[FrancesHinden]

♠Q1072
♥Q73
♦AK5
♣AQ7

game all, imps, LHO deals

3♥ P 4♥ ?

If you double, your agreement is that partner will
- usually bid with 4 or more spades and short hearts
- usually pull to a minor only with a 6-card suit or a 5-5

[JLOGIC]

Really clear double, partner will have 4+ spades and short hearts extremely often, thats good enough for me.

[hatchett]

I also double. Even when partner doesn't have 4 ♠, he often has
a 6 card minor or 3055 shape. I have so much strength that RHO rates
to be raising on some random hand with 3 card ♥ support rather than
a strong hand with shortish ♥ that expects to make 4♥

[mikeh]

Was this an UI issue? Seems clear to double. Been -790/800 before, and will be again. That's bridge*










* I didn't claim it was good bridge

[phil_20686]

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

[MrAce]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:50, said:

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

No

[JLOGIC]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:50, said:

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

lol

[bluecalm]

Quote

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

Yeah I mean when I had novice like problem I posted in novice forum (where I got friendly help from awm btw)
I think that post might be an attempt to most unanimous poll ever. I double.

[gnasher]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:50, said:

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

No, it just means that Justin posted his answer before anyone else had voted.

[paulg]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:50, said:

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

 gnasher, on 2012-March-31, 02:16, said:

No, it just means that Justin posted his answer before anyone else had voted.

Now that we know that Justin does not always agree with Joe Boo's views this is not necessarily so true, but crossing the jlogic-mikeh axis is just too much to expect.

[FrancesHinden]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:50, said:

If we have a unanimous poll does that automatically lead to "wrong forum" banter, regardless of the initial poster?

 gnasher, on 2012-March-31, 02:16, said:

No, it just means that Justin posted his answer before anyone else had voted.

I was thinking that...

This is the wrong forum really, but I didn't put it in 'Interesting Bridge Hands' because then it would have been too obviously near another thread which I wanted to avoid.
Gnasher (I believe) does not think it is at all obvious. I didn't think it was obvious. Jallerton thought it was very close. My partner (who doesn't post here) thought it was close at the time, but has since decided it's definitely right to double.
I'd prefer a double without the queen of hearts.

Of course what happened on one hand at the table doesn't prove anything much (my partner doubled, I bid 4S and we went for 500 against a game that was probably going off)

Partner did of course have the worst possible hand, but simply saying 'I want partner to bid when she has spade length and short hearts' isn't quite right: even with something that looks very suitable like Kxxx - xxxx Jxxxx, it's not totally clear that you want to be declaring rather than defending. I'd actually be happier if I doubled and partner bid 5m. And of course I'd be ecstatic if I doubled and partner passed.

It's not easy to do a simulation on this type of hand, because it depends a lot on when RHO would raise with a doubleton heart, and also on how often he's going to double you. So I'll take the poll as evidence that our -8 imps (teammates made 170) were just bad luck.

[gnasher]

When I first saw the hand, I thought it looked like a pass, and I still do. Most of the strength is in the three-card suits, where it's more useful in defence than in offence, and I can expect that on an uncontested auction 4♥ will go down. We can also be pretty sure that partner is taking out the double, so the sole purpose of double is to score a game bonus.

It's easy to picture something like KJxxx - xxxx xxxx, but even opposite that 4♠ isn't cold. There are less suitable hands with five spades where game is awful, eg Kxxxx x xxx xxxx. And, as Frances says, partner will often have only four spades, and when he does 4♠ will often play quite badly.

[lalldonn]

What is right on this hand might well depend on the tendencies of preemptor and the person raising. Jlall mentioned that he expected partner to usually be void which I'm not sure is true, and the hands where RHO raises on a doubleton will usually be hands where we get slaughtered in 4S with 4H going down since he will have most of the remaining HCP.

Quote

There are less suitable hands with five spades where game is awful, eg Kxxxx x xxx xxxx

It would be hard for partner to even have this hand. RHO would have raised with something like, AJx Kx QJTxx KJT, giving his partner x AJT9xxx xx xxx. Obviously possible depending on opponents, but they both have marginal hands for their bids (responder might bid 3N or pass, opener might open 2H). I agree with Frances that this situation is almost impossible to simulate for that reason. Doubling is definitely more appealing the more likely it is for partner to have a heart void.

[hatchett]

 lalldonn, on 2012-March-31, 12:29, said:

What is right on this hand might well depend on the tendencies of preemptor and the person raising. Jlall mentioned that he expected partner to usually be void which I'm not sure is true, and the hands where RHO raises on a doubleton will usually be hands where we get slaughtered in 4S with 4H going down since he will have most of the remaining HCP.



It would be hard for partner to even have this hand. RHO would have raised with something like, AJx Kx QJTxx KJT, giving his partner x AJT9xxx xx xxx. Obviously possible depending on opponents, but they both have marginal hands for their bids (responder might bid 3N or pass, opener might open 2H). I agree with Frances that this situation is almost impossible to simulate for that reason. Doubling is definitely more appealing the more likely it is for partner to have a heart void.

I agree with much of the above, but it seems to me that there is a whole range of hands of hands with 3 ♥ that are raising but the hand that raises with 2♥ is pretty specific, and therefore against most opponents I think the odds partner has a void are good. On a bad day this could be a double game swing, when dummy has raised with a ruffing value and three trumps, declarer will naturally get ♥s right.