[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-13, 03:43, said:

I don't think pass is a LA, ...

 gordontd, on 2012-February-13, 04:08, said:

I think passing is a logical alternative, ...

What a pity this was not originally given here as a poll!

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 11:02, said:

Most importantly IMO, if you start with a double on this hand you are 100% committed to showing a strong flexible hand with 5 hearts if you can bid below 4S.

This maybe the way you play it, but I do not think it is the way most people play it. I think most people double if they feel they are too strong to overcall, and hope that the future will not be too difficult.

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 15:11, said:

You do not make t/o doubles with 1525 shape over a 2S opener. That way I never show my fifth heart and cannot bid over 3d as that would show a "strong flexible hand".

Doubling is even worse if bidding later shows a "strong single suiter" in the old style. Where are they expecting to go over a 3d response? Are they really never going to mention hearts over a club response? If partner has xxx Qxx KQxx xxx how are they planning to reach 4H without showing a hand too strong to bid 3H?

You should never dble with this shape unless you are planning to show a strong hand with 5+ hearts. This is a good hand. Showing a flexible hand with 5 hearts seems routine. If you arent prepared to do that at the 4 level, you should bid 3H and show your fifth heart. Obviously if they are terrible anything might be happening, but the OP seemed to indicate they were competent if not stellar.

Perhaps we should have polled, but given that peers are those who doubled first, I find it very hard to believe that they would go to bed without every planning to show that heart suit.

Your argument is basically that its "logical" to make a take out double with x AQJxx xx KQxxx. And I dont know anyone who would dble with that hand.

This forum is for rulings. You certainly do know someone who would double with that hand: the North in this particular case. It is easy to argue it was a mistake, though doing so because it went wrong is jolly easy - I have at least two result merchants as partners. Look at the alternatives: Leaping Michaels not only gets you unnecessary negative scores when you are just too high, but may also get you the odd -800. Bidding 3♥ will get you some +170s. My solution? Quite irrelevant: this is not a bidding forum. All I would say is that double is not that dreadful and it is not relevant how bad a choice it is anyway.

As for doubling and not planning to show the heart suit, of course that is ridiculous: there is little doubt that doublers hope to show the suit at the 3-level. But sometimes life sucks.

[gordontd]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 15:11, said:

Perhaps we should have polled, but given that peers are those who doubled first, I find it very hard to believe that they would go to bed without every planning to show that heart suit.

I expect they were planning to show the heart suit - at the three level. That doesn't mean they're compelled to show it at the four-level.

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2012-February-14, 09:22, said:

I expect they were planning to show the heart suit - at the three level. That doesn't mean they're compelled to show it at the four-level.

Might it not be that they hoped to show the hearts at the three level, but were willing to do so at the four level, if needed?

Rik

[gordontd]

It might. Which brings us full circle back to considering whether pass is a logical alternative.

[phil_20686]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 09:18, said:

You certainly do know someone who would double with that hand: the North in this particular case.

As for doubling and not planning to show the heart suit, of course that is ridiculous: there is little doubt that doublers hope to show the suit at the 3-level. But sometimes life sucks.

I think you missed that the hand I suggested was a 1525 12 count - to presume that the north would double on this shape when he does not have a strong hand is unwarranted, we do not know. The point is, if he would not double with this shape when weak, he must be planning to show a strong hand. If you engage in this you cannot expect to be bullied out just because the opps competed one level in your singleton....

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2012-February-14, 10:26, said:

Might it not be that they hoped to show the hearts at the three level, but were willing to do so at the four level, if needed?

Sure. And maybe not.

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 10:46, said:

I think you missed that the hand I suggested was a 1525 12 count - to presume that the north would double on this shape when he does not have a strong hand is unwarranted, we do not know. The point is, if he would not double with this shape when weak, he must be planning to show a strong hand. If you engage in this you cannot expect to be bullied out just because the opps competed one level in your singleton....

On that logic you would rebid 6♥ if responder bid 5♠. Sorry, the logic is not there. You double with a plan. Either you decide in advance what do over every possible happening - I bet you don't - or you just hope it will be easy and see what happens. But that does not mean that you will always bid hearts whatever happens.

[Cascade]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 10:46, said:

I think you missed that the hand I suggested was a 1525 12 count - to presume that the north would double on this shape when he does not have a strong hand is unwarranted, we do not know. The point is, if he would not double with this shape when weak, he must be planning to show a strong hand. If you engage in this you cannot expect to be bullied out just because the opps competed one level in your singleton....

emphasis mine

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 12:07, said:

On that logic you would rebid 6♥ if responder bid 5♠. Sorry, the logic is not there. You double with a plan. Either you decide in advance what do over every possible happening - I bet you don't - or you just hope it will be easy and see what happens. But that does not mean that you will always bid hearts whatever happens.

If you are talking logic then perhaps you should consider that 5♠ is not "one level".

[bluejak]

Oh, sure, every time he doubles off-shape he will bid one level higher but not two levels higher. If he claims that is his agreement then I want to see it in writing.

A player takes a gambling action that we might all take because he has no simple solution and if he is lucky in the later auction this may solve it. Some of you seem to think he has sufficient values to bid game - as Gordon says, it is unusual to play a takeout double as forcing to game. Why not use Leaping Michaels if the hand is that strong? Because the more the opponents bid, the stronger partner is?

In practice you take whatever gamble you think best and hope. When things go wrong you have to do your best then. This is a common situation which happens especially against aggressive opponents. Next round you have to guess whether to overbid or underbid. Partner gives you UI that makes the overbid reasonable and your defence is "I was always going to bid again at a high level if forced". Yeah, right.

Now you tell me there is a specific level at which you overbid but one level higher you underbid. Nothing to do with partner helping you by providing UI, of course. Certainly I believe you.

Next week we shall have the auction

---

with the same hand, and South having asked questions before his pass..

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 14:13, said:

Why not use Leaping Michaels if the hand is that strong?

Maybe because they don't play that convention?

However, the rest of your post is on point. When you're in receipt of UI, you can't always do what you were always planning on doing. The question isn't whether 4♥ is a reasonable bid with the hand, but whether Pass is also a possibility. Doubling doesn't commit you to showing your ♥ at whatever level the opponents push you to, so Pass is a LA if they push too high. Since there seem to be a decent number of players who consider the 4 level to be "too high", so Pass is an LA in this case. South's hesitation suggests action, so having UI means you can't bid even if you were always planning on it.

[phil_20686]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 14:13, said:

Oh, sure, every time he doubles off-shape because he is too strong to overcall he will bid at least one level higher but not necessarily two levels higher.

FYP

You still haven't answered the main point: do you think a player at this level is likely to double rather than overcall with a 1525 shape, minimum values (12-14) and a decent suit?

If not, you have evidence that the player believed his hand too strong to overcall 3H. It doesn't really make sense that you can be too strong to overcall at the three level and not strong enough for the four level.

[Cthulhu D]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-13, 16:49, said:

At the appeal, the members of the appeals committee were all expert players running in the top 10% of the field and [...] what they failed to appreciate is that weak players quite regularly fail to count up the values evident in the auction and tend to have a fairly blinkered approach to bidding.

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

[aguahombre]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-14, 18:15, said:

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

I believe you are asking a serious question, but don't understand what you are asking.

Is it possible to produce a complete auction up to the point of your question? What was the bid your partner made, rather than double, over 3D?

[Cthulhu D]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-14, 18:38, said:

I believe you are asking a serious question, but don't understand what you are asking.

Is it possible to produce a complete auction up to the point of your question? What was the bid your partner made, rather than double, over 3D?

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

[bluejak]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 16:59, said:

You still haven't answered the main point: do you think a player at this level is likely to double rather than overcall with a 1525 shape, minimum values (12-14) and a decent suit?

If not, you have evidence that the player believed his hand too strong to overcall 3H. It doesn't really make sense that you can be too strong to overcall at the three level and not strong enough for the four level.

Of course it does.

Ok, I shall ask you a question. Given the hand in the OP, you double 2♠, ok? Partner, who has never heard of Lebensohl, bids 3♦. Are you going to bid 3♥ or 4♥?

Be very careful before you answer this question, because if you answer 3♥ you have just destroyed your own argument.

It is a matter of general bridge knowledge that was worked out by experts in the 1930s and the rank and file in the 1940s or 1950s that if you are too strong for the simplest bidding sequence there are often alternatives to just bidding at one level higher.

[bluejak]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-14, 18:15, said:

Serious question - I do not understand the logical altenative rules and no-one has ever explained them to me: Does that mean if I'm a beginner and my partner tanks then makes a bid, do I have to do something stupid because that's something my peers (beginners) may seriously consider? Like, say, pass V vs NV after a very slow 1C - (3D) - ?? with a nice 12 count and 4 hearts whn playing negative doubles?

If your partner gives you some information about his hand by a method that you are not meant to use, for example by hesitating, then if you have choices you are required not to make the choice his action suggests. Hesitating suggests he has something to think about, and in some situations if he hesitates then passes you can be quite sure he has some strength - but you do not know it legally.

It is not a question of something stupid; it is your choice amongst reasonable possibilities that is restricted.

Look at the case in this thread. RHO bids 2♠, you double, LHO bids 3♠, and partner takes some time to consider and asks questions. You could safely guess he must have a few points: if he had none he would just pass very quickly looking bored, no?

Now people do not agree about what you should bid with your hand, but let us say for sake of argument that you consider 4♥ [which if partner has nothing might go for 500 or more] and pass [which might miss a game if partner has something] as reasonable choices. If you consider both then you should pass because you only know partner has a few points illegally.

Some people think you have no alternatives, that 4♥ is completely routine and they would always bid it. If you believe that to be the case then it is alright to bid 4♥: if you have no choices you have no problem.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

[aguahombre]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-14, 18:54, said:

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

The question to ask is whether his hesitation before opening 1C suggested some particular L.A. by you at this point.

[mrdct]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-14, 18:54, said:

I'm sitting in the third seat. My partner opened with 1C after a protracted pause. Then 3D from RHO, then to me. Is Pass a Logical altenative here? I've forgotten my exact hand, but I could see that game is looking pretty good opposite a weak NT.

The protracted pause is unauthorised information to you, suggesting that partner was considering actions other than 1♣ but generally you won't really have any idea whether the alternatives were to show a weaker or stronger hand or perhaps open a 5-card Major ahead of a 6-card ♣ suit. The (paraphased) rule in this situation is that you are not allowed to select from a range of logical alternatives a bid which is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

Hard to say for sure without seeing the hand and knowing a bit more about your bidding system, but it would seem that the UI doesn't really indicate that you should or shouldn't pass so you should just take your normal action on the merits of the hand and auction you are looking at.

[Cthulhu D]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 19:19, said:

Now people do not agree about what you should bid with your hand, but let us say for sake of argument that you consider 4♥ [which if partner has nothing might go for 500 or more] and pass [which might miss a game if partner has something] as reasonable choices. If you consider both then you should pass because you only know partner has a few points illegally.

Some people think you have no alternatives, that 4♥ is completely routine and they would always bid it. If you believe that to be the case then it is alright to bid 4♥: if you have no choices you have no problem.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Sort of - the problem is I don't understand what a 'logical altenative' is - in the example it's clear cut, but there are some much more murky examples (If partner hestiates over a 2H Weak Jump Overcall, can I re-open with a double with a 19 count void in hearts? Some of my peers passed).

It seems to be defined as 'would other players consider it' (different from actually doing it), hence the polls of players in the peer group etc in these threads. This seems very strange if my peer group is beginners like myself who routinely make errors in bidding or play. If your peer group was Meckstroth or whatever that makes much more sense.

[phil_20686]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-14, 19:08, said:

Of course it does.

Ok, I shall ask you a question. Given the hand in the OP, you double 2♠, ok? Partner, who has never heard of Lebensohl, bids 3♦. Are you going to bid 3♥ or 4♥?

Be very careful before you answer this question, because if you answer 3♥ you have just destroyed your own argument.

I genuinely have no idea why you think that, I bid 3H showing 17+ with 5 hearts in a strong flexible hand. If I have more room I will use it.

However, its sensible to plan your bids in a competitive auction. Competent players do not double with this shape if they are not prepared to bid at the 4 level, as partner will struggle to compete over a likely 3 spades when he has three hearts and only 4 card minors. I must give my side a chance to find a 5-3 heart fit.

PS I am not sure that I would double - it seems like a routine 3H call to me and that gives me better tactical options after 3s as I can bid 4C and feel like I bid my hand, but its close enough to a strong hand to envisage someone else might start with a dble.

[bluejak]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 20:33, said:

I genuinely have no idea why you think that, I bid 3H showing 17+ with 5 hearts in a strong flexible hand. If I have more room I will use it.

Exactly my point: doubling on such a hand does not automatically mean that you intend to bid at the 4-level, despite some people saying so.

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 20:33, said:

However, its sensible to plan your bids in a competitive auction. Competent players do not double with this shape if they are not prepared to bid at the 4 level, as partner will struggle to compete over a likely 3 spades when he has three hearts and only 4 card minors. I must give my side a chance to find a 5-3 heart fit.

What does double mean from partner?

But I think you are over-simplifying the problem, and referring to competent players is unfair: competent players do their best when there are insoluble problems, not ignore the risks.

What you seem to be saying is that with a hand a bit too strong for an overcall you will only double if you are willing to bid 4♥ if pushed there. Ok, but then you will probably have to bid 3♥ and miss more games than a more flexible player who is willing to double and hope to get a chance to describe his hand further.

Competent players see the problem, which is that there are hands that you would not want to bid 3♥ but are not strong enough to double and bid 4♥ if pushed. Rather than decide on the basis of some logic which suggests missing a game is the end of the world, when they can see various risks competent players make a risk assessment, take the best action [which often means the most flexible action] and then re-consider next round.

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 20:33, said:

PS I am not sure that I would double - it seems like a routine 3H call to me and that gives me better tactical options after 3s as I can bid 4C and feel like I bid my hand, but its close enough to a strong hand to envisage someone else might start with a dble.

Absolutely: but it is failure to understand that competent players see three approaches not two that is the problem. On any given day, given what the hands are and who the opponents are, any of the three approaches might work best.