points in an oppo suit. Chances for game can't be that good but 2♦ 2 or 3 off is a reasonable gamble.

If I understand you correctly, you also regard it as penalty oriented. Cooperative of course, but not for take-out? Maybe it was so intended. Doubling the opponents in 2♦ when we have a known eight card heart fit seems odd to me. But perhaps. And then with my hand, the South hand? I certainly have no reason to expect five hearts in partner's hand. So I pass, we set it 500. No complaints about the result (although 620 is better), but I still think I would bid 2♠ rather than X. And yes, now that you mention it, 1♠ a round earlier seems right. With an eight card fit in hearts I really don't think I would be looking to play for penalties at a low level.

As my subtitle says, I could be wrong here, and I do appreciate the opinions.

[nigel_k]

If you are going to penalize them at a low level, at adverse vulnerability, when you have a known eight card major fit, you are going to want a trump stack and even then might not work out.

So I definitely disagree with double if it suggests penalties, and I don't understand it on this hand if not. I think 3♥ is enough. Partner can also see the vulnerability.

[lowerline]

Double would not have occurred to me... I would have bid 3♥ raised to 4 by partner. Not sure if I will win it though...


Steven

[P_Marlowe]

3H.

You have inv. strength, the shortage in partners suit and the xxx in
their suit is no plus value.

Opener will pass, he has a min opening bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ggwhiz]

I don't play support doubles or like them much being from the strength first, find out where to play later school.

Key to me are the constraints on openers pass of 2♦. I assume a weak notrump? Do you open aggressively with 11?

While I don't agree with double I can understand it as a bit of a gambling action. If south has better clubs and only 2 spades kaching. It's not a stretch to think that the opponents best trump fit may be in clubs.

[kenberg]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-October-16, 07:42, said:

3H.

You have inv. strength, the shortage in partners suit and the xxx in
their suit is no plus value.

Opener will pass, he has a min opening bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Rightly or wrongly, I would have raised 3♥ to 4. It makes (although it was not made at the other table). Perhaps not surprisingly, since no one bid spades, that suit is 3-3. The AK of diamonds are well placed, as are the KQ of clubs. So various lines work. But of course if diamonds are 5-2 instead of 4-3, it can go AK and ruff, and then it is pretty hopeless. The Qxx of diamonds is certainly a warning sign.

Anyway, my judgment is as good or as bad as it is, but I am not at all sure what partner intended his double to be. This was maybe the fourth hand or so with someone I have never played with before. I see lots of doubles at the table such as this one, where I feel that a more descriptive call is available. Maybe he meant it as a cooperative try to play for penalties, or as the infamous do something intelligent call, but it is easier to do something intelligent if I know that partner has five rather than four hearts.

I singled out marlow for a response because of his thought that I would pass 3♥, but my comments fit in with other notes here as well.

[mikestar13]

3♥ for me. IMHO, North would have done better to make his choice of bids on the previous round. I could tolerate any of 2, 3, or 4♥ according to North's evaluation of the hand, but I don't like the pass of XX.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-October-16, 14:44, said:

Rightly or wrongly, I would have raised 3♥ to 4. It makes (although it was not made at the other table). Perhaps not surprisingly, since no one bid spades, that suit is 3-3. The AK of diamonds are well placed, as are the KQ of clubs. So various lines work. But of course if diamonds are 5-2 instead of 4-3, it can go AK and ruff, and then it is pretty hopeless. The Qxx of diamonds is certainly a warning sign.

It seems like East had a pretty unusual hand for his double, which is the only reason it makes. Typically that bid shows 4 spades and 4+ diamonds, so even if the ♦AK are on side, you're likely to lose 2 spades. So it's not a good contract.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-October-17, 08:14, said:

It seems like East had a pretty unusual hand for his double, which is the only reason it makes. Typically that bid shows 4 spades and 4+ diamonds, so even if the ♦AK are on side, you're likely to lose 2 spades. So it's not a good contract.

I agree that 4♥ does not look like a great contract, although losing two spades is not really the prime problem. Even if the opening lead is a trump, as it was at the other table, the fourth spade could be ruffed if needed. But a spade ruff only brings you up to nine tricks and now the timing for developing the tenth could get tricky. Not impossible maybe, but definitely tricky if spades are 4-2. Develop and cash the diamond before getting the ruff would work, I think. If we place two hearts in the long spade hand along with AK of diamonds, maybe we can still get home. But the evidence is pretty fair that spades are 3-3. It is likely that the doubler has at least three, both because he doubled and because his partner did not bid spades over the XX. But now, after XX-Pass-pass, I would expect doubler to bid 1♠ if he had four. So, on the auction, three is likely. not certain, but likely.


At any rate, I agree that 4♥ is not a great contract, I was saying only that looking at my 14 count with the AKx of hears, I would have raised 3♥ to 4. To me, the biggest negative, if the auction after 2♦ had gone pas-pass-3♥-pass, is the Qxx of diamonds. A, K, small diamond ruffed sounds like a real threat.

As to the bidding by E, he does have all of the 16 missing high card points so while his call is a bit unusual, I can understand it. Doubling with a 3=3=4=3 sixteen count is heresy to some, automatic to others. I think I would have stayed quiet with that hand. To each his own. Suppose he stays out. We probably get an uncontested 1♣-1♥-1NT-2♦(nmf)-3♥ -4♥. It's true that the stiff club is not something to get overly excited about but it still seems to me that the auction would go in this manner. A vulnerable game on 24 highs, a good 5-3 fit, and a stiff. I have been in far worse places.