[jdeegan]

Pass
Doesn't anyone construct hypothetical generic hands for partner anymore?
Like - the perfect 8 HCP or a random 10 HCP.
Perfect 8: 4♠ could make, but unlikely-we are down one or more in ♣ or ♦
xx
Axxx
Jxxx
Kxx

Random 10: We are down one at least - they do not rate to make 4♠
Qxx
Q10xx
Kxxx
Kxx

Other Hands: We almost never make 11 tricks - they occasionally make 10

LOTT: 18 or 19 tricks - We usually make 9 or 10 - only the our 9 when total tricks is 19 combination favors bidding on.

If I pass, and partner has something unusual, then HE can take a push.

[mikeh]

jdeegan, on Jul 18 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Pass
Doesn't anyone construct hypothetical generic hands for partner anymore?
Like - the perfect 8 HCP or a random 10 HCP. 
Perfect 8: 4♠ could make, but unlikely-we are down one or more in ♣ or ♦
xx
Axxx
Jxxx
Kxx

Random 10: We are down one at least - they do not rate to make 4♠
Qxx
Q10xx
Kxxx
Kxx

Other Hands: We almost never make 11 tricks - they occasionally make 10

LOTT: 18 or 19 tricks - We usually make 9 or 10 - only the our 9 when total tricks is 19 combination favors bidding on.

If I pass, and partner has something unusual, then HE can take a push.

I suspect that most experts will not try to construct hands for partner until and unless we have sufficient information to allow us to do so with some precision: which is not the case here, at all.

So we pass (the vote is 11-3 to pass 4♠) on general principles: we need significant help from partner to make an 11 trick contract playable, and he will not usually pass 4♠ if he has that help. We then rely upon the sanity of our red v white opps to deduce that, opposite our shape, his help will likely make playing an 11 trick minor game more rewarding than defending a 10 trick 4♠ contract when the opps are surely bidding on extreme shape (at least, the 4♠ bidder is).

One problem with hand construction is that most of us suffer from an inability to act as our own hand generator, without being biased by our hopes and fears. We can overcome this in certain narrow situations. Thus, when considering whether to make a slam move in a constructive auction, I will consider whether a perfect minimum opposite makes slam good and whether a poor maximum makes the slam try dangerous... maybe we will lack 5-level safety. But I wouldn't engage in hand construction here, or even after his double... in fact, I thought of whether a simulation would help evaluate the pass or 4N decision over partner's hypothetical double, and decided not to do it because of problems establishing the constraints for the sim. If I can't even program them into DealMaster, I sure can't programme myself at the table.

[han]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

The pass seems really obvious. Is this here because partner has xx Axxx Kxxxxx x?

No.

It's here because I bid 4NT but then felt bad about it and wanted to know for sure. Having been called insane and what more I still feel bad ( ) but hopefully I won't make the same mistake again.

4NT worked fine at the table but pass and pull would also have.

[ArtK78]

I consider 4NT here to be automatic at IMPs.

And I have been called insane by better players, so I don't take it as an insult.

To find out that 4NT would have worked at the table is no surprise to me. It is consistent with all of the actions taken in the auction.

[Halo]

I don't mind being wrong.

Why is at all up to the minors hand? Partner makes a second double - why doesn't he bid if defending is wrong? What did I show when I passed the previous round?

There's too much unexplained dogmatism sometimes (vote yes or nope).

[ArtK78]

Assuming that you are going to pass over 4S, why are you pulling your partner's double?

Double says "I can beat 4S." You have 2 aces, and no reason to believe that partner is wrong. So you pass.

However, I believe there is plenty of reason to believe that we should be playing in 5 of a minor. I don't need for partner to tell me that he can beat 4S for me to bid again.

Pass and pull is backwards thinking.

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Jul 18 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

Assuming that you are going to pass over 4S, why are you pulling your partner's double?

Double says "I can beat 4S." You have 2 aces, and no reason to believe that partner is wrong. So you pass.

However, I believe there is plenty of reason to believe that we should be playing in 5 of a minor. I don't need for partner to tell me that he can beat 4S for me to bid again.

Pass and pull is backwards thinking.

Double doesn't say "I can beat 4♠". It means "I've got extra offensive strenght".
Now it's up to opener to decide to declare or defend. I'm for declaring with this hand and this extra information from partner, thus i take out with 4NT, desribing my hand for partner who'll decide which strain we'll play.

Taking out is wrong if both 4♠ and 5m go down. That's the kind of insurance I'm happy to pay at IMPs. If one or both contracts make, the payoff for bidding is huge.

[Halo]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

Halo, on Jul 18 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Why is at all up to the minors hand?  Partner makes a second double - why doesn't he bid if defending is wrong?

Because your 1C opening does not promise 6-4 with a singleton spade.

Yes of course, but my question was what my pass showed.

If I showed a weak shapely hand without heart support - what do I have after partner's second double that I have not already shown?

Do I not have more defence and equal attack as already shown?

[Halo]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Halo, on Jul 18 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

Yes of course, but my question was what my pass showed.

If I showed a weak shapely hand without heart support - what do I have after partner's second double that I have not already shown?

Do I not have more defence and equal attack as already shown?

You wouldn't pass with a 3334 12 count? Your pass didn't show anything, it denied a hand good enough to bid at the 5 level opposite a partner who's shown nothing more than 6+ points and 4+ hearts.

OK

My thinking is progressing.

On what hand would I have doubled rather than pass second time?

[awm]

Double says "I have extras in the form of convertible values." Normally this double denies a good fit for hearts and shows about an ace more than a minimum opening. It also tends to deny a freak hand (7-card suit, 6-5, or stuff like that). Typical is a balanced 18-19 with less than four hearts, or some shape like 3145 with 16+ hcp. Partner will usually pass this double, but is allowed to bid on with self-sufficient hearts or a good undisclosed fit for opener's suit.

Pass says "I have a minimum opener." Partner is allowed to pass. If partner doubles back in, it shows extra values (usually around a good 10+) without a self-sufficient suit or a good fit for opener's suit.

Bidding on shows substantial extra offensive strength in the form of shape. Typical would be something like a 6-5 hand, 7 clubs with moderate extras, or 4-card heart support with extras and spade shortage. Usually this also shows something like an ace more than a minimum, but with a spade void and really crazy shape (say 0-1-5-7 or 0-4-3-6) the "extras" can be based wholly on shape and not high card points.

[Halo]

Thanks AWM

So with a pass I showed a balanced 12 count (a necessary lie perhaps) and partner's second double showed a good 10.

I can now see why I am bidding on.

Personally I don't see my second round double showing 18 pts as being at all realistic, unless I am obsessed with psychs.

I would rather double second time round on minimum balanced and accept the odd couple of IMPs when they make.

[mikeh]

I am in general agreement with Harald, Justin and Adam re their latests posts, but I would quibble with Harald's statement that partner's double of 4♠ shows offensive values.

My description, which may be the same thing in different language, is that partner's double announces that, in his view, the deal likely belongs to us: that if I am flat (and presumably less than a strong 1N opening), we should defend.. not that we are going to get rich all the time, but that we rate to score 4+ tricks, while if I have unusual shape, we rate to be able to make something.

If he had solely offensive values, he wouldn't risk me passing the double on a balanced minimum... when he doubles 4♠, he is expecting a pass quite often.

When bidding this way, it is important to understand, and accept, that every now and then you are 'dealt' a -790 or -850 etc... that's a price you have to pay. And, once in a while, you will go -50 when you could have been +200. No-one has perfect judgment in these areas... altho this is the part of the Italians' game that impresses me the most.

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Jul 18 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Assuming that you are going to pass over 4S, why are you pulling your partner's double?

Double says "I can beat 4S." You have 2 aces, and no reason to believe that partner is wrong. So you pass.

However, I believe there is plenty of reason to believe that we should be playing in 5 of a minor. I don't need for partner to tell me that he can beat 4S for me to bid again.

Pass and pull is backwards thinking.

Double (at least in the last 30 years) also means "I have a real good hand for the bidding and am comfortable with whatever you decide to do, partner".

You won't have a trump stack on this sequence very often.

[FrancesHinden]

Halo, on Jul 18 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Halo, on Jul 18 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

Yes of course, but my question was what my pass showed.

If I showed a weak shapely hand without heart support - what do I have after partner's second double that I have not already shown?

Do I not have more defence and equal attack as already shown?

You wouldn't pass with a 3334 12 count? Your pass didn't show anything, it denied a hand good enough to bid at the 5 level opposite a partner who's shown nothing more than 6+ points and 4+ hearts.

OK

My thinking is progressing.

On what hand would I have doubled rather than pass second time?

Add the ace of hearts to the current hand.
That's only a 15-count but it's got 3 aces.

[ArtK78]

Everyone tries to make this game much more difficult than it is.

However you choose to define the meaning of partner's double of 4S - "extras," "convertible values," etc., it is clear that partner is announcing that the hand belongs to us based on whatever you have promised to that point in the auction. Given your hand, it is fairly clear to pass. You opened the bidding and you have two virtually certain defensive tricks with the possibility of a third. That is at least as much as you have promised by your opening bid, perhaps more. So, if you are being told by partner that defending 4Sx is an acceptable choice, then that is the choice you should make.

As I said previously, I would have bid 4NT over 4S, as I believe that it is right to bid one more on distributional hands such as this one. But if you are willing to pass over 4S (which says that you are willing to play in 4S undoubled), then you must be willing to pass partner's double and play in 4Sx.

Much of this discussion sounds like some silly arguments that I used to hear in team matches, where a player was willing to let the opponents play in a contract undoubled, but when his partner doubled the opponents they now bid on.

Again, I am not advocating defending 4S, doubled or undoubled, on this hand. But you must be consistent. If you pass 4S, you should pass 4Sx.

[awm]

There is nothing inconsistent about passing and then pulling a double. Admittedly LOTT is an approximation, but the view is something like:

(1) There are probably 18-19 tricks on this deal.
(2) If the points are fairly evenly divided, the number of tricks for each side is about equal. This means it's quite possible that 4♠ and 5m are both failing, and even if 4♠ makes there's a good chance that 5mX is down two or three and not a great sacrifice.
(3) If we have the substantial majority of the strength, then we probably have 11 tricks. They often have 8 tricks (they need more shape to be bidding like this when we have the points, so total tricks is probably 19 and not 18). Making 5m will outscore defending 4♠X.

Remember that partner's double just announces "it's our hand" and "I'm not sure we should declare" -- this is partner's normal bid with any balanced hand of 11+ points. There is no guarantee that partner doesn't have four clubs, or that partner has anything in spades whatsoever.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Jul 18 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

As I said previously, I would have bid 4NT over 4S, as I believe that it is right to bid one more on distributional hands such as this one.  But if you are willing to pass over 4S (which says that you are willing to play in 4S undoubled), then you must be willing to pass partner's double and play in 4Sx.

Much of this discussion sounds like some silly arguments that I used to hear in team matches, where a player was willing to let the opponents play in a contract undoubled, but when his partner doubled the opponents they now bid on.

Again, I am not advocating defending 4S, doubled or undoubled, on this hand.  But you must be consistent.  If you pass 4S, you should pass 4Sx.

Your first para quoted here (it wasn't the first in your post) is illogical.

Pass over 4♠ says, as you suggest, that I am willing to defend 4♠...but it doesn't say it as simplistically as that.

It says I am willing to defend 4♠ unless partner has significantly more values than the minimum shown by the auction to date.

Once partner doubles, which no good player plays as a 'penalty' double, then we look at our hand and make an informed decision. My choice, and that of the large majority of posters, is that IN THIS SITUATION, the best call is 4N, whereas, if we were 3334, we'd all pass.

Your argument ignores that one's view of a hand should change as you learn more.

Consider a silly but accurate analogy:

You hold a 4342 17 count, with a couple of 10's. You open 1N, showing 15-17. You do so, because your hand isn't strong enough to bid 2N or 3N etc. Partner bids 4N: you don't stick with your original view that contracting for 7 tricks is the appropriate course: you bid slam.

Here, over 4♠, you lack the information needed to know whether a 5 level save works or whether you should be defending. So you pass: but when you learn more about partner's hand, you rethink and do what is correct based on current knowledge.