[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

(1♦) - 2♣ - (2♠) - P
(3♠) - ?

---

Do you agree with 2♣?

What is your call now?

[cherdano]

100% agree with 2♣. Double now.

[jdonn]

Absolutely double. Agree with the overcall, much more flexible to be doubling this round than having to bid 4♣ this round had we doubled first.

[Fluffy]

Yes, we bid 2♣to be able to double now instead of bidding 4♣.

[helene_t]

2♣ is fine. Dbl now, this is a textbook hand for that bid.

[foo]

"Baa" said this sheep; along with the rest of the herd.

[skjaeran]

Absolutely agree with 2♣ - this is clearcut IMO.
Double now.
See Josh's post above.

[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

(1♦) - 2♣- (2♠) - P
(3♠) - Dbl - (P) - 4♣
(P) - P - (Dbl) - All Pass

---

Yeah. I thought it fairly routine. I just got hosed when West found a (MP) double. They managed to misdefend and let me go one off, but -100 was not worth very many MPs. I can't really figure out why.

Of course, I also think it was pretty unlucky to catch partner with no values and no shape. The no values is not terribly surprising on the auction, but the no shape made it worse.

[foo]

Advancer's pass then 4♣ bid is aweful.

Either
a= raise to 3♣ and pass forevermore, or
b= pass, ...and pass overcaller's X if he makes one on the 2nd round.

vs this 3♠, EW should get 5 tricks: 2 ♥'s + 1 ♦ + 2 ♣'s
Yes, this is lucky. and Yes, on some days vs other 3♠'s They will take 9 tricks.

But N has =no= ruffing potential and =no= values.
Stinky as it is, it's considerably easier to take 5 tricks rather than 10...

[FrancesHinden]

Advancer's actions are completely normal.
He expects 3S to make, and is hoping for one off (or two off undoubled).
3S is making, so I don't know why -100 was so bad either.

[Fluffy]

foo, on Jun 26 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Advancer's pass then 4♣ bid is aweful.

Either
a= raise to 3♣ and pass forevermore, or
b= pass,  ...and pass overcaller's X if he makes one on the 2nd round.

vs this 3♠, EW should get 5 tricks:  2 ♥'s + 1 ♦ + 2 ♣'s
Yes, this is lucky.  and Yes, on some days vs other 3♠'s They will take 9 tricks.

But N has =no= ruffing potential and =no= values.
Stinky as it is, it's considerably easier to take 5 tricks rather than 10...

Pass 3♠? Partner cannot beat this contract himself, -300 is better than -630

Before being resulting its ebtter to look closer because 3♠ makes against any defence

[helene_t]

The LOTT proved once more. North should assume a 1336 and do the math. 17 total tricks and 4♣ goes for 300 if 3♠ makes (both of which will be a bad at MP) while both contracts may be down one, or 3♠ goes for 300 if 4♣ makes. Pass, thus. It is more difficult at IMPs, not sure if I would have the guts to pass.

Edit: Oops, Frances is right, 3♠ makes. The LOTT disproved once more, that is.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2007-June-26, 04:14

[Fluffy]

helene_t, on Jun 26 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

The LOTT proved once more. North should assume a 1336 and do the math. 17 total tricks and 4♣ goes for 300 if 3♠ makes (both of which will be a bad at MP) while both contracts may be down one, or 3♠ goes for 300 if 4♣ makes. Pass, thus. It is more difficult at IMPs, not sure if I would have the guts to pass.

You forget 3♠ making overtrick when the field is at 4♠/5♣

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Jun 26 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

Edit: Oops, Frances is right, 3♠ makes. The LOTT disproved once more, that is.

No, because 4C should have gone two off (I assume declarer made an unexpected diamond trick).

But playing matchpoints the LOTT isn't very helpful on this sort of hand:
- you can play for one off v. one off and pass (sweaty...)
- you can play for two off v. making and hope either they don't double, or they misdefend

perhaps a good idea to look at your opponents before deciding which is more likely!

[han]

I certainly agree with 2C. I think I would have passed 3S, partner is almost known to be broke on the auction.

[Codo]

Okay 3 Spade makes this deal cause the Hearts are 3-3 and you cannot go wrong while playing the suits.

But is pass with the North hand really that bad?
If he expected a 1336 hand from pd, he will know that he will never ever produce a trick in 4 Club. He knows that they will fail to make this contract. Not just one down, but at least two.
So 4 Club is an always loosing option against all opps who will double them.

Pass can be a loosing option too, but with a little luck 3 Spade is down 1 at least.
(just change the Q and K of Diamonds and both contracs are one off...)

So I would go for a double against good opps with the north hand and write -670 in the scoresheet, good luck, this is just mps. Against bad opps, 4 Club is an alternative, they don´t double.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Jun 26 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

2♣ is fine. Dbl now, this is a textbook hand for that bid.

x2

[skjaeran]

Codo, on Jun 26 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

Okay 3 Spade makes this deal cause the Hearts are 3-3 and you cannot go wrong while playing the suits.

But is pass with the North hand really that bad?
If he expected a 1336 hand from pd, he will know that he will never ever produce a trick in 4 Club. He knows that they will fail to make this contract. Not just one down, but at least two.
So 4 Club is an always loosing option against all opps who will double them.

Pass can be a loosing option too, but with a little luck 3 Spade is down 1 at least.
(just change the Q and K of Diamonds and both contracs are one off...)

So I would go for a double against good opps with the north hand and write -670 in the scoresheet, good luck, this is just mps. Against bad opps, 4 Club is an alternative, they don´t double.

The only reason opps must struggle a little to make 3♠ is the 2-2 ♣ break. If clubs were 3-1 the contract would alway be laydown, even if we make small changes (as switching ♦Q/K).

Thus passing 3♠x has to be a losing decision. You'll still have a bad board if doubled, but it's not a certainty that opps will double you.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Jun 26 2007, 03:42 AM, said:

I certainly agree with 2C. I think I would have passed 3S, partner is almost known to be broke on the auction.

Completely agree. Pard is busted. I'd say a 4=3=3=3 is a very likely shape. Do we really expect to buy this at 4♣ undoubled? Are we trying to salvage -100 in 4♣x'd against their 140? If so, MP is just too tough for me.

I love my hand too, but just because we have short spades doesn't give us the license to compete. We are totally outgunned here. Doubling gives them a fielder's choice between hitting 4♣ and bidding 4♠. I'll bet on many hands LHO would have a tough decision to bid on or pass, but we make his job easy this way.

Double will always result in declarer picking up pard's Qxx as well if they push to 4♠.