[jdeegan]

---

Now what, big time lucky card holder?

[rmnka447]

I'm voting for pass at this point.

Yes, you do have more than half the deck in HCP, but you've showed a good hand by doubling twice. Your RHO has opened and rates to have at least 11-12 HCP. That leaves roughly 6-7 HCP for both responder and partner combined to hold.

Partner has made a minimum response and has not shown any further interest in competing. So any bid that forces your side to the 3 level is unlikely to have a positive result. If you take the contract, the hand will likely be played out of your hand with little likelihood of getting to partner's hand so you can take advantage of your tenaces. Conversely, your hand is much likely to play much better on defense. Your ♥ honor sequence may provide exit cards that will put the opponents in the position of playing into your tenaces.

[akwoo]

Unless it's the local club and I know the answer, I turn to West and ask: "I have a question, and it's okay to answer 'I don't know' if you haven't discussed this and don't have enough experience with your partner to tell. Would your partner have made a raise to 2♠ over the first double with 3 card spade support and a single king?"

If the answer is yes, I pass. If the answer is no, I double. If the answer is I don't know, I try to guess what the answer is from what East looks like.

[mike777]

akwoo, on 2013-August-23, 00:37, said:

Unless it's the local club and I know the answer, I turn to West and ask: "I have a question, and it's okay to answer 'I don't know' if you haven't discussed this and don't have enough experience with your partner to tell. Would your partner have made a raise to 2♠ over the first double with 3 card spade support and a single king?"

If the answer is yes, I pass. If the answer is no, I double. If the answer is I don't know, I try to guess what the answer is from what East looks like.

wow you ask detailed questions........really...

not even sure legal/ethical/ui..but let us assume legal/ethical/ui...wow....

[PhilKing]

I stand on my chair and pass.

[gwnn]

It's OK to think about ending... It's OK to not even start.

[jdeegan]

mike777, on 2013-August-23, 02:19, said:

wow you ask detailed questions........really...

not even sure legal/ethical/ui..but let us assume legal/ethical/ui...wow....

It is OK to read the opponents, but not partner. You also have a right to know your opponents bidding methods down to the last detail. Asking detailed questions of the opponents is OK as long as you are not doing so in order to influence partner (the slang term is UI, standing for unauthorized information). Clearly, repeatedly asking a bunch of fairly subjective and interpretive questions to the opponents slows down the game - you can overdo it, but as far as I know, it is not illegal in and of itself. In this case, it seems fair to me. You may sometimes choose not to ask a particular question in order to avoid revealing certain information about your own circumstances to the opponents.

[ggwhiz]

3♣ for me.

Could easily be wrong but too many of the jokers I play against could be stealing in 3rd chair white and east doesn't know it unless I tip my hand with the Spanish inquisition. I might get to hammer a further bid by them, catch pard with long clubs that either makes or is a good dive (undoubled) or if it is, I don't have to play it. Pard needs so little their silence is to be expected.

After 4 days of qualifying I heard one guy tell his pard that he had gone over their results and they did much better with him declaring. The other guy replied, that says volumes about the quality of your dummies.

[akwoo]

jdeegan, on 2013-August-23, 03:49, said:

mike777, on 2013-August-23, 02:19, said:

akwoo, on 2013-August-23, 00:37, said:

Unless it's the local club and I know the answer, I turn to West and ask: "I have a question, and it's okay to answer 'I don't know' if you haven't discussed this and don't have enough experience with your partner to tell. Would your partner have made a raise to 2♠ over the first double with 3 card spade support and a single king?"

If the answer is yes, I pass. If the answer is no, I double. If the answer is I don't know, I try to guess what the answer is from what East looks like.

wow you ask detailed questions........really...

not even sure legal/ethical/ui..but let us assume legal/ethical/ui...wow....

It is OK to read the opponents, but not partner. You also have a right to know your opponents bidding methods down to the last detail. Asking detailed questions of the opponents is OK as long as you are not doing so in order to influence partner (the slang term is UI, standing for unauthorized information). Clearly, repeatedly asking a bunch of fairly subjective and interpretive questions to the opponents slows down the game - you can overdo it, but as far as I know, it is not illegal in and of itself. In this case, it seems fair to me. You may sometimes choose not to ask a particular question in order to avoid revealing certain information about your own circumstances to the opponents.

What I really want to know if East has a reasonable chance of having 3 spades and some of the missing high cards in this auction.

I could just ask that, but then I'm likely going to get a vague answer like "Hmm... I'm not sure... But let's see... He didn't bid the first time... Hmm..." because West very well might not have thought about the implications of East passing the original takeout double. (Against players whom I knew to be competent at answering questions, I would just ask this.)

Or I could ask the range for a 2♠ raise over the takeout double, but then I'm likely to get "It's 6-9 (with an undertone of "Doesn't everyone know this?"). <short pause> But hmm... you doubled, and partner has been known to stretch quite a bit in competitive situations. He would certainly raise with ace fourth in spades and nothing else, and some worse hands, probably king-ten fourth... hmm... even ace third maybe? He's a passed hand, so..."

My hope is that, by asking a precise question, I get a simple precise answer that doesn't require further clarifications and doesn't lead to the person answering thinking out loud at the table (possibly leading them to transmit UI to their partner). I find that if I don't ask a precise question, I generally end up getting vagueness followed by speculation, and end up having to ask a precise question to focus the answer anyway.

[quiddity]

I would double again at matchpoints. Seems like we have a decent shot of making 3♣ or going down one undoubled if partner bids it and a decent shot of beating 2♠ if he doesn't.

[mikeh]

I would definitely either already know or would now find out, asking partner to leave the table if need be, whether LHO had 2 ways to raise to 2♠ initially.

However, it really doesn't matter a lot.

Unless partner has an improbable diamond length, he is either 4=4 blacks or has at least 5 clubs.

He should be able to infer that I am probably 2=4=4=3, although I suppose I could be 1=4=5=3. He definitely knows I lack 4 clubs. He knows, also, that I am likely to be leading trump, to preserve my diamonds. He won't play me for these potentially huge spade cards but by the same token, he'll play me for better diamonds (AQ10x?).

So I think that he 'should' pass with 4=4 blacks on the basis that he has nowhere to go and that I have to have been ready for this pass. I admit this is circular reasoning, but that's ok provided both of us are on the same circle.

Meanwhile, I think he should usually bid with 5 clubs.

Since we rate to make 3♣ when he has 5 of them, and they rate to fail on spade leads when he has 4=4, double seems best.

I am so sure of this that I think I'd recommend this approach even at imps.

[ggwhiz]

mikeh, on 2013-August-23, 15:14, said:

Unless partner has an improbable diamond length,

Good point in that an astute partner should bid 2♦ with 4-4 in the minors rather than 2♣ making the other assumptions about possible black suit shapes more valid.

[PhilKing]

I wish the best of luck to the good ship Double, and all who sail in her.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-23, 17:17, said:

I wish the best of luck to the good ship Double, and all who sail in her.

Do you have reasoning behind this?

If you think that partner will/should bid 3♣ on a 4 card suit, then I am with you. But, since you don't explain the why, it is impossible to learn anything from your posts.

[jdeegan]

The full hand from a BBO IMP Speedball Pairs:

BBO Speedball Pairs IMP's

---

Imo, this one is not a guess (see I Fought the Law of Total Tricks for guidance). The ♠QJ argues for a pass. If you must bid, then double or even bid 2NT. My pick up partner found the amazing call of 3♣. This turned our plus into a minus.

[gnasher]

The full hand shows why double is dangerous: we "know" that partner is going to be endplayed into passing, but if he doesn't have ♠10 or ♠9 the contract is probably unbeatable. Double would be more attractive if we had better diamond spots. And declarer is allowed to be 5-5.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-24, 02:11

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2013-August-24, 01:58, said:

The full hand shows why double is dangerous: we "know" that partner is going to be endplayed into passing, but if he doesn't have ♠10 or ♠9 the contract is probably unbeatable. Double would be more attractive if we had better diamond spots

or if we were able to find a forcing defense at the table.

Edit: Ah I see, you are presumable assuming a trump lead. Maybe that's not such great idea after all.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2013-August-24, 02:20, said:

or if we were able to find a forcing defense at the table.

Well, Mike was leading a trump. Against the actual layout, that's OK, and Mike still gets it two down as long as he switches tack at the first opportunity (trump, diamond, heart switch, diamond, cash hearts then play clubs).

Make declarer's spades AK109x, and the contract makes on this defence. (Declarer might consider ruffing the third diamond in dummy in order to take a spade finesse to ensure one down, but he knows that plan won't work. If we're 1453 partner will overruff the diamond. Or he could start on that plan, notice that the diamond didn't get overruffed, and work out the actual shapes.)

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-August-23, 17:40, said:

Do you have reasoning behind this?

If you think that partner will/should bid 3♣ on a 4 card suit, then I am with you. But, since you don't explain the why, it is impossible to learn anything from your posts.

You have good reason to think pard has nothing and no reason to believe the opponents have a fit. I would expect pard to be 4xx4, in which case offensive prospects are non-existent. There just seems no reason to act here. Sure, he should pass with 4-4, but that doesn't mean they are going off. When we can beat 2♠, the difference between +50 and +100 will be minimal, and partner will often pull when he shouldn't in any non-practised partnership (and be clear that I would pass however much we had discussed these sequences).

I would categorise a second double as a clearcut error, and would award it 7 out of 10 on the Nige scale.

[mikeh]

I love it. Partner has a clear, tho undoubtedly painful pass of the 3rd double. Partner has zero hcp! Zero! We beat 2♠ handily. Imagine him holding dummy's diamond J in addition to that admittedly important spade 10.

Of course the 3rd double is 'dangerous'. Are we really arguing that we should never make calls because there is danger associated with the call we are contemplating?

I probably average more undoubled undertricks per session, on defence, than any of the passers on this hand, and maybe I wouldn't have doubled in real life, because I am so conservative, but I thought and still think that the double here is a reasonable shot.

This double was not pure penalty. Give partner xxxx xx xx Kxxxx, and he bids 3♣, and aren't we going to be delighted with that?

If the double were always going to be passed, I'd agree with andy and phil but they seem to ignore the other, real, upside to the call.