[ArtK78]

IMPs. Swiss Teams. 7 board matches converted to VPs.

Second round of a regional swiss team event. You had a good first round and you are paired against a team that might be in the final 8 of the Vanderbilt or Spingold.

The match appears to be close, and this is the last hand. You pick up at no one vul:

---

RHO opens 3♠ in first seat.

Your call?

[helene_t]

I would double.

[MrAce]

Dbl

[PhilKing]

x

[gnasher]

What they said.

[mikeh]

Double, because while 4H is the 10 trick game, bidding hearts is hugely committal, esp since the chances are that we will have to start ruffling spades at trick 2. We don't rate to play well in hearts unless partner has 4+ support, in which case he will bid them over the double. While we might make opposite some 3 card holdings, the odds aren't good. Meanwhile, if he bids diamonds, he will often have 5+, and we take the tap in our 3 card holding, and if he bids clubs, we have at least a 4=4 fit.

While bidding game is nice, that's only true if we make it.

The chances of his successfully passing the double add a slight edge as well. His bidding 3N isn't likely, and can hardly lead to a worse result than our bidding 4H.

[ArtK78]

Thanks, all.

The issue was not the choice of forward action - I agree that double is much better than 4♥. The issue was whether you should act or pass.

I did not consider this hand good enough for a double of a 3♠ opening. The actual result demonstrated otherwise, as we were cold for 11 tricks in hearts while the opps were cold for 10 tricks in spades. Partner held Ax Kxxxx Qx Axxx.

In all likelihood, we would have achieved +100, as once RHO opened 3♠ LHO would not allow us to play in hearts holding xxxx xx AKJxxx x. So, at least at my table, my pass (resulting in -420) only cost 5 IMPs, as the result at the other table was +450 on our cards. Still, I found this to be an interesting problem. Apparently no one else thinks so, as the vote is unanimous for acting and not passing.

Not relevant to the actual hand but interesting in theory: How much can you take away from my hand and still double the 3♠ opening?

[NickRW]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-29, 09:33, said:

Not relevant to the actual hand but interesting in theory: How much can you take away from my hand and still double the 3♠ opening?

Not a lot. I'm with the others in choosing X, but remove even one of the 10s and I am less happy. Remove the ♣J and I am starting to get very uncomfortable.

[PhilKing]

My tuppence worth on why this is a clear double ....

I have looked at more of these preempts from high-level bridge than possibly anyone else using my hands database. It is not stored in a way that I can prove anything statistically, but a couple of points have struck me:

1. The opponents don't tend to double us nearly enough when we step out of line.

2. Quite often when we get too high, it turns out they were making 3♠, so we pick up an imp or two from the save.

If you made the club jack a small one I would still double.

[Phil]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-29, 10:09, said:

My tuppence worth on why this is a clear double ....

I have looked at more of these preempts from high-level bridge than possibly anyone else using my hands database. It is not stored in a way that I can prove anything statistically, but a couple of points have struck me:

1. The opponents don't tend to double us nearly enough when we step out of line.

2. Quite often when we get too high, it turns out they were making 3♠, so we pick up an imp or two from the save.

If you made the club jack a small one I would still double.

But if you reversed the hearts and spades, and RHO opened 4♥, you're bidding 4♠? Or doubling?

[PhilKing]

Phil, on 2015-June-29, 13:32, said:

But if you reversed the hearts and spades, and RHO opened 4♥, you're bidding 4♠? Or doubling?

4♠.

But my double of 4♥ is slightly less takeout oriented than most.

[gszes]

x
Craziness abounds when there is a large preempt. The main question is just how much should the hand short in the preempt suit strain to do something? Theory seems to indicate that you can gamble a bit more when you hold aces. Thus x Axxx xxxx Axxx just might be a lowest reasonable x over 3s. I must admit that I would almost surely pass with that hand if vulnerable. I would not x with x KJxx xxxx KJxx the lack of aces vastly increases the risk side of the equation. I would imagine x Kxxx Axxx Kxxx might be a reasonable minimum with only 1 ace any more than that is just gravy (like the hand presented). The 5 card suit being in hearts is also a strong selling point since that is our most likely game. I would avoid taking these given minimums and x with only 3 hearts.

[mikeh]

gszes, on 2015-June-29, 17:11, said:

x
Theory seems to indicate that you can gamble a bit more when you hold aces. Thus x Axxx xxxx Axxx just might be a lowest reasonable x over 3s. I must admit that I would almost surely pass with that hand if vulnerable. I would not x with x KJxx xxxx KJxx the lack of aces vastly increases the risk side of the equation.

where do you find a bridge theoretician who advocates doubling 3♠ in direct seat, 2nd chair, with x Axxx xxxx Axxx?


Btw, this is such a departure from standard methods that I'd be interested in knowing whether you have an ethical obligation to advise the opps at some point. As your LHO I'd certainly increase my use of the penalty redouble playing against you unless you kept this approach secret.

[jodepp]

I'm in agreement with the thread author - I pass and hope I do it in tempo. I know in today's environment that 'bid at all costs' is the mantra, but this collection just doesn't have enough material for overcoming a 3♠ preempt in the long run. If we get into the habit of bidding on scant values in these situations partnership trust gets eroded.

Am I thrilled with Passing? No. This hand is close to action - I think I'd bid 3♥ over 2♠, say - and I am prepared for my teammates' criticism if they think otherwise.

I also confess that if I were to act I disagree with the (vast) majority's choice of action - 4♥ (with all its warts) has to be the action with the most upside, doesn't it? Are we REALLY saying that probably landing in four-of-a-minor is what we want to aim at? That's no way to win IMPs. And for those who double, hoping for a conversion, I'd like their honest opinion of what their partner's thoughts would be if their partner converted the double with J10xx in spades and out.

I guess the game has passed me by...

[Cyberyeti]

I would double, on average, partner will have a just sub opening hand with too many spades to take any action. Sample hand something like Qxxx, Kxxx, Jx, Axx where 3♠ and 4♥ both make. Of course partner may be less suitable and unable to bid hearts himself, but even then you may get to a making 3N or 4m when 3♠ was either making or giving you 50, plus the chance partner can profitably convert, you have the K♣ as a nice lead.

[helene_t]

jodepp, on 2015-June-30, 03:48, said:

I also confess that if I were to act I disagree with the (vast) majority's choice of action - 4♥ (with all its warts) has to be the action with the most upside, doesn't it? Are we REALLY saying that probably landing in four-of-a-minor is what we want to aim at?

I think that if p bids 4m we probably don't have the values to make 4♥ even if we have a 5-3 fit. It could happen that we play in a 4-3 fit in diamonds where a 5-3 fit in hearts is available. But at least they don't often double 4m at IMPs.

If he bids 5m (or 4♠ or 4NT whichever offers us a choice), our minor fit is likely to be better than our fit in hearts. If we make a trick more in 5m than we would in 4♥ it doesn't matter. He might also bid 3nt but that probably has very similar EV to 4♥ even if he has a heart fit.

So I think that when p has 4 or more hearts it usually doesn't matter, if he has 3 hearts there is a quite good chance that it doesn't matter either (and could be better to double if we are allowed to play 4m undoubled while 4♥ would have been doubled), and if he has less than 3 hearts, 4♥ could easily be a disaster.

[masonbarge]

jodepp, on 2015-June-30, 03:48, said:

I also confess that if I were to act I disagree with the (vast) majority's choice of action - 4♥ (with all its warts) has to be the action with the most upside, doesn't it? Are we REALLY saying that probably landing in four-of-a-minor is what we want to aim at? That's no way to win IMPs. And for those who double, hoping for a conversion, I'd like their honest opinion of what their partner's thoughts would be if their partner converted the double with J10xx in spades and out.

I guess the game has passed me by...

No, we are saying that partner's hand might have some bearing on the best contract!

Are you saying that you want to play in ♥ across from a singleton heart and five clubs? That you don't want to be in 3NT across from a double spade stopper and 5-5 or so in the minors? That you don't want to play in 3♠ doubled if partner holds AQJxx and short hearts?

[jodepp]

masonbarge, on 2015-June-30, 20:00, said:

No, we are saying that partner's hand might have some bearing on the best contract!

Are you saying that you want to play in ♥ across from a singleton heart and five clubs? That you don't want to be in 3NT across from a double spade stopper and 5-5 or so in the minors? That you don't want to play in 3♠ doubled if partner holds AQJxx and short hearts?

No, I'm saying that 4♥ has more upside than Double. The majority here seems to think that stopping in 4♣/♦ is a worthwhile goal. Even when it's 'right', playing in four of either minor has to be a long-term losing strategy at IMPs (plus, that's assuming that when there are 10 tricks, partner doesn't bid a minor-suit game, thinking you have what you say you have).

Plus, I think I said that Passing (hopefully in tempo) was preferable to anything (yet another anti-majority view, but why should I stop now when everybody already thinks I'm crazy)

[gszes]

mikeh, on 2015-June-29, 17:19, said:

where do you find a bridge theoretician who advocates doubling 3♠ in direct seat, 2nd chair, with x Axxx xxxx Axxx?


Btw, this is such a departure from standard methods that I'd be interested in knowing whether you have an ethical obligation to advise the opps at some point. As your LHO I'd certainly increase my use of the penalty redouble playing against you unless you kept this approach secret.

Second seat and 4th seat* are the only times I would x with such minimal values because the upside opposite a passed hand is almost solely relegated to sacrifice once p is a passed hand. I expect the number of times you can xx will indeed increase mainly because on average you hand power will be stronger than against a more conventional strength TOX. I did not mean this type of bidding has no risks but on average both sides will have about half the deck and probably a 9 card trump fit with my partner having the same power as your hand sitting behind you. This is a MP heaven sort of like having rho open 15-17 hcp 1n and we are looking at 17 with a decent lead and want to x for penalties. No guarantees but playing the odds.

It is ok in 4th seat because the average situation is a virtual guarantee after 2 passed hands then 3s. ty for reading my reply

[Jinksy]

jodepp, on 2015-June-30, 20:31, said:

No, I'm saying that 4♥ has more upside than Double. The majority here seems to think that stopping in 4♣/♦ is a worthwhile goal. Even when it's 'right', playing in four of either minor has to be a long-term losing strategy at IMPs (plus, that's assuming that when there are 10 tricks, partner doesn't bid a minor-suit game, thinking you have what you say you have).

Plus, I think I said that Passing (hopefully in tempo) was preferable to anything (yet another anti-majority view, but why should I stop now when everybody already thinks I'm crazy)

Speaking as yet another doubler, I doubt that the thought of playing 4m is much of the draw for many of the doublers here. I'm happy to play in 3♠ doubled if P has a penalty pass, maybe 3N, and come to that, P might have a 5m bid. Playing in 4m (and it being right) is an upside, but I'd still X even if for some reason 4m wasn't a legal call for him.