[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-25, 18:59, said:

I would say that you weren't right, but rather, that it didn't matter. My partners dn't leave take out doubles with singleton on their suit.

At these colors, and with the given opening bid, removing the double of 4H isn't even close enough to be a L.A., IMO. Timo's slam blast is a much closer decision.

[MinorKid]

It is a certain 6♣ immediately after 1♣.
Disregarding the ♥Q you have 17HCP, -1 DP and at least +3 fit points gives you 19 TP.
19 + >13 >= 32

Imagining partner hand assuming not counting ♥J for opening bid,6C is certain even through his hand is balanced.

What it remain is that what kind of partner's hand worth a blast of 7♣.

[aguahombre]

MinorKid, on 2013-December-25, 22:43, said:

It is a certain 6♣ immediately after 1♣.
Disregarding the ♥Q you have 17HCP, -1 DP and at least +3 fit points gives you 19 TP.
19 + >13 >= 32

Imagining partner hand assuming not counting ♥J for opening bid,6C is certain even through his hand is balanced.

What it remain is that what kind of partner's hand worth a blast of 7♣.

Unless you read the constructions where opener has two hearts, or five small clubs promoting the JXX behind you. Any balanced opener is down off the top, when you see the 4H overcall.

[MinorKid]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-26, 00:11, said:

Unless you read the constructions where opener has two hearts, or five small clubs promoting the JXX behind you. Any balanced opener is down off the top, when you see the 4H overcall.

The slam may go down when the combined value is exactly 32. But most of the time a slam is worthwhile.

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-25, 18:59, said:

I would say that you weren't right, but rather, that it didn't matter. My partners dn't leave take out doubles with singleton on their suit.

When i said i was right, i meant to say i was right for this hand, the continuation of my sentence proves that. Btw, i was joking about your experience, obviously, since you have more experience than me in BBF, I was surprised you expected unanimous decision in BBF when we did not have unanimous decisions for the hands much more clear than this one, in the past.

[CSGibson]

Misread full hand - got it confused with the Waterman's potential example, which I would always remove. This one I probably play in 4S hit, or I bid 4N if I'm confident partner will read that as pick-a-minor.

[nige1]

eagles123, on 2013-December-20, 16:38, said:

MP playing ACOL so 1C is 4+
N/S known for being a bit eccentric

---

IMO Double = 10, 6♣ = 7, especially if NS are a bit eccentric

[HighLow21]

Double and lead a trump. If 6♣ makes and it's worth a bit more than 4♥ doubled, that's too bad, but I would think we can take 4♥ down 4 more often than 6♣ is good. All in all, a good, close problem.

Then again maybe I'm showing my biases as an IMPs player. I hate risking going minus when we are guaranteed a good score by not stretching... and I'm fully prepared to abandon 120-odd potential points to gain a sure 800+.

[aguahombre]

HighLow21, on 2013-December-27, 10:20, said:

Double and lead a trump. If 6♣ makes and it's worth a bit more than 4♥ doubled, that's too bad, but I would think we can take 4♥ down 4 more often than 6♣ is good. All in all, a good, close problem.

Then again maybe I'm showing my biases as an IMPs player. I hate risking going minus when we are guaranteed a good score by not stretching... and I'm fully prepared to abandon 120-odd potential points to gain a sure 800+.

You would lead a WHAT?????????????

[HighLow21]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-27, 10:30, said:

You would lead a WHAT?????????????

A trump.

[the_clown]

What Fluffy said

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-27, 10:30, said:

You would lead a WHAT?????????????

HighLow21, on 2013-December-27, 10:41, said:

A trump.

I think you must have misread the situation. We are talking about leading against 4♥x, holding Qxx in trump and AKQ in a side suit.

[StevenG]

HighLow21, on 2013-December-27, 10:20, said:

Double and lead a trump. If 6♣ makes and it's worth a bit more than 4♥ doubled, that's too bad, but I would think we can take 4♥ down 4 more often than 6♣ is good.

If declarer has eight hearts - very likely for his bid - he'll make almost certainly make 7 tricks in trumps alone. If he doesn't have AK of trumps, he'll likely have another trick somewhere to justify his bid.

Doubling is a straight bet that 6♣ fails. What odds you need depends on what proportion of the room is in 6♣, and you can't tell that without knowing how people are likely to bid at this particular club.

[CSGibson]

StevenG, on 2013-December-27, 14:12, said:

Doubling is a straight bet that 6♣ fails.

While I understand what you are saying, that's not true. Double is not penalty, and does not preclude us from getting to 6 clubs - partner can and should remove with distribution. And when partner has distribution, 6 clubs is a good bet; when partner does not have distribution, then 6 clubs is not a good bet.

[mfa1010]

StevenG, on 2013-December-27, 14:12, said:

If declarer has eight hearts - very likely for his bid - he'll make almost certainly make 7 tricks in trumps alone. If he doesn't have AK of trumps, he'll likely have another trick somewhere to justify his bid.

Doubling is a straight bet that 6♣ fails. What odds you need depends on what proportion of the room is in 6♣, and you can't tell that without knowing how people are likely to bid at this particular club.

No, I disagree with this.

1100 will happen. On point count alone partner has a good chance of having A or K of hearts. And whatever side suit trick the opponent is hoping for may well not be there. For instance KJx of either spades or diamonds will typically give him nothing. Etc.

And double is still a takeout double. Partner is supposed to bid with heart shortage. So when defending is wrong partner may be bidding.

[MrAce]

I think this is where we split our roads. I mean the meaning of double. It is neither penalty nor negative double to me. Those who plays it negative will have different issues in some other hands. Those like myself will have issues when we hold a very good t/o shape and pd passes. When the preempts are high, such as 4-5 level, the doubles start to contrast from strict negative to all kinds of hands which are too strong to pass it out in peace for me. Basically we call them card showing doubles, owner ship of the hand doubles or w/e you may choose to call them.

In that context (if you play double like i do) doubles are left in much more often than they are not. Holding shortness in opponent suit = auto removal of double is not something i am fond of. Just like any other formulized treatments. To me it needs more shape than just holding shortness in opponents suit, which is more or less predicted by pd in most cases anyway.

[CSGibson]

Timo, would you expect partner to remove your double with 4=1=3=5 shape and an average opening hand? How about 4=1=2=6 shape?

In my partnerships (in which we define X as "negative", but really as card-showing with convertible values at higher levels), I would almost always expect partner to remove - X was made with a rebid plan in that case anyway. On the actual shape, 3=1=4=5 with a bad club suit, as well as any weak NT hand with or without 4 spades, I expect that partner will leave in the X a majority of the time.

[MrAce]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-27, 16:19, said:

Timo, would you expect partner to remove your double with 4=1=3=5 shape and an average opening hand? How about 4=1=2=6 shape?

In my partnerships (in which we define X as "negative", but really as card-showing with convertible values at higher levels), I would almost always expect partner to remove - X was made with a rebid plan in that case anyway. On the actual shape, 3=1=4=5 with a bad club suit, as well as any weak NT hand with or without 4 spades, I expect that partner will leave in the X a majority of the time.

Bro how we choose to play the double is an agreement. I totally respect to those who plays it pure take out. If you noticed i wrote that they both have their own prices. If i had an agreement of x=negative instead of x=card showing, i would probably lean towards dbl on this hand, which was my 2nd choice anyway. And yes if dbl is defined negative i would move with 4135 but not vs a card showing dbl. 4126 i would move vs both neg and card showing doubles, now i have a much better shape besides a guy who bids 4♥ on red. So i am with your previous post % 99. The prices we pay are obvious, i will be defending 4♥ when pd has 4135 hand and when our game is more profittable than defending but otoh i will have more info about pd's shape everytime he moves my dbl. You will be more hesitant to DBL when you hold a good hand vs an opening pd but not exactly proud of your shape or where you may land if pd moves. Win some lose some situations. Btw, i prefer card showing but i never had any problem playing with pds who prefers negative double, i will go however they feel comfy.

[CSGibson]

MrAce, on 2013-December-27, 16:40, said:

Bro how we choose to play the double is an agreement. ... Win some lose some situations. Btw, i prefer card showing but i never had any problem playing with pds who prefers negative double, i will go however they feel comfy.

Oh, I wasn't trying to make a point, I was honestly curious about how you defined card showing - I thought that removal of the double on 4=1=3=5 might be close based on your description, but I wasn't sure, and it obviously has an impact on your thought process in this thread; I was also wondering if I should change our description to card-showing at a higher level, but maybe negative is still the best description for our own style, since it sounds like my main partnership is a touch more take-out oriented.

And I 100% think that its more important to know what your agreement is then to make the theoretically best agreement - I'm not sure what's best for high level doubles, but I am sure I know what my partner expects/thinks is best here, and more importantly, what she shows/expects.

[Trinidad]

I would double. If partner removes the double, my next action is easy. I will bid slam.

I think that with the actual West hand I would not remove the double, but it is close. So, depending on my mood when I am holding the West cards, we will either reach the good 6♣ or we defend 4♥ doubled. On this layout, it will be right to bid the slam. On others, it will be right to defend 4♥ doubled.

So, all in all, I am happy with my choices, even if on this particular board defending 4♥ might lead to a poor score. So be it.

Rik