[wanoff]

I was going to post this in the Expert forum but we're discouraged from doing so.
Match from this week, love all, imps, E/W are current internationals.

---

Where did I go wrong ?

[helene_t]

You didn't go wrong until now, your initial pass is fine

I would pass now but who knows. 3NT is reasonable. 4♣ is wrong imho.

[mikeh]

I would bid 3N. Obviously aggressive, but the choice is between pass and 3N. The reason I bid is that partner could have a very big hand, and, if so, my values will be working...the diamond Ace will likely be more valuable than, say, KQx, and opposite a huge hand, my major suit Jacks may be very useful. I'll pass 4N, but he may be able to drive us to slam on a good day. When we can't make anything, we probably weren't getting rich against 3♦.

[broze]

3N at IMPs. Pass at MPs.

[ggwhiz]

 wanoff, on 2015-February-07, 13:14, said:

I was going to post this in the Expert forum but we're discouraged from doing so.

Well you did have only 2 Internationalists at the table vs. zero "real" experts discouraging this.

I would pass.

[gnasher]

Against 3♦x we'll score something between -470 and +300. In 3NT we'll get between -100 and +400. When you look at it like that, we don't need very good odds in 3NT.

[vinchy]

I would interpret (and if sitting N, bid) the double as a beg-partner-not-to-pass bid.

[SteveMoe]

Pass. Missing honors rate to be offside with RHO.

[inquiry]

Takeout doubles are for take out. I do leave them in from time to time, but not with one sure defensive trick. 3NT is better than it might look at first because you can hold up in diamonds to break their communication and West is might not have a sure entry with partner's values behind him. So 3NT seems clear to me.

[nige1]

 wanoff, on 2015-February-07, 13:14, said:

I was going to post this in the Expert forum but we're discouraged from doing so. Match from this week, love all, imps, E/W are current internationals. Where did I go wrong ?

---

IMO, Pass = 10. 3N = 9. 4♣ = 7. A 3rd seat pre-empt has a wide range and passing the double is risky. In spite of expert opinion to the contrary, I reckon that it's still the percentage action.

[PhantomSac]

I like passing more than most in this spot but I would bid 3NT with this hand.

[PLimprove]

It's no solution.

[GrahamJson]

I think it was Bobby Wolff who said that when faced with a choice of calls, one of which is 3NT, bid it. I think that this is one of those occasions.

[Fluffy]

To play a partscores doubled we normally need slow trump tricks or fast outside tricks,only ♦9 could be one of those if partner has a helpful ♦J in front or something, passing looks like a bad bet to me.

Nobody likes 4♣, and I suppose they are right because partner might be stretching with 5422 or something, but I don't like 3NT either, we are too far from the values needed. I guess the good thing of 3NT is, it is harder to double when it is wrong. So 3NT isbest, but I don't find 4♣ so bad.

 gnasher, on 2015-February-07, 17:19, said:

Against 3♦x we'll score something between -470 and +300. In 3NT we'll get between -100 and +400. When you look at it like that, we don't need very good odds in 3NT.

6 diamonds and 2 aces is more than -100

[fourdad]

What was your partnership agreement for the value of the X?

[PhilKing]

 GrahamJson, on 2015-February-08, 01:21, said:

I think it was Bobby Wolff who said that when faced with a choice of calls, one of which is 3NT, bid it. I think that this is one of those occasions.

Yet for some reason they call it Hamman's Law.

[Trump Echo]

I'd bid 3 NT.

[GrahamJson]

 PhilKing, on 2015-February-08, 06:00, said:

Yet for some reason they call it Hamman's Law.

He must have stolen the idea.

[PhilKing]

 GrahamJson, on 2015-February-08, 08:25, said:

He must have stolen the idea.

Wolff's mantra is "too dangerous is not a reason to pass," which he stole from Mike Tindall.

[canimprove]

Bid 3NT, the most reasonable action here. One cannot be perfect against preempts.