My judgement when it comes to making doubles is terrible. I thought about it on this hand but decided against because of the points distribution. I didn't bid on because it was GIB and partner would have expected a lot more and, as others found out, you end up way too high.
Results suggest it was a doubling hand but opinion was split amongst those who didn't bid on.
MPs, W v W.
♠KT654 ♥K ♦KQ ♣QT582
P (P) 1S (2H)
P (P) ?
75% wasn't a bad result, just wondering if I missed an obvious double.
As always, thanks in advance,
Simon
PS
Page 1 of 1
Is this really a MPs doubling hand?
#2
Posted 2014-November-16, 03:15
Nothing wrong with passing that, I think. You're min, and pard passed a very shape-descriptive opening, so odds your side has nothing.
Sure, dbl can be right, but it can also lead to a heck of a lot of trouble if pard pulls to 3♦.
Sure, dbl can be right, but it can also lead to a heck of a lot of trouble if pard pulls to 3♦.
#3
Posted 2014-November-16, 08:38
whereagles, on 2014-November-16, 03:15, said:
Nothing wrong with passing that, I think. You're min, and pard passed a very shape-descriptive opening, so odds your side has nothing.
Sure, dbl can be right, but it can also lead to a heck of a lot of trouble if pard pulls to 3♦.
Sure, dbl can be right, but it can also lead to a heck of a lot of trouble if pard pulls to 3♦.
All the other stuff you say seems about right. But I don't understand, "You're min, and pard passed a very shape-descriptive opening". In what way have I described 5-1-2-5?
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#4
Posted 2014-November-16, 08:54
What I mean is that 1♠ is considerably more descriptive in what concerns shape than e.g. 1m.
Page 1 of 1