[AL78]

---

MPs. 2♥ is a weak two. Your call.

[sfi]

The shape's all wrong, I don't have great values and the vulnerability is bad for us. But at matchpoints I'll probably still double.

[DavidKok]

Bad for us? They pay extra for vulnerable games.
I think there's a strong case to be made that partner will balance with most hands opposite which you have a game, so pass is quite safe. Then again if South is about to raise you have missed out on your once chance to get into the auction cheaply. I've recently added Transfer Lebensohl to my agreements after (2♥)-X-(P)-?, so we probably won't get much too high. The upside of doubling is partner may have an easy decision after (2♥)-X-(3♥)-?, and the downside is that partner may (though some transfer sequence) put you in 3♦, perhaps even missing a 5-3 or 5-4 club fit.
I think I'd like to pass. However, at an actual table I would by now have spent so much time thinking that partner cannot reasonably balance with borderline hands, so I'd double to fix this problem (now I could have been thinking about all sorts of things).

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-21, 15:31, said:

Bad for us? They pay extra for vulnerable games.

This is relevant at IMPs, not so much at MPs. Now you have to worry about the real chance of -200.

[paulg]

Automatic double for me although I'm slightly protected by playing a 2NT response as a form of Lebensohl that asks for doubler's better minor.

[TylerE]

X.

The one with shortness has to act.

[mycroft]

With most of my partners, this is subminimum for an overcall. But we keep our bidding sound over preempts. We don't miss games, but we don't compete enough on the partscores, even though we balance aggressively to compensate.

The shape is bad, but for me it's more I'd rather be +50 in 2♥ than -100 in 4♠ when partner can't take a joke. Yes, both lose to +140, but +620 beats +170 when fourth-in-hand plays you for this hand when you have another trick.

[helene_t]

I think double is just acceptable under most circumstances but R/W at MPs I pass. Too scared of -200 against a partscore. There's obviously a risk that partner is scared of the colours, too, so our combined chickenness adds up to overdoing it. So good to discuss hands like this with partner (ok, that was a stupid cliche, obviously all hands are good to discuss with partner ).

[pilowsky]

Opening a weak 2 is as I suggested elsewhere a bit like 1NT upside down where the weak long hand speaks first. The East hand looks just like the sort of hand that GIB would bid 2[sapdes], Cappelletti, with "♠ and a minor".
I read somewhere that 1NT is "the ultimate preempt" - why not defend against it in the same way?
Here is a possible layout.

---

Here's the PBN.
Here's the LIN.
Turns out that at this vulnerability 4♠ makes, but 5♥ is optimal!, so I guess it all depends on the field.

[mikeh]

Even at mps, this is a pass for me.


We can’t stand partner bidding diamonds with his 3343 counts (playing 2N as weak, asking doubler for his better minor, is a nice gadget when it works, and horrible on many other hands, which is probably why it’s an idiosyncratic treatment).

Partner’s still there. Of course, we could be stolen from, and pass is no guarantee of a good result.

However, acting in these situations on sub-minimal hands has a lot of ways to lose, at least one of which is usually ignored by the advocates of light action. Advancer (the partner of doubler) is entitled and obliged to act aggressively with a good hand. We may turn a plus into a minus by partner acting reasonably, nd finding our hand disappointing. (If you argue that partner should be conservative, you lose when doubler has full values....you can’t have it both ways).

Making up hands where bidding works is a very poor way of evaluating bidding decisions. If one wants to try that approach, use a deal generator. Of course that still requires a lot of discipline on the simulator. One needs proper constraints for the opener, then one needs to try to be objective about what the other players would bid with their hands. That’s almost impossible because we tend to have the other players make d3cisions that confirm whatever we want the best direct action to be.

So it really comes down to a combination of bridge ability and experience. My feeling is that pass is the long term winner here, but I think it’s probably about 55% for pass and 45% fir double, in terms of one leading to a better result than the other. That may sound close, but in bridge adopting an approach that is 10% worse than the alternative is a poor strategy, unless trying for swings.

Finally, if I were playing with a skilled partner, and we were in Zia’s heat one (Where everything works...and, I know, this is illogical) and I wanted a top, I’d double. Fortunately, while I usually play with highly skilled partners, I’m rarely in heat one😛 Plus I’m a grinder, not an action-generator.

[AL78]

Thanks for the responses, seems fairly evenly split between double and pass. If it were me, I'd have passed because I can't cope with partner bidding 3♦.

This hand came up with my novice friend and her partner and she decided to double. It so very nearly worked out well for them.

---

2♠ makes EW and NS can make 3♥. I have no idea why West passed the takeout double (didn't notice it perhaps?), but -470 was a bottom. A shame, because 2♠ making would have been an average plus.

[DavidKok]

sfi, on 2020-September-21, 15:36, said:

This is relevant at IMPs, not so much at MPs. Now you have to worry about the real chance of -200.

My mistake, I completely missed this. In that case pass is indicated, at MPs partner will balance much more aggressively.

[pilowsky]

AL78, on 2020-September-22, 02:23, said:

Thanks for the responses, seems fairly evenly split between double and pass. If it were me, I'd have passed because I can't cope with partner bidding 3♦.

This hand came up with my novice friend and her partner and she decided to double. It so very nearly worked out well for them.

---

2♠ makes EW and NS can make 3♥. I have no idea why West passed the takeout double (didn't notice it perhaps?), but -470 was a bottom. A shame, because 2♠ making would have been an average plus.

That was the point of my comment above. since you absolutely can't afford a pass by your partner, then either bid 2♠ which is what GIB does or pass which is what others do.
Why does it matter whether or not it's over 2♥ or 1NT? isn't the effect the same?
I've started using this approach routinely - it's paying dividends so far. Yes, IRL, as well as with robots.

[Huibertus]

Close, but it being MP's makes me pass.

At IMP's I would double, not risking to miss a vulnerable game. But, you need a partner who takes out take out doubles. And you need a partner who, looking at 3, maybe 4 hearts realizes you may be stretching, so is not putting us in a game automatically on invitational+ values without consultation. If you happen to be so lucky that 2NT here is scrambling (not the ususal NAT or Lebensohl), then double becomes a big favorite.

[Cyberyeti]

On any black suit lead with the diamonds as they are you can make 4♥ (and I don't think you're leading a diamond, so you need to lead a trump), and that could easily happen if you act. That said I would double although I think it's really close, partner's pass is manic, obvious 2♠ bid.

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-22, 02:24, said:

My mistake, I completely missed this. In that case pass is indicated, at MPs partner will balance much more aggressively.

Sorry - I should have worked out you simply missed the scoring method.

[Huibertus]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-21, 19:09, said:

Opening a weak 2 is as I suggested elsewhere a bit like 1NT upside down where the weak long hand speaks first. The East hand looks just like the sort of hand that GIB would bid 2[sapdes], Cappelletti, with "♠ and a minor".
I read somewhere that 1NT is "the ultimate preempt" - why not defend against it in the same way?
Here is a possible layout.

---

Here's the PBN.
Here's the LIN.
Turns out that at this vulnerability 4♠ makes, but 5♥ is optimal!, so I guess it all depends on the field.

On this example hand you are giving, there is no need to act. Surely W will double 2H-P, 2H-3H and 2H-4H?

[pilowsky]

Huibertus, on 2020-September-22, 03:27, said:

On this example hand you are giving, there is no need to act. Surely W will double 2H-P, 2H-3H and 2H-4H?

I agree, the problem East always faces is that they don't know what West has.
The expectation when they double is that action will follow.
If it does not then disaster surely will. My point is that if you are compelling your partner to act then surely you should shoulder the burden yourself, or pass.
There is a tide in the affairs of man, taken at the flood, which leads on to greatness. omitted (or passed in this case) leads to a lot of moaning in the pub afterwards.
Or at least I think that's how it goes.

[Stephen Tu]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-22, 03:13, said:

That was the point of my comment above. since you absolutely can't afford a pass by your partner, then either bid 2♠ which is what GIB does or pass which is what others do.
Why does it matter whether or not it's over 2♥ or 1NT? isn't the effect the same?
I've started using this approach routinely - it's paying dividends so far. Yes, IRL, as well as with robots.

I'd be really surprised if GIB overcalls 2S over 2H with that hand, and consider that a colossal error. No one plays 2s as spades and a minor over 2H. You just get way too many hands that are one suited spades and want to overcall 2, without being forced to overcall 3S and be too high if partner is misfit/weak. Also if you have 2S available as a one suiter then 3S can show a stronger range of one suiter.

The reason it's playable as spades + minor over 1nt, as opposed to 2H, is that you have other bids available to show single suited spades, if playing the spades+min gadget. Could be 2c as in capp, 2d as in Woolsey/Multi-Landy, double as in Brozel, or 2H as in Mohan. These calls aren't available over 2H.

GIB bidding capp on 4 cd M + longer minor is also a bug, all references I've ever seen have 2M capp promise 5 cds. It's a lot more playable, because often partner has some 2434 type hand, with 4+ support in 1 minor but not both. Going up a level to switch from a 5-2 fit to a 4-3 fit isn't worth it, but passing and playing a 4-2 fit is also not good. It's much easier when 2M promises 5, 5-2 is not the worst situation.

[DavidKok]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-22, 03:47, said:

I agree, the problem East always faces is that they don't know what West has.
The expectation when they double is that action will follow.
If it does not then disaster surely will. My point is that if you are compelling your partner to act then surely you should shoulder the burden yourself, or pass.

This idea of 'shouldering the burden yourself' is noble, but probably not winning bridge. As they say "preempts work", and Stephen already gave an excellent example of why the treatments over 1NT and 2♥ should be different despite the gap between these bids not being massive. The fact is that after a preempt by opponents you are short on bidding space, and frequently will have to bid based on informed guesses and odds instead of scientific investigation. In other words, you cannot afford to wait for the perfect hand that will make partner happy no matter what, often you'll have to risk a poor outcome for a chance at a good one. Preempts work.

As for partner passing, this would typically show either a five-card heart suit (or a solid four-card suit), or a decent number of points (let's say 9-12) with a notrump distribution, 4 hearts and values in the heart suit, gambling that 3NT is one off but 2♥X can be set. At this vulnerability the latter hand type might well bid anyway, red against white is not the time for speculative penalties. Regardless your ♥A9 are wonderful news for partner, and while you are on the light side your hand has OK values for a takeout double (but not the ideal shape). Slam down the ace of hearts and collect a good penalty without trouble. Instead, the auction I'm worried about is partner pulling to 3♦ (possibly with a convention).