[VixTD]

I hope I don't upset anyone by asking another question. I promise I'll read and carefully consider all the answers, and not just look at the number of votes. This came up in the club duplicate last night, and caused some friction between me and my partner. I can't disguise the nature of the problem: it's surely just a case of whether you double or not. Matchpoint scoring, both vulnerable.

---

The first two calls might not be to your taste, but this is where you are now. What would you do?

[campboy]

I would pass because a) on this auction my hand is well-described so I think it is partner's decision and b) 3♥-1 may well be a good score anyway, as it's not clear others will have been pushed so high.

[diana_eva]

I'd pass and not even consider double. I'm not even sure I wd have found a 3♦ call at the table (not saying it's a bad call, just that I'm not that aggressive). I think if this gets passed back to partner and he doubles now it'll be penalty. So perhaps he can x if there's a case to penalize them, after we already made two value showing bids. IMO 1NT says I've got defense, 3D says I have values here, so up to you pd.

[NickRW]

I've got an aceless 9 count with a probably wasted QJ in clubs. Haven't I been pushy enough already?

Nick

[silvr bull]

I pass with relief that I am not declarer at 3♦. I would have bid 2♦ over 1♥.

[whereagles]

Dbl and lead a trump. I don't see where their tricks are coming from. Plus, stuff breaks badly.

Obviously no dbl at imps.

[MrAce]

I'd pass.

I would bid 2♠ instead of 3♦. I can not have 4 card spades obviously.

[gszes]

I managed to get the opps to the 3 level on what is almost surely
an 8 card trump fit. We had no strong expectation we could make 3d
so there is nothing to "protect" with an x. The x in this case would
sort of be like icing on a cake (if it works that is) since we are
already in a strong MP position the benefit of the x is likely to be
somewhat minimal.

It the opps make 3h we have turned an average position into a zero
and we are doing the x more on general principle that actually having a
decent hand for defense. I would be much more tempted to x with
Jxx xx Axxx Axxx than our current collection of almost no reasonable
defensive values.........................

[P_Marlowe]

X, playing MP.

The first calls are fine
#1 you have a stopper, you are bal., NT outscores minor suit contracts playing MP
#2 you have an 8 card diamond fit, they have a 8 card heart fit ( you dont let them play
at the 2 level, if you have a fit of your own)

Now I trying to teach them a lesson not to interfere with our auction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I pass now. What I do not understand at all are the objections (or offer of alternatives) to the 3D bid --or to the original 1NT advance.

(1c) X (1H) ?...Maybe it is close between 1NT & 2♦, but allegedly the takeout double has hearts --and we can show our range, the balanced nature of the hand, and the club cards (3 things) with 1NT.

(1c) X (1H) 1NT
(2H) P (P) ?...Now we know something more. Partner's double assuredly has 4+ in the Diamond suit and we have wonderful support plus a useful lonely Jack of spades. Forgetting altogether the QJXX of Clubs, 3♦ is clear..not even mildly aggressive; it should never occur to me to let the other guys play peacefully in their 8-card fit at the 2-level or to offer up club taps or over-ruffs in a Moysian Spade contract. My partner did not jerk out the red card with a 1S overcall.

Heh, Ken's quote in my tagline keeps coming up for a chuckle.

[mikeh]

I suspect some of the comments in the OP were addressed to me Hey, Vix, I wasn't the least upset with you: I made some observations, and we had a disagreement. So what? We're allowed to disagree and even to say why we disagree. I'm happy you are posting, even tho I think this one is a bit of a dud compared to the first one, which was an excellent problem.

As for this one, I am with everyone who has voted so far, and I pass for much the same reasons as have already been stated.

1N is fine, since it shows about 8-10, balanced, denies 4 spades, shows clubs stopped and says nothing about heart values: partner implied he had that suit already. I wouldn't have bid 2♦ because I am much happier in 1N if it goes all pass, as it often will when I have this hand. If partner has a 4=4=3=2, which is a very common shape for double, then 1N probably ends the auction.

3♦ is a bit of a stretch but there is an inference that partner is even more likely to hold 4 card support than we could originally expect: partner has only 3 hearts.

I can understand double of 3♥. However, I think that is anti-percentage, not because I think 3♥ is favoured to make but because it is possible that it will make, and when it doesn't we might not be making 3♦, and even if we were the field might not bid it. So doubling either turns an already good board into a top or an average board into a bottom. There are other outcomes, but they seem the two most likely.

I'd want to be very confident they were going down to risk the bad outcome. I'd really like a peek at the club layout, since the auction has told declarer so much about the hand that he can play almost double-dummy. I am not that comfortable.

---

I am not, of course, pretending that this sort of layout is to be 'expected', and maybe few would bid as the auction unfolded on this sort of hand, but what I am getting at is that we have shown our hand, and partner is still there, while if he has a bad hand for us (which he is looking at and we aren't) then doubling could be a disaster.

[ggwhiz]

On top of agreeing with all the reasons to pass my partnership has a meta rule that any decision that comes with the slightest doubt belongs to pass out seat.

We never have a strong disagreement when it happens. The perpetrator has a good reason or more often a mea culpa.

[VixTD]

I understand that I have shown my values and can leave this round to partner, but my reasons for doubling were that I have some decent values and I'm not as short in hearts as partner might expect. It looks as if partner has only three hearts, so probably has four diamonds. I understand the philosophy of doubling part-scores at matchpoints is to protect one's own score, i.e. we should double if we think we can make our contract and the double will make a difference if theirs goes off, but not much if it makes, but I was so confident that 3♥ wouldn't make whether 3♦ did or not I thought it was a safe double. There are only sixteen total tricks after all.

The full deal was:

---

We conceded 930. I may have to admit my double wasn't right, but I still think it was better than partner's. I think doubling light on shape alone and little defence when the opponents are vulnerable (at game all to boot) is dangerous.

If you look more favourably on my partner's double than on mine, do you think he should have pulled it to 4♦? Is this a matter of partnership style (e.g. one shouldn't push the boat out if partner is likely to be quick to double)?

[mikeh]

VixTD, on 2014-May-09, 11:33, said:

I understand that I have shown my values and can leave this round to partner, but my reasons for doubling were that I have some decent values and I'm not as short in hearts as partner might expect. It looks as if partner has only three hearts, so probably has four diamonds. I understand the philosophy of doubling part-scores at matchpoints is to protect one's own score, i.e. we should double if we think we can make our contract and the double will make a difference if theirs goes off, but not much if it makes, but I was so confident that 3♥ wouldn't make whether 3♦ did or not I thought it was a safe double. There are only sixteen total tricks after all.

The full deal was:

---

We conceded 930. I may have to admit my double wasn't right, but I still think it was better than partner's. I think doubling light on shape alone and little defence when the opponents are vulnerable (at game all to boot) is dangerous.

If you look more favourably on my partner's double than on mine, do you think he should have pulled it to 4♦? Is this a matter of partnership style (e.g. one shouldn't push the boat out if partner is likely to be quick to double)?

Your partner was insane. He made a bad double: I wouldn't object to a weak jump overcall with his hand, altho I wouldn't do it since my hand is so good for the majors if, against the odds, this is our hand. I definitely wouldn't do it opposite an unpassed partner, but as it is, the hand isn't good enough to bid 1♦ and then take further action if partner passes, so 2♦ isn't as bad as it might seem.

Having perpetrated the infantile double he has no choice but to pull to 4♦, which will probably make...N has a natural club lead tho the auction may encourage the winning defence of hearts, after which the spade ruff is easy to find.

I don't like your action with the double, but it was an understandable, defensible choice. Your partner made two clear blunders. Btw, I really don't agree that you had more hearts than you had already promised. It is very hard to construct hands on which you should bid as you did with no more than 4 cards in the majors. With 3=1=5=4, you should bid diamonds, not NT. Maybe with 3=1=4=5 1N is permissible but I have trouble making up a hand on which I would make that call. More to the point: you absolutely haven't indicated short hearts, so partner will/should assume that you hold at least 32 of hearts....which, as it happens, is what you held IOW, you held the worst hearts he will play you for on the auction, not 'extras'.

[whereagles]

I don't mind partner's initial double, but...

- after advancer bidding 3♦ and doubling 3♥ on what is very likely to be a doubleton AND
- doubler having a void an subpar points

I think a pull to the known 10-11 card fit is somewhat OBVIOUS

[jdgalt]

Pass. It seems likely we may set this, but I'm not sure enough to give them a cheap game. Double would be greedy.

[Phil]

1N is obvious. You have a tough call over 2♥ but 3♦ looks like a losing action at MPs. I probably prefer 2♠ but can understand 2N or even pass.

Partners double of 1♣ is pretty bad and failure to pull with NO defense and SIX trump is bizarre.

[ggwhiz]

While I don't like your double I detest your partners and their final pass smacks of panic. That 1st double deserves to get a 2♥ response from you with 4-4 in the majors.

Friction over this auction is way too rich. If I was your partner I would bury it in the backyard as quickly as possible, never to be seen again.

You said "surely it's just a case of whether you double or not". Hardly as you made 1 minor transgression (imo) to 2 100% bizarro bids across the table.

[Giangibar]

One initial consideration: I am commenting the auction while referring to the current Italian style of bidding, which may well not fit yours. My partnership style is very aggressive as well, so all the considerations I'll make have to be interpreted with these things in mind.

My personal opinion is that the whole auction is quite awkward:

1) I wouldn't double 1♣ with East's hand, as my overall strength is much lower than expected and I have a clear overcall in Diamonds. The following bids will clarify the situation: if South passes, partner will either pass, bid 1M or raise Diamonds, all of which make me feel OK with my bid. If South bids a Major and partner has length in the other, he'll either bid it or double. The only problem may be if South raises Clubs preemptively, but again my partner will double with the Majors. I see no clear point in doubling.

2) I give merit to the initial 1NT bid by West, although I prefer a Double with those cards: with 4+♠ I would bid 1♠, so I am indicating general strength and right-siding 1NT while implicitly saying that I possess Diamonds.

3) I wouldn't raise to 2♥ with North's hand, unless partner has a known 5-card suit, because we might well be playing in a Moysian fit instead of a much better 4-4 Spade or 5-4 Club fit.

4) As West, I wouldn't bid 3♦ later, but double again: I can't have 4 Spades, I don't have a Heart stopper, I can play both 3♦ in a 4-4 fit and 2♠ in a 4-3 fit, and could even pick up partner with 4 Hearts to the AQJ10 if the opps have 7 Hearts, with which he'll be delighted to pass.

5) Again in West's seat, I would surely not double 3♥, as the opponents are likely to be one trick too high but I suppose collecting -100 will be a fine result anyway and they could come up with some unexpected distribution, thus making the contract for a cold bottom.

6) I would pull 3♥X to 4♦, as it's clear from East's point of view that the opps are playing with at least an 8-card fit and they possess more than half the points in the deck. Diamonds will provide 0-1 tricks, given the 3♦ bid by partner, so they are likely to have 1♦ loser and 20+ points in the other 3 suits. I would expect them to make 4.

[AyunuS]

Pass. I don't really understand why you'd want to double with that hand. When I double, I like to have some winners in my hand or at least winners in the trump suit. Consider this:

Clubs: Your clubs are on the wrong side and could easily end up all losing opposite a short stack of clubs hand.
Diamonds: They could be short considering your team has diamonds and they were willing to push.
Hearts: You bid NT without a stopper and your team could easily have no winners in this suit.
Spades: Again, Jxx is really not a hand holding any winners hear either.

So I would no way consider you to have enough defense to double. If you double and they make they get a ton of points, but if you double and they're down 1 it didn't even get you all that many more points. So I really don't think it's worth it.