[paulg]

---

It is Love All at imps.

You are surrounded by young international players and I was surprised at their reaction to my call. So I thought I'd check what others think.

[cherdano]

Pass.

[the_clown]

Pass is totally obvious for me with a balanced hand.

[PhilKing]

Average age of passers >>>> average age of bidders.

[mikestar13]

PhilKing, on 2013-January-08, 17:18, said:

Average age of passers >>>> average age of bidders.

Only because a fair number of older players would treat the double of 5♣ as pure penalty, NOT because bidding is a good idea with this balanced mess. It must be better to try for three tricks than eleven, especially at IMPs, where it's no disaster to be say +300 vs. +450, unlike matchpoints, where gambling 5♥ is more likely to work out, though still wrong IMHO.

[mikeh]

Pass. If we missed slam, hope/expect a push.

Bidding to make anything is chasing moonbeams. Moonbeams are great when one catches one, but the usual result is that you end up stumbling around in the dark and stubbing your toe on a big rock.

My approach is to assume partner has the equivalent of a strong notrump, possibly short in their suit. Do I want to be at the 5-level opposite a 4441 15 count with bad breaks looming? No.

AJxx AQxx AJxx x is better than I'd assume and we want to defend with this hand, rather than bid an against the odds 5♥. And if we bought much better than that, say AQxx AQJx AQxx x, shouldn't he at least think about bidding a little-play slam?

[aguahombre]

mikestar13, on 2013-January-08, 18:20, said:

Only because a fair number of older players would treat the double of 5♣ as pure penalty, NOT because bidding is a good idea with this balanced mess.

A number of older players and new players, regardless of age, might be under the mistaken impression that this double is pure penalty. It is card-showing, if you will. Advancing the double would only be appropriate with one or two long suits and positive expectation of a better score for older players who have learned something along the way, and younger players who know what they are doing.

[Phil]

Wish I could count the number of times I have filled out a cc and my partner says "Doubles of preempts are takeout through 4♥ (or 4♠). Penalty higher".

I don't try to engage them and see what a five level 'penalty' double looks like. At least I hope its different from what I consider a penalty x.

[JLOGIC]

Someone would bid with this?

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-08, 21:40, said:

Someone would bid with this?

Oh, yes...and they would get very lucky. It would bring their score up to 39 percent, and knock us out of contention.

[paulg]

I thought this was a completely obvious pass and said it was an easy decision to the table. My surprise was that the others didn't think it was an easy decision, but I was easily the oldest at the table

(The actual hand is less interesting since many would not open five clubs and not many would double with a 4531 11-count, but at least partner found the lead (from ♦xxx) to break five clubs with five hearts heading two down)

[gwnn]

5H bidders (3!!), come forward and explain yourselves.

[PhilKing]

gwnn, on 2013-January-09, 02:44, said:

5H bidders (3!!), come forward and explain yourselves.

They can't - they have learnt how to read, but have yet to master writing.

[Fluffy]

I didn't vote, but I can explain you why I would bid 5♥: If my club opponents open 5♣ I am very certain it is not right to let them play it. Add to that that they are likelly to bid again.

[Lord Molyb]

I would bid 5♥.
There, I said it.

[ArtK78]

I would pass, and I think it is clear, but I would be worried that it wouldn't be the winning action.

[Lord Molyb]

Partner's pegged for a 4-5 loser hand with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 distribution, or something EXTREMELY similar.
Partner could have, for example:
♠AQJx ♥AQxx ♦AJ10x ♣x
♠AKxx ♥AQJx ♦AQJx ♣x
♠KQJxx ♥AQJx ♦Axx ♣x
♠AKQxx ♥AJxx ♦Qxxx ♣ -

Or a variety of other similar hands, where being in 5♥ is vastly preferable to defending clubs, even though 5♣ is going down.
Partner is not likely to have, for example:
♠Axxx ♥AQxx ♦Axxx ♣x
as that is too weak to be making a 5-level takeout.
(S)he will also not have
♠Axxx ♥QJxx ♦AQx ♣Kx
because that is too flat to be making a takeout double at this level.

I will admit that it's highly unlikely 5♣ will make.

I suppose it is possible that partner has the goldilocks
♠AQJxx ♥AJxx ♦QJxx ♣-
which is practically the only hand that will make a takeout double that neither 5♣ or 5♥ makes,
but it's not something I'm counting on.

And even though there's probably 15 holes in my logic, I don't think I'm foolish for bidding 5♥.

Now, if they were vulnerable... I might be a little less convinced.

[aguahombre]

I think people define takeout vs pure penalty in absolute terms when they are deciding to remove this level of double with semi-balanced hands.

As the level of the preempt gets higher, doubles become "convertable values" doubles, still technically called "takeout". AXXX QJX AQXX KX, and all the hands with similar power/distribution are doubles of 5C and are called "takeout", because of the mindset that doubles are either one or the other at all levels.

[bigbenvic]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-09, 09:35, said:

I would pass, and I think it is clear, but I would be worried that it wouldn't be the winning action.

The OP said that X was T/O, now I don't play that at this level, however I don't have a penalty pass (it's close) but I do have a 5 card major.

Now if the OP had said it was a negative double I'd pass.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, the name "negative double" is already taken. You don't get to make up a new definition for it.