[nigel_k]

---

4♠ made and 5♣ would likely have made in practice, certainly by East.

[gnasher]

What was the agreement about the double?

[MrAce]

I really don't understand why you asked this, since i can't see anything wrong with action by East. Imo the blame goes to the player who had Kxxx support for one of his pd's suits and Kx for other. (unless DBL means penalty for this pair)

Idk what would be 4NT for this pair, some of us play it as ♦ support and long clubs, some play it RKCB and i am sure some play it other suits with more shape than a regular DBL would show and not willing to sell out to 4♠. Even if they played 4NT as extreme shape and not willing to play 4♠ doubled with other suits i think East still has a clear DBL because thats where he wants to play if there is no fit, especially holding stiff in pd's suit.


But seriously, if DBL means penalty i would DBL with E hand, if it meant take out i would DBL with E hand, if DBL meant cards i would DBL with E hand, so i am having hard time to figure what are you seeking to hear. The meaning of DBL doesnt change anything for East, it may change the level of blame for West though.

[nigel_k]

The double was not strictly takeout or penalty, just DSIP. Feel free to blame the agreement if you like.

[mcphee]

West should bid 5C. It is not practical to have this dble be all penalty. What logical way does E have to act other than dble?

[rhm]

This is an important scenario, which comes up time and again.

Asking for the meaning of the double shows that people think Bridge problems can be solved by agreements rather than by Bridge logic.

The triple jump to game makes it clear that opponents have a good fit in spades. Obviously North believes 4♠ will either make or be a cheap save.
East, sitting under the 1♠ opener must be showing cards no matter how you define the double.
This is true today as much as it would have been 50 years ago.

East had a 4NT takeout available but choose to double. Probable reason: More than one spade and short diamonds.

From West perspective:

If opponents have a fit so do we. If it is not in diamonds, guess where it will be.
I would probably takeout into 5♣ on the theory that there are at least 19 tricks in the black suits, too close for playing 4♠ doubled at all white.
At worst taking out into 5♣ will convert plus 100 into minus 100. At best there will be a double game swing.

So I blame mostly West for not taking out insurance.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2012-August-03, 04:30, said:

Asking for the meaning of the double shows that people think Bridge problems can be solved by agreements rather than by Bridge logic.

I think that some bridge problems can be avoided by having agreements. I also think that blame can't be assigned unless we know what agreements, if any, existed.

[aguahombre]

Agree with those who want to know the agreed nature of the double in order to decide West's degree of culpability. Mr. Ace is correct, though, that whatever it meant East would double ---so there cannot be blame on that side of the table.

Under our agreements, I would not remove to 5♣. Removing to 4N with the 2-card difference between diamonds and clubs would accidentally put the contract into East's hand where an opening heart lead is not possible.

[gnasher]

 nigel_k, on 2012-August-03, 03:57, said:

The double was not strictly takeout or penalty, just DSIP. Feel free to blame the agreement if you like.

Then I blame West entirely. The only type of double I'd leave in with that hand is a penalty double. (Unlike Rainer, I do believe that the adjectives we attach to doubles mean something.)

East's action looks normal.

[bluecalm]

Quote

5♣ would likely have made in practice, certainly by East.

S would certainly bid 5♠ though
As to the auction. E has no-brainer double. W has some decision to take and I think bidding on is not obvious although it seems to be better action to em. I have nothing to support this claim, just intuition.

[wank]

west has a singleton spade, a 4 card side suit and offensive high cards. if he's going to pass this double, when is he ever going to bid?

[Yu18772]

I cant blame W at all...really. I understand E double, although imo he could have foreseen the problem. Imo DSIP dbl at 5 level as your first bid in the auction without any agreement on expected honor position is a poor bid - you know that partner will have to make a blind guess while you have at least some info about his hand. So its just looking to transfer responsibility, because you feel uncomfortable passing, but not sure about your agreements on bidding alternatives.
That is if E knows that Dbl is DSIP.....he might have been convinced that it is take out, then I cant blame him as well.

There is a great difference in defense and offense potential between:
♠KQx, ♥Axxxx, ♦-,♣Qxxxx or
♠x, ♥AJxxx, ♦xx, ♣AJxxx or
♠AJ, ♥AJxxx, ♦x, ♣Jxxxx


if E would double with any of these, west decision is unlucky guess at worse, and i cant blame him at all.
If you ask partner to guess at 5 level with no info except opponent bidding, he will not always get it right....if you are not playing often together he will not even usually get it right.
So if E was sure that X is to - I dont blame him, but rather the lack of agreement. If E was aware that X is unclear, and bid because he was unsure of what 4NT is I think he is even more to blame than west.


Yu

[gszes]

E has no way to enter the bidding with their nice hand except x to show a good hand
with the other two suits. 4N could easily be taken as blackwood agreeing to dia so that
is out. W has to realize that it is unreasonable to expect E to make a penalty x here.
E will not move with just 2 aces and a boring hand (3424). The x has to show some
expectation of finding a fit somewhere (not in dia) since the opps have a big spade fit.

The W hand is just plain way too weak defensively to consider passing and a 5c
bid seems to be the stand out. It makes little economic sense at imps to use x to
try and set the opps 1 or even 2 tricks when we can use it for potentially large gains
by using it in a negative fashion.

[gnasher]

 Yu18772, on 2012-August-03, 18:25, said:

There is a great difference in defense and offense potential between:
♠KQx, ♥Axxxx, ♦-,♣Qxxxx or
♠x, ♥AJxxx, ♦xx, ♣AJxxx or
♠AJ, ♥AJxxx, ♦x, ♣Jxxxx

if E would double with any of these ...

"DSIP" doesn't mean "Any 13 cards, some of which are high". It means "I think we might have game on, but I don't know whether to bid to the five-level or not." Your first example is what I would call a penalty double, and therefore a completely obvious pass given the methods. The third example is a pass too, because with that spade holding you know that partner will nearly always remove the double, and it will usually be wrong to play at the five-level.

[Yu18772]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-03, 23:49, said:

"DSIP" doesn't mean "Any 13 cards, some of which are high". It means "I think we might have game on, but I don't know whether to bid to the five-level or not." Your first example is what I would call a penalty double, and therefore a completely obvious pass given the methods. The third example is a pass too, because with that spade holding you know that partner will nearly always remove the double, and it will usually be wrong to play at the five-level.

This comes down to wether you have methods - which from the discussion is clearly not.... DSIP is "I have enough cards not to pass and I dont know what to bid, but I dont want them to steal our hand cheaply" - and all 3 hands I gave fit that description.
It is more than reasonable for west to think that without agreement and any particular extras he can leave the double in - just like opening 4♠-X is take out in its nature, but holding empty hand partner can leave it in. From west point of view his singelton in ♠ is almost always obvious to partner (unless they hold 11-12 cards and will bid 5♠ anyway).
"I think we might have game on, but I don't know whether to bid to the five-level or not" is not good enough at 5 level, it should either show or deny a trick in opponents suit. Without any agreements with expert partner I would expect 4NT to be take out and X penalty oriented, but then again last time this happened he thought that 4NT is RKCB and X is takeout - basically without agreement I might double and might not, and might take it out or not, but whatever comes after the double can not, imo, be blamed on the overcaller. If it is someone I play with somewhat regularly, I would make sure we are on the same page next time, but would not risk an ambigous call at 5 level - after all my guess of what he will take 4NT for is as good as his guess of what double is. If this is a one time pickup I would double, or bid, but I would never blame the result on partner - if I make an ambiguous bid, whatever comes after is my fault.
Yu

[phil_20686]

I just don't understand passing with the west cards. Seems like a super obvious 4N bid to show 6-4. If you think its right for west to pass this, you are doubling too much.

[JLOGIC]

I blame the freakish opponents distribution for my AK AK A with partner having a stiff in my 6 to the ace and 2 trumps for being only 3 tricks?

Haha, I mean west could obv bid but this isn't the worst thing anyones ever done, you're usually gonna get 300 at least (could be more) and might go down in 5C.

I think west has the right type of hand to consider passing with a stiff spade, a very minimum bare hand, bad suits, and A K K (quick tricks). You even have the ace of your long suit, and kings in the shorter suits. If there were ever a hand to pass with 1264, that is it, you can argue that such a hand does not exist if you want and I'm not sure I'd disagree with you but I think west has a closeish decision and did something reasonable, and if west knew their partners hand they might well make the same choice.

[JLOGIC]

I mean there has to be some point where you go "hey, I have good defense and shitty offense, despite having an offensive shape... we probably do not have a huge fit and will just beat them with our high cards, and will usually go down in game sometimes doubled if we get a bad split." Surely if you had A A A and out you would pass. A A K with the ace of your long suit? Seems like you should pass. A K K with the ace of your long suit? Ok, you're getting closer, but that is my only point. When you have A K K, and partner doesn't have spade values and is doubling he probably has some aces also.

11 tricks is a lot with poor suits, and 10 tricks is a lot for them when they're off lots of aces and kings, even with the trumps. We all know south doesn't have to be 6-5, and north doesn't have to have extreme shape to jump to 4M, especially against players who go double pass bid or if 4th hand has the stiff spade and a good fit then raise. Against those people I imagine it's always right to bid 4M with 5 trumps. There are many good pairs who I won't mention who are easy to own like this, they always go double pass bid.

[phil_20686]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-04, 05:07, said:

I mean there has to be some point where you go "hey, I have good defense and shitty offense, despite having an offensive shape... we probably do not have a huge fit and will just beat them with our high cards, and will usually go down in game sometimes doubled if we get a bad split." Surely if you had A A A and out you would pass. A A K with the ace of your long suit? Seems like you should pass. A K K with the ace of your long suit? Ok, you're getting closer, but that is my only point. When you have A K K, and partner doesn't have spade values and is doubling he probably has some aces also.

11 tricks is a lot with poor suits, and 10 tricks is a lot for them when they're off lots of aces and kings, even with the trumps. We all know south doesn't have to be 6-5, and north doesn't have to have extreme shape to jump to 4M, especially against players who go double pass bid or if 4th hand has the stiff spade and a good fit then raise. Against those people I imagine it's always right to bid 4M with 5 trumps. There are many good pairs who I won't mention who are easy to own like this, they always go double pass bid.

I would be much more likely to pass with queens and J's. I feel like a hand with aces and kings is pretty offensive for the same number of HCP. x QJ KJxxxx QJxx I would pass. Is that wrong?

Edit: I guess I feel like queens and jacks in side suits are pretty defensive, but here, since I don't known what our fit is, I think that they are all side suits

[gnasher]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-04, 05:07, said:

I mean there has to be some point where you go "hey, I have good defense and shitty offense, despite having an offensive shape... we probably do not have a huge fit and will just beat them with our high cards, and will usually go down in game sometimes doubled if we get a bad split." Surely if you had A A A and out you would pass. A A K with the ace of your long suit?

No, I don't think there is such a point when we have this shape, unless the singleton is the ace. With 1363 I might be more interested in passing, both because of the reduced offence and because there's more risk of ending up in the wrong contract.