[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-October-28, 14:32, said:

Thank you for clarifying, Trinidad. If responder's hesitant 2♠ and subsequent pass might well indicate that hand, then the BIT suggests that opener double 3♥ rather than pass and pass rather than bid 3♠.

Exactly, except that responder's hesitant 2♠ might also have been based on an unbalanced 8 point hand with a 5+ card minor which would suggest offense rather than defense and, hence, suggest 3♠ over pass/double.

You need to look at all the hand types that might be suggested by the UI, and not stop when you find one possible hand type.

Rik

[Fluffy]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-28, 15:23, said:

Exactly, except that responder's hesitant 2♠ might also have been based on an unbalanced 8 point hand with a 5+ card minor which would suggest offense rather than defense and, hence, suggest 3♠ over pass/double.

You need to look at all the hand types that might be suggested by the UI, and not stop when you find one possible hand type.

Rik

I don't see your point about partner being unbalanced suggesting offence. If partner has 2 spades and 5 card minor, we still need to hit with 3+ cards on his suit for the hand to be any more offensive, with 2 or less it is defensive. When I Was thinknig about options I dismished that hand as I though it didn't suggest anything one way or another, so what was left was the double>pass>3♠.

[WesleyC]

I'm hesitant to dig up this topic again, but I do want to address a point made by gszes, ggwhiz and Vampyr who suggest that the final double in this auction is a 'flexible' action. My opinion (in the context of Matchpoints) is that the final double here isn't optional, its penalties. I would almost never expect partner to remove it.

Although not relevant to the ethical dilemma, the final scoring of the board strongly supports double over pass in this particular part-score battle.

For our side:
-730 - 0%
-140 - 24%
+100 - 42%
+110 - 51% (par score in spades with accurate defense)
+140 - 70%
+200 - 95%

So in this case double only risked 24% and had the potential to gain 53%.

[Vampyr]

WesleyC, on 2014-November-03, 02:36, said:

I'm hesitant to dig up this topic again, but I do want to address a point made by gszes, ggwhiz and Vampyr who suggest that the final double in this auction is a 'flexible' action. My opinion (in the context of Matchpoints) is that the final double here isn't optional, its penalties. I would almost never expect partner to remove it.

This doesn't matter; the UI suggests that double will be successful. The point about its being flexible is that if partner's hesitation did not indicate a hand suitable for defense he can still pull it.

Quote

Although not relevant to the ethical dilemma, the final scoring of the board strongly supports double over pass in this particular part-score battle.

For our side:
-730 - 0%
-140 - 24%
+100 - 42%
+110 - 51% (par score in spades with accurate defense)
+140 - 70%
+200 - 95%

It is kind of relevant, as it shows that few in your position chose to double.

Quote

So in this case double only risked 24% and had the potential to gain 53%.

Whatever.

[ggwhiz]

I don't think you did anything intentionally wrong and would suggest that this is a VERY common and imho misreading of the situation.

Partners hesitation suggests something and I don't know what but double caters to every possibility. By choosing a LA that removes a possibility or two to land on our feet and putting us at some risk (double puts us at zero risk on the flexibility angle) I have never lost an appeal.

[beatrix45]

x