[Jinksy]

X on W's hand looks like pushy but winning bridge to me (caveat: I Xed in the event and we found the sac).

Re E's bid, I agree with Gnasher about needing better definition, but also rhm that for almost definitions, 4♠ is better - it's hard to imagine a sensible description of values which I can claim to have.

He has approx one defensive trick and no surprise in distribution, so hoping for P to show up with three when they've freely bid an unfavourable 4♥ and the trumps are lying optimally for them is either out of touch with reality, or taking the opponents as cretins.

[cherdano]

I think double of 4♥ is the type of situation that a good partnership should discuss at some point in a bit of detail. And the discussion shouldn't be whether the double is "values" or "convertible" or "optional" or "takeout", but specifically what you would expect partner to do with some common shapes, and some typical distribution of high cards. Do you expect her to pull with 4=2 in the majors? With 4=1? With 3=1=(5-4)?

I would expect that the result of such a discussion will include pulling with 4=1 in the majors for pretty much every partnership.

[bdegrande]

I have no problem with West's double. He has shape which will play well on offense, and two aces are more than enough defensive values for his bid if partner chooses to defend, East's double is awful. KX of ♥ in front of the heart bidder figures to be worthless, and his hand has maybe one trick on defense. No reason to think 4♥ is going down. Both 4♠ and pass are better bids.

[nekthen]

 broze, on 2014-December-31, 07:02, said:

---

Double is defined as "values". 4♥ is cold. Since these things are difficult to be objective about thought I would post this as an ATB.

EDIT: Should have said that the format is 20 VP Swiss Teams.

What muddies the waters here is the statement "double is defined as values"
1). Which double?

If we ignore the values statement then both doubles are fair bids. The first is takeout and the second is responsive and clearly the final pass is the error

If the first double is values, then it is wrong. If the second double is values then it is wrong. You cannot arbitrarily ignore the agreed meaning of double. It is like the randoms on BBO who produce a low level double of opps with 5 cards in their suit and then say "but I can't pass p"

[ammoyous]

 broze, on 2014-December-31, 07:02, said:

---

Double is defined as "values". 4♥ is cold. Since these things are difficult to be objective about thought I would post this as an ATB.

EDIT: Should have said that the format is 20 VP Swiss Teams.

2!h vulnerable with a weak !h, that was crazy

[the hog]

 rhm, on 2015-January-01, 07:43, said:

First of all I do not share your theory that you need a king more to double a weak 2♥ bid than at the one level white on red. Most double with pretty much the same strength.
I would expect most would double white on red with

---

I prefer the actual West hand and I also think it is safer to double with

---

Of course I have not the means to make an extensive statistical study with what world class player double a weak 2♥ bid nowadays.
I admit my statement is based on what I think is happening at the top level.
Lest you think I am a maniac I just take one hand out of a recent book by Australian international Matthew Thomson:
You are in second position (vulnerability not given) and hold

♠QJ42
♥4
♦AJ865
♣653

Dealer passes, you pass and LHO opens 2♥ (weak) raised by RHO to 3♥.
Your bid?

Matthew Thomson writes:

"With your singleton heart and the high trick winning potential of your 4-1-5-3 shape compete.
Partner may have erred on the conservative side over 2♥ as you were a passed hand.
With a shortage in their trump fit, stretch to compete.

As long as you held this 4-1-5-3 hand, no matter what the bidding, as you evaluated and recognized its trick winning potential, your partnership bids and makes 4♠.
Many pairs missed game.
Partner's actual hand was

♠AT98
♥T652
♦KQ4
♣A9

Even though the ♠K was offside, ten tricks made in comfort."

Now I do not agree with everything Matthew says, nor are the two scenarios here one to one identical.
But I do believe the takeout DBL with West is rather a normal sound minimum action nowadays for an expert Bridge player.

Rainer Herrmann

I read what you are saying Rainer. I have not read Matt's book, but I do know him well. I still think the t/o x is too light.As you yourself admit the situations are not analogous. In the op you have no idea if the opps have a fit or not. When you know a fit exists all sorts of possibilities are available. To wit a hand I bid some years ago and still remember well.

(1H) P (4H) P
4S is marked on
QJxxx
xxxx
Axx
x

[broze]

Thanks for all the comments. Some are saying that East 'does not have a double of 4♥' as if it had been a penalty double. Clearly East thought it was more takeout-oriented than West. If you were told that double of 4♥ was pure takeout imo East has a clear double. When posting for me it was a question between whether E should double or whether West should pull. I didn't consider the initial double by West - my partner and I agreed that we would both always double with this hand so we were on the same page about what a minimum could be.

From the smattering of votes I think that the poor definition of the responsive double was perhaps most to blame for the result and the "values" is not clear enough. I sat East and wanted to say 'we may belong in game or we may be best off defending but I don't have a hand that can unilaterally bid 4♠ on my own". Partner took the double to be more defensively oriented - clearly we need more discussion here. So I invite comments on what is the best (or preferred) way to play it?

And in an expert pickup partnership, which of the final double and pass from West would seem most surprising?

[broze]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-01, 03:26, said:

If East's double meant "I think we might want to play the hand in game. What do you think?", West has a fairly clear pull to 4♠. He has a singleton heart and an offensive shape, and not a huge amount of defence.

If it meant "I want to defend unless you have an unusual hand", I think East should have bid 4♠ instead of double.

When I held the East hand I bid 4♠, but I thought a responsive double would also have been reasonable. If I'd done that, I expect West would have taken it out to 4♠.

Great comment - this gets to the root of the problem I think. Each player thought it meant different things. Yes - I'm not sure it really meant either of these things, which is obviously the problem? I guess from your comments that in your partnership(s) you use the former meaning? I totally agree with cherdano that calling something an "optional" double isn't helping anybody.

[rhm]

 broze, on 2015-January-02, 07:15, said:

Thanks for all the comments. Some are saying that East 'does not have a double of 4♥' as if it had been a penalty double. Clearly East thought it was more takeout-oriented than West. If you were told that double of 4♥ was pure takeout imo East has a clear double. When posting for me it was a question between whether E should double or whether West should pull. I didn't consider the initial double by West - my partner and I agreed that we would both always double with this hand so we were on the same page about what a minimum could be.

From the smattering of votes I think that the poor definition of the responsive double was perhaps most to blame for the result and the "values" is not clear enough. I sat East and wanted to say 'we may belong in game or we may be best off defending but I don't have a hand that can unilaterally bid 4♠ on my own". Partner took the double to be more defensively oriented - clearly we need more discussion here. So I invite comments on what is the best (or preferred) way to play it?

And in an expert pickup partnership, which of the final double and pass from West would seem most surprising?

You can play takeout or responsive doubles up to and including 7♠ if you like.
The point is at some stage you have to take a decision whether it will be more profitable in the long run to defend or to bid on.
The fallacy is to believe you can duck this decision by playing all doubles as takeout.

West has already said he has a takeout double of hearts. Who of the two is in a better position to decide whether to bid on or defend?
I understand that East wants to pass the decision to partner.
A sort of modern blame shifting game.
Even if the DBL shows values, fact is no matter how you play your doubles, a double can be passed by partner. If you bid on there is no way opponents can play 4♥ doubled.
Of course West has heard the raise and knows that a trump stack is unlikely.
But for my simple way of seeing things.
If I have no special agreements to the contrary with my partner, whether world class or not, and I have made a takeout double and opponents bid game, double suggests to defend and not to bid on.
If East has no intention of defending he bids on. If he believes 4♥ is unlikely to fail he will not double.

Rainer Herrmann

[broze]

 rhm, on 2015-January-02, 08:48, said:

You can play takeout or responsive doubles up to and including 7♠ if you like.
The point is at some stage you have to take a decision whether it will be more profitable in the long run to defend or to bid on.
The fallacy is to believe you can duck this decision by playing all doubles as takeout.

West has already said he has a takeout double of hearts. Who of the two is in a better position to decide whether to bid on or defend?
I understand that East wants to pass the decision to partner.
A sort of modern blame shifting game.
Even if the DBL shows values, fact is no matter how you play your doubles, a double can be passed by partner. If you bid on there is no way opponents can play 4♥ doubled.
Of course West has heard the raise and knows that a trump stack is unlikely.
But for my simple way of seeing things.
If I have no special agreements to the contrary with my partner, whether world class or not, and I have made a takeout double and opponents bid game, double suggests to defend and not to bid on.
If East has no intention of defending he bids on. If he believes 4♥ is unlikely to fail he will not double.

Rainer Herrmann

Surely the double is responsive whether it is takeout or not, since it is responding to partner's double? And if you bid 4S with the East hand here what would you bid with the vulnerabilities reversed? I would be very nervous about bidding 4S there risking going for -500 against nothing.

[gnasher]

 broze, on 2015-January-02, 07:18, said:

I guess from your comments that in your partnership(s) you use the former meaning?

Yes, and I think that would be normal in the circles where I play. But I like Cherdano's suggestion of defining it in terms of what partner is expected to do.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, well...I know partner doesn't always have the perfect takeout double, but when it has gone:

(2H) dble (4H) ? I think I will stick with my tagline (below). If East had been (say) 3-2-4-4, then I could get back to blaming West.

[bdegrande]

I don't think there is any reason to make a responsive double holding four cards in the only unbid major. If the double is some sort of cooperative double, it becomes a little less clear.

[Jinksy]

As Rainer says, X, whatever it means, gives the option of penalising, which E has no interest in doing. The odds of you setting this by more than 1 are tiny, and setting it at all is probably odds against. Meanwhile, 4♠ rates highly to be a good sac if they're making, and has decent chances of making.