[Phil]

The really happened yesterday in the pairs at Irvine:

vul versus not

♠x ♥JTx ♦x ♣AQJ9xxxx

(p) - p - (4♠) - ?

You ask if they play NAMYATS - LHO says yes, but looks unsure. You decide 5♣ is just too expensive at these colors opposite a passed hand.

Partner returns from the grave with a double.

.........................pass;

(p) - double - (p) - ?

[hanp]

Did you just make us pass with AQJ94 of clubs? Is LHO, a passed hand lacking club length, really going to double me? If not, how can 100 per trick (that is, if we aren't making) really be too expensive?

I don't understand the problem after partner's double, what's the alternative to 5C? Should we expect partner to have a spade void plus two keycards and a bit more?

I'll bid 6C if they bid 5S though.

[jdonn]

Partner made a takeout double and I have an 8 card suit. Additionally he is a passed hand so I need have no thoughts of slam.

Trick question?

[hanp]

Would you pass initially Josh?

[jdonn]

I don't know I'm on the fence. I certainly don't automatically object to it as it seems you do.

[pooltuna]

I will guess 5♣ because 5♣x rates to be a smaller negative number than 4♠x= and I don't think we will be allowed to keep any positive number.

[gwnn]

I will bid my 8 card trump suit now.

[Phil]

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

[Phil]

pooltuna, on Sep 9 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

I will guess 5♣ because 5♣x rates to be a smaller negative number than 4♠x= and I don't think we will be allowed to keep any positive number.

Matchpoints is a tough game if we have to collect crumbs for -500 against -590.

Not sure what you mean by "we won't be allowed to keep any positive number". Are you implying we will get an adjustment if 5♣ makes? (You may be right, this hand did tank quite awhile over 4♠ (understandably) as well as ask about NAMYATS).

[jdonn]

Phil, on Sep 9 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

[gnasher]

Phil, on Sep 9 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean by "we won't be allowed to keep any positive number". Are you implying we will get an adjustment if 5♣ makes? (You may be right, this hand did tank quite awhile over 4♠ (understandably) as well as ask about NAMYATS).

It appears that partner has UI that suggests double over pass. But partner knows that, and partner is (because we agreed to play with him) honest. Hence he will have a hand where he judges that pass is not a logical alternative.

I don't normally play for partner to have misjudged before I've seen his hand, so personally I'd assume that we're going to keep whatever score we've got. I realise that if you're playing with a client such an assumption might be unwise.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Sep 9 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

Phil, on Sep 9 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

Indulge me with an example of a hand - he's a passed hand and the vulnerability hasn't changed.

I suppose void, AQxx, Axxxx, xxxx would work - anything less for you?

[Phil]

gnasher, on Sep 9 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

I realise that if you're playing with a client such an assumption might be unwise.

I'll take the 5th here...

[jdonn]

Phil, on Sep 9 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 9 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

Phil, on Sep 9 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

What kind of hand do you expect for the double?

3 suited short in spades?!

Indulge me with an example of a hand - he's a passed hand and the vulnerability hasn't changed.

I suppose void, AQxx, Axxxx, xxxx would work - anything less for you?

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx. Could even be more offshape than that, obviously 1453 is more likely given our hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Is the full nightmare possibly that partner has x, Axxxx, Axxxxx, x and bids 5♦ when you bid 5♣ ? Shouldn't happen, but no details supplied about partner ...

[Hanoi5]

I think 5♣ is clear, now. If we're punished by the director then we need to have a long talk with partner about ethics. Unless we agree with his double.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Sep 9 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx. Could even be more offshape than that, obviously 1453 is more likely given our hand.

FWIW, doubling with x Axxx Axxx xxxx is batshit crazy in my book.

1453 gives us a better chance at beating 4♠ obv.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Sep 9 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

Sure even the queen of hearts less plus another spade, x Axxx Axxx xxxx.

If he's got that, the score really will get adjusted.

One of the consequences of asking questions over 4♠ is that if partner does bid we know he's got it. I've never quite worked out whether that's authorised information or not - it feels like it ought not to be, but it's hard to find a rule that says it's not.

[MFA]

gnasher, on Sep 9 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

It appears that partner has UI that suggests double over pass.  But partner knows that, and partner is (because we agreed to play with him) honest.  Hence he will have a hand where he judges that pass is not a logical alternative.

Is such an inference legal?

[rduran1216]

having seen the hand, the director would've been called and adjusted to +590 whether you bid 5C or not