[Hanoi5]

♠xx
♥A
♦QJ9xxxx
♣KQx

All red, imp pairs, it goes:

Pa-1♣-2♥-3♦
4♥-X-Pa-???

[aguahombre]

Please don't tell me this is a support double.

[SteveMoe]

...and why should we think of anything but Pass?

[mr1303]

This double is penalty in my book. So I clearly pass.

Expecting 500 against nothing.

[rhm]

I would never dream of passing.
I bid 5♣, but I am close to bidding 6♣.

I do not care how you define the DBL.
The bidding makes it glaringly obvious that opener does not have a heart stack.
So what does opener have?
Most likely he has more than a minimum opening with a small doubleton in hearts.
I am not of the school, who thinks opener must double with a poor hand in second position, just because we are in a game forcing situation.
In second position the DBL should show extras.

The more I think of it, the more I like 6♣ or 5NT (pick a minor).

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

I am not passing. I think 5C is a better shot than 6.

[Cyberyeti]

mr1303, on 2012-July-25, 02:46, said:

This double is penalty in my book. So I clearly pass.

Expecting 500 against nothing.

Is double pens ? We haven't agreed a suit, they have, many people play takeout all the way up as I do. If partner has to double on many weak no trumps or similar in a forcing pass situation you risk disaster here.

How do you fancy defending 4♥x opposite QJxx, xx, Kx, AJxxx, this hasn't gone off yet and am I really worth a forcing pass ?

If pass is not forcing, X needs to be takeout, otherwise what does partner do with say KQJx, xx, Ax, AJ10xx (when he could have QJxx, Qxx, Kx, Axxx) if he can't double. Not saying you might not want to pass opposite this, but saying double is not pens.

[RunemPard]

First, I cannot understand why so many want to pass. We are giving the opponents a little too much respect here IMO...

Partner obviously has something, and it is absolutely not ♥ values. My first question is how aggressive our opponents bid when RED. If my partner had doubled here, I would take it as showing good values. This can be a minimum, but the values are good. A of ♣, A and/or K of ♦, and the A and/or K of ♠. It is obvious that partner is sitting on 2 ♥ or even a singleton as well. I see the 4♥ bidder holding either 5 ♥s or 4 ♥s with some values in ♠.

I will bid 4NT expecting to find out about the 3 remaining As and the K of ♦s.
I am expecting 3/4 keys to be replied.

If partner does reply 5♣ showing 1 or 4 keys, then I will bid 5♥ and see what else they got to say. It is possible that partner is holding 16+ HCP as well.

Give partner Axxx, x, AKx, AJxxx, or a similar hand with 18 balanced, and we are looking at a very easy grand.

[ggwhiz]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-25, 08:37, said:

First, I cannot understand why so many want to pass.

Give partner Axxx, x, AKx, AJxxx, or a similar hand with 18 balanced, and we are looking at a very easy grand.

Totally different wave length here.

I'm expecting something like a 4-3-2-4 minimum in pards hand for the double and right here could be our last plus.

They already saw me make a forcing 3♦ bid and with the above example should go straight to big black. Change a ♦ into a ♣ and a 4♠ bid would get pard to choose the right minor.

Even pass shows a good hand but the double denies them in my partnership. More like fear of the 5 level than pure penalty.

[Phil]

I wrote a long post about why a pass is retarded. I need to rethink this.

3♦ should be game forcing, so we are in a forcing pass. Partner's double is a stop sign. While it does not indicate a heart stack, it indicates low ODR, and denies a great diamond fit, and denies five spades.

ggwhiz's 4234 is a likely shape across. KJxx xx Kxx AJxx is a reasonable expectation.

5♦ looks right, and looking for slam looks very wrong.

Everyone should appreciate the difference in this sequence versus an auction like:

1♣ - (1♥) - 2♦ - (4♥);
dbl

[aguahombre]

Context again. I just come from a strange planet where if partner has nothing to say she passes; if she has something to say she says it by bidding something or seriously suggesting that we defend. I realize that is not normal these days, but it seems simpler than trying to learn the nuiances of a forcing pass when our side has not established a fit yet.

[Phil]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-25, 08:37, said:

Give partner Axxx, x, AKx, AJxxx, or a similar hand with 18 balanced, and we are looking at a very easy grand.

forcingpass.pdf

[mikeh]

The first, and critical, question is whether 3♦ forced to game. Phil explicitly says yes, and those who argue that opener is in a fp situation implicitly say likewise.

If 3♦ was gameforce we have created a fp.

Assuming we play 'standard' fp sequences, double is the regressive option for opener. We can argue about whether this approach is optimal but we can't, at the table and without discussion, opt to use a different treatment.

So in a method where 3♦ was gf, partner is telling us to slow down. He will not have anything much in hearts, unless the opps are idiots. He will not have a diamond fit. He will not have a strong 1N opener. I'd guess the most likely shapes would be 4=2=2=5/3=2=3=5/4=2=3=4 or 4=2=1=6...tho I am not claiming these are the only permissible shapes.

Addressing his likely hand pattern is only part of the problem. We are unlikely to get rich against 4♥ if they have the shape their auction suggests. 800 seems to be a fantasy, while 600 our way seems odds-on.

if we decide to bid, how do we maximize the chances of playing the correct minor?

I see no reason why 4N would be ace-asking. I cannot imagine a hand that could ask for Aces now yet couldn't on the previous round.

I can see a clear reason why 4N should be takeout for the minors. We need to be able to distinguish our relative minor suit length, and using NT for this is commonplace. We would reserve 5♣ for 'real' clubs......2=1=6=4...move a diamond x into clubs and we have a 5♣ bid. 4N suggests clubs but stresses diamonds....thus ensuring that we play the correct suit when he is 3=2=3=5.

Now: if 3♦ was less than gf, everything changes, and now the double is best played as extras with no clear direction. Slam suddenly becomes likely and passing for penalties is absurd. Grand isn't impossible, but surely requires near-magic cards, so I would settle for 5N, pick a minor....see above for why this stresses diamonds but caters to clubs. Having said that, I wouldn't fault 6♦ since opposite Kx or Kxx in diamonds, we risk a diamond ruff, while even opposite a stiff honour, we'll have play most of the time. However, if he doubled on AKQx xx x AJ10xxx, we may be somewhat embarrassed (I'm not at all convinced that this is a good example....I think this hand should bid, not double), so I would choose 5N.

So was 3♦ gf in your methods? It would be for me but I suspect that this is not universal.

[cherdano]

Thanks Mike.
Until mikeh's post I thought I was alone against the world, I would definitely bid 4NT.
And yes, for me 3♦ is game forcing. I admit I thought this is standard (even though I see the merit of being able to stop in 4m on this auction).

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2012-July-25, 09:57, said:

Thanks Mike.
Until mikeh's post I thought I was alone against the world, I would definitely bid 4NT.
And yes, for me 4♦ is game forcing. I admit I thought this is standard (even though I see the merit of being able to stop in 4m on this auction).

I think you meant '3♦' is gf

[RunemPard]

If this is a X showing lesser values, then I am still slightly interested in slam. However, I do not fully understand why it even matters which way we do this. It seems to me that doubling for values is just as effective as passing for values. I mean, what are they possibly going to do over a X? XX for SOS? If me and my partner were playing the hand, X would show values and I would bid the hand as so. PASS would show a hand with not as much defense. 5♣/♦ would be a sign off.

But that is just me...

[mikeh]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-25, 10:07, said:

If this is a X showing lesser values, then I am still slightly interested in slam. However, I do not fully understand why it even matters which way we do this. It seems to me that doubling for values is just as effective as passing for values. I mean, what are they possibly going to do over a X? XX for SOS? If me and my partner were playing the hand, X would show values and I would bid the hand as so. PASS would show a hand with not as much defense. 5♣/♦ would be a sign off.

But that is just me...

I suggest you do some reading on forcing pass situations. The issue is NOT what 'they are possibly going to do over a double'. The issue is that it will be rare that our side has fully communicated the strength or weakness of our hands in terms of whether we should defend or bid and, if bid, whether we should consider (or drive to) slam or settle for game.

So: the person whose decision it is (here, opener) will often have a choice of (at least) 4 messages: (1) I don't want to bid any higher....I don't think it's safe....tho you may override me, or (2) I am sure I want to bid, but I have no interest in slam, or (3) I am not sure what to do....bid game or defend, or (4) I have interest in slam and not in defending

Yet he will rarely have 4 calls available due to bidding space constraints. He therefore needs to be able to assign a non-penalty meaning to 'double' and to assign a different meaning to pass.

And, importantly, partner needs to be on the same page as to meaning. Standard fp uses double to show (1). It uses Pass to show either (3) or (4): we pass, and if partner doubles, we sit with (3) and pull with (4). With (2) we just bid game.

We can also drive to slam in some way (which would be a 5th type of hand) by making a non-passable below slam bid or just jumping to slam.

There are different versions of fp sequences.....Meckwell famously invented the pass/double inversion, in which they switch the meanings of these two calls, and this seems to have some slight theoretical benefit, tho it hasn't swept the bridge world (but, then again, neither has udca which is demonstrably superior to standard signalling...most bridge players are conservative).

[Phil]

Welcome back MikeH. Missed you.

By the way, I do not think 4216 is really possible here. I understand 4N, but I think it should be a 3 card difference, not 4.

[pigpenz]

ran some sims
4♥17%
5♣59%
5♦74%
slams 27-33% in minors
sort of looks like bidding is better

it looks like the trap on the hand is our xx♠, that is usually what kills the slams

[Phil]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-25, 10:52, said:

ran some sims
4♥17%
5♣59%
5♦74%
slams 27-33% in minors
sort of looks like bidding is better

constraints??