Penalize?
#1
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:06
♠Qxx ♥9xx ♦KQx ♣xxxx
P - (3♦) - Dbl - (P)
?
#2
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:12
I am going to guess partner is 4=4=1=4 and if we can make 3nt we can beat 3d two tricks for plus 300 and if we can only make 8 tricks we are plus 100.
#3
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:13
This is really a problem without a clear cut right answer.
Even 3NT could be the right action - give partner AKx AT98 x AKQJx. You have 9 cold winners, the defense cannot take 5 tricks, and you probably won't beat 3♦ more than 2 tricks (give opener a classic 7222 hand with the ♦A, and one heart entry to dummy to play a diamond through your KQ).
#4
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:24
ArtK78, on May 8 2008, 05:13 PM, said:
And you expect partner to pass 3NT?
#5
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:28
- hrothgar
#6
Posted 2008-May-08, 17:00
#7
Posted 2008-May-08, 17:34
I'd prefer not to face this problem at IMPs.
#8 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-08, 17:42
#9
Posted 2008-May-08, 17:46
jdonn, on May 8 2008, 05:24 PM, said:
ArtK78, on May 8 2008, 05:13 PM, said:
And you expect partner to pass 3NT?
That is an interesting point.
But if I don't bid 3NT, then it cannot be bid. And if partner cannot pass 3NT, then we can never play in 3NT when it is right.
Of course, all I was pointing out was that 3NT could be the winning action. I did not consider that if it was the winning action, partner could not sit for it.
Quite a conundrum, isn't it?
#10
Posted 2008-May-08, 19:44
- hrothgar
#11
Posted 2008-May-08, 19:58
(Edit -- fixed the hand diagram, and gave everyone 13 cards)
#12
Posted 2008-May-08, 20:07
Which shows a good point about not getting to out-of-line with your 3-level t.o. doubles - partner may have this hand and have this decision.
#13
Posted 2008-May-08, 21:41
rogerclee, on May 8 2008, 05:06 PM, said:
♠Qxx ♥9xx ♦KQx ♣xxxx
P - (3♦) - Dbl - (P)
?
IMO _P = 10, 3N = 4, 3♠ = 3, 4♣ = 2.
Granny says "Takeout doubles are for taking out" and the views of Jlall, PClayton et al give me additional pause for thought but I would masochistically pass at IMPS, too
#14
Posted 2008-May-08, 23:44
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#15
Posted 2008-May-09, 02:58
I thought pass was clear at the table and this was ordinary bad luck; glad to see the forums agree.
#16
Posted 2008-May-09, 07:48
#17
Posted 2008-May-09, 09:27
Apollo81, on May 9 2008, 05:48 AM, said:
Really? I was thinking the opposite. With RHO having a good hand their chances of 470 + are enhanced. We have about 1.25 defensive tricks in our hand.
We haven't been doubled yet in 3x either.
#18
Posted 2008-May-09, 10:38
rogerclee, on May 9 2008, 03:58 AM, said:
What do people think of 3♠ vs DBL with this hand?
#19
Posted 2008-May-09, 10:44
- hrothgar
#20
Posted 2008-May-09, 10:50
What about ♠AKxxx ♥JTx ♦x ♣AQJx
or ♠JTx ♥AKxxx ♦x ♣AKQJ?