[lamford]

---

Your call. IMPs converted to VPs.

[DavidKok]

Spoiler

The extra information of this being in the expert's corner makes this much more terrifying. No call really appeals - 3♦ to play loses if partner has only three cards, 2NT scrambling loses most of the time when partner chooses clubs, and there is also a decent chance that partner has a hand with four hearts and a minor and no good bid.
We can rule out partner having an invitational(+) hand or partner having 5(+) hearts. With at most 10 opposite I think it is risky to convert the double to penalties. There's a decent chance that partner has two spades and some values, but that might not be enough to set 2♠X. Our spot cards are awful and we rate to not take more than one trick in spades. Also the IMP odds on sitting for 2♠X are awful, since that contract gets a game bonus when making. I think we should make a possible LAW violation and bid 3-over-2 despite the total trumps possibly being 15, or even 14 if everything is wrong.
If partner is more conservative with doubling I am tempted to pass, but I don't know your partnership agreements here. My own are aggressive and allow light doubles.
So I will have to run, and my choices are between 3♦ to play and 2NT scrambling. I think I have to go with the diamonds - the risk of partner choosing clubs with 4=4 in the minors is too great. If the deal really is a misfit (give partner a 2=4=3=4 7-count) I think we lose no matter what, so we may as well bid our longest suit. I expect 3♦ to go down, but I hope they won't find a double if it does.

[lamford]

.

[lamford]

.

[lamford]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-26, 01:44, said:

Spoiler

The extra information of this being in the expert's corner makes this much more terrifying. No call really appeals - 3♦ to play loses if partner has only three cards, 2NT scrambling loses most of the time when partner chooses clubs, and there is also a decent chance that partner has a hand with four hearts and a minor and no good bid.
We can rule out partner having an invitational(+) hand or partner having 5(+) hearts. With at most 10 opposite I think it is risky to convert the double to penalties. There's a decent chance that partner has two spades and some values, but that might not be enough to set 2♠X. Our spot cards are awful and we rate to not take more than one trick in spades. Also the IMP odds on sitting for 2♠X are awful, since that contract gets a game bonus when making. I think we should make a possible LAW violation and bid 3-over-2 despite the total trumps possibly being 15, or even 14 if everything is wrong.
If partner is more conservative with doubling I am tempted to pass, but I don't know your partnership agreements here. My own are aggressive and allow light doubles.
So I will have to run, and my choices are between 3♦ to play and 2NT scrambling. I think I have to go with the diamonds - the risk of partner choosing clubs with 4=4 in the minors is too great. If the deal really is a misfit (give partner a 2=4=3=4 7-count) I think we lose no matter what, so we may as well bid our longest suit. I expect 3♦ to go down, but I hope they won't find a double if it does.

Good summary. I follow the "play partner for the right ace and king" when I pass these. And xx Kxxx Axx xxxx could be 500 with 3D ridiculous. Partner should be a bit better if he has a singleton spade. My simulation suggested that pass was right, but it made some dangerous assumptions.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I hope my partners dont make this kind of T/O.

The opponents are content to play a partscore, we dont have game, if they go down we are +-0,
if they make, ..., we may not have made 1NT.

At MP I understand it, but at IMPs?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[lamford]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-June-27, 02:55, said:

I hope my partners dont make this kind of T/O.

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?

[P_Marlowe]

 lamford, on 2024-June-27, 07:29, said:

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?

I dont mind if you stretch, I dont mind if you go low, and I would not mind 3D by partner.
But double, knowing that they have a 8 card fit, assuming you dont open 1NT with 5 spades,
and asking p to choose a suit, when I only want to play diamonds, No.

[DavidKok]

I do not agree. Selling out here loses many partscore swings, I think it is on balance right to take action. The argument that we are gaining almost nothing is flawed, both their 2♠ and our 3♦ making is quite likely. We don't have to reinvent the LAW, but we should apply it.

I was unaware that the 1NT denied a 5cM. It doesn't change my opinion by much, but I think it is good to disclose such things in the problem statement.

The North hand may well wish to play in either diamonds or hearts. I am not sure why you are ruling out hearts opposite a 4=4=2=3 or 3=4=2=4 distribution. In both those cases it seems highly advantageous to me to take the spade ruffs in the short hand. In fact, we might even wish to play in clubs if opener has the right cards. We probably won't get there (I suspect South intended to correct 3♣ to 3♦ to offer a choice of partscores), but it can at times be the best strain.
I'm not sure what methods you use to show a hand that wishes to play in diamonds or hearts, rather than defend 2♠. If by partnership agreement the above hand is unfit for a takeout double then South should have invented something else, but I rather like the flexibility of the double. As mentioned above I prefer aggressive takeout doubles - we simply can't lose all those partscore swings.

Furthermore a short remark on the simulations: this type of auction is a prime example of one where people will struggle to play optimally, especially while defending. Furthermore, the outcome of any such simulation is in my experience very sensitive to the requirements for the overcall, the lack of action by West, and the requirements for a takeout double. I mentioned possibly defending in my previous post if the double was guaranteed to be solid, but with my own style the risk is simply too big. For the above reasons I think simulations add little insight or value here.

 lamford, on 2024-June-27, 07:29, said:

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?

Lastly: am I to understand from this that

• You were sitting South.
  
• You did not bid 3♦ over the takeout double.
  
• You got a poor score on this board.

If all three are true I don't like this comment.

[P_Marlowe]

 DavidKok, on 2024-June-27, 09:48, said:

I do not agree. Selling out here loses many partscore swings, I think it is on balance right to take action. The argument that we are gaining almost nothing is flawed, both their 2♠ and our 3♦ making is quite likely. We don't have to reinvent the LAW, but we should apply it.

I was unaware that the 1NT denied a 5cM. It doesn't change my opinion by much, but I think it is good to disclose such things in the problem statement.

The North hand may well wish to play in either diamonds or hearts. I am not sure why you are ruling out hearts opposite a 4=4=2=3 or 3=4=2=4 distribution. In both those cases it seems highly advantageous to me to take the spade ruffs in the short hand. In fact, we might even wish to play in clubs if opener has the right cards. We probably won't get there (I suspect South intended to correct 3♣ to 3♦ to offer a choice of partscores), but it can at times be the best strain.
I'm not sure what methods you use to show a hand that wishes to play in diamonds or hearts, rather than defend 2♠. If by partnership agreement the above hand is unfit for a takeout double then South should have invented something else, but I rather like the flexibility of the double. As mentioned above I prefer aggressive takeout doubles - we simply can't lose all those partscore swings.
<snip>

How about 2NT? 2-suited, correcting clubs to diamond?

[DavidKok]

If you have agreed that 2NT is scrambling I like that, arguing that Lebensohl (or some other -ohl) is not necessary after we have passed 1NT. By inference the double can then show slightly more willingness to convert. I think most people don't have this level of detail in their agreements - I do not, and would not bid 2NT without prior discussion.

I did have an auction vaguely similar to this, where partner bid 2NT scrambling without prior discussion and I reasoned at the table that it could not possibly be anything else. But personally I prefer to take the hit on the board where it comes up and then discuss it after the session.

[P_Marlowe]

I am fully onboard trying to fight for the part score, I just dont like the T/O,
because this means, I may have to defend extremly well to avoid paying a lot,
when they were content with a small pot.

[nullve]

The board is from round 5 of this year's European teams championships.

Here you can check how Toledano - Zamir solved the problem after Toledano's 12+-15 1N opening.