Tell me more ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Left hand opponent opened 1 heart. Partner doubled for takeout. Right hand opponent passed. I "had to" bid 2 clubs with something like (S) xxx (H) xx (D) Jxxx (C) Jxxx.

We were doubled for penalties, and went down five, (vulnerable) after partner partner laid down:

(s) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx

In defending the takeout double, partner said, "I had 12 points and four spades. That's a standard takeout double."

I said, "I need 14 points for a vulnerable takeout. I don't even consider your hand worth 12 points (even though technically that's the case), because three of those points are in the opponents' suit." What bothered me most about the double was not the minimum point count, but the "stranded" king, and three cards in the opponents' suit.

Change partner's hand to something like: (s) Axxxx (h)--- (d) KQxx (c) Kxxx, and I wouldn't have complained. Because all her "values" would have been OUTSIDE the opponents' suit, for offense, not defense.

Was partner right to make the double? Or was I right to protest it? Is vulnerability the deciding factor? In either case, why?

share|improve this question
Related meta question - meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/476/… – Pat Ludwig♦ Jun 14 '11 at 15:31

4 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Nearly all American experts would not make a takeout double here, and my impression is that most Europeans would not as well. Having 3 cards in their suit is a flaw when deciding to try and declare the hand rather than defend, and points outside their suits do matter: with only 9 points outside of their suit, your offense-to-defense ratio is low.

If opener has 6 hearts, and partner 3 or 4, your K will not take a trick on offense (it will be ruffed). And if partner has 1 heart, the K could be useless as well. But it will always take a trick on defense, so the heart K should be discounted slightly when considering the takeout double. Qxx of hearts would discounted heavily because it would be useless on many hands.

There are several ways to lose by doubling here: partner has 3 hearts, partner gets you into a 4-3 minor fit, partner competes over 2H and gets you too high, partner drives to game expecting more.

Partner is still there. He will reopen after 1H P P if he has one of the hands you want, and I would recommend playing a pre-balancing style where partner can double light after 1H P 2H... then he will protect you from having passed this hand.

In all, too many flaws: only 9 points outside their suit, poor shape, no spots, bad vulnerability. If opponents were vulnerable that's another flaw since you might be able to get 100 or 200 by setting them.

share|improve this answer
@drew: I like your comment about low offense to defense ratio, and your reply generally. – Tom Au Jun 15 '11 at 19:40
At Matchpoints, I think you should consider doubling 1H... – Aryabhata Jun 15 '11 at 21:25
It's a very borderline hand for the takeout double, but I maintain that, if you're in the mood to compete, there's nothing wrong with bidding on a borderline hand. Yes, you've listed a bunch of ways this bid can (and did!) go wrong. If we didn't ever make bids that could go wrong, Bridge would be a much less interesting game. In any circumstance where the opponents can really punish you for the bid, they stand a strong chance of making game anyway. Sometimes, psyching them out with an aggressive bid pays off. Having said all of that, no one ever claimed that this double wasn't iffy ;) – thesunneversets Jun 16 '11 at 21:52
@aryabhata: Fair enough regarding match points. But it's a version I barely understand. – Tom Au Jun 17 '11 at 16:57
@thesun: "If we didn't ever make bids that could go wrong...", that is not an argument: It can be used to justify any silly bid one makes! The point is how much do you stand to gain vs lose by making that bid. For instance, not making a takeout double could also go "wrong". You might miss a 4S contract when partner has the right hand. The statement that almost no expert would make a takeout double with that hand at IMPS is quite accurate, IMO. – Aryabhata Jun 17 '11 at 21:51
show 5 more comments
up vote -1 down vote

I count on "shape" when making (or responding to) take out doubles. I value the hypothetical hand: (s) Axxxx (h)--- (d) KQxx (c) Kxxx, at 15 points (12 HCP, three for the heart void.)

Opposite my hand, (S) xxx (H) xx (D) Jxxx (C) Jxxx, we could have made five tricks, ace of spades, heart ruff, probably spade ruff, diamond honor, and one trump trick (not ruff). That's TWO better than we actually did. The result would have been down three, minus 800, versus their (620 point) game. I can live with that as a "worst case" scenario.

I value the actual hand (s) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx at no more than twelve points. Probably less. If declarer has QJXXX of hearts and dummy the ace, the K of hearts is "caught." I'd rather have it thrown "randomly" in one of the other three suits, where it would supported by another honor. And the relative length of the heart holding meant NO heart ruffs.

And yes, vulnerability is key. Non-vul vs. vul, the penalty would have been only down 1100 for down five vs. 820 for the vul game (120 game plus 700 bonus) in what was admittedly a worst case scenario for my hand. That's only a difference of 280 points. But down five, VUL, 1400 vs. 620 (only 500 bonus) is 780 points, more than double the game.

The other thing was that partner's hand, particularly her ace of spades and king of hearts, was good for defense. She would have won the same three tricks, holding opponents to game. Upgrade my jacks to the king or queen of their respective suits, opposite her holdings, and we hold the opponents to a part score (or set them if they go to game), instead of being down three or four.

share|improve this answer
up vote 2 down vote

Entire books could be written (and have) about how to evaluate your hand beyond a simple count of High Card Points, so a full treatise on this subject is outside the scope of this site.

The bare King is not great, but since your LHO opened the bidding and will have length in that suit, he will wind up having the Ace more often than his partner. Thus, you could anticipate the King likely worth a trick.

The double is fine, and rates to gain a lot if you have four spades, or the heart Ace, or length in a minor and shortness in hearts. Sometimes, you go down. Sometimes, things would have worked out better if you kept your mouth shut. However, if you wait to bid until you are certain that you won't go down a packet, you will miss a ton of profitable situations.

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

I think you both bid fine and don't really have to over-analyse your loss. Your partner had a bare minimum for a take-out double, with only three card support in the unbid suits; but a takeout double is forcing, and your bare minimum response was also appropriate.

It seems unfortunate that you turned out to have absolutely the worst possible hand on both sides; but on the bright side, 5 down doubled is not necessarily the worst given that your opponents had almost certain game...

share|improve this answer
I think I should possibly have edited my answer to add "it depends on the context". By initiating a takeout double with such a borderline hand, your partner is definitely taking an aggressive gamble. If you were playing rubber bridge, were one game up, and had 80 points below the line, then obviously diving in with a risky takeout is a bit crazy. On the other hand, if the opponents were in danger of running away with the contract... sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures! – thesunneversets Jun 13 '11 at 19:45
good question. We had one game apiece, both vulnerable. I didn't appreciate the 1400 point penalty. Fortunately we were playing tiny stakes, one-tenth of a penny per point, or $1.40. Then we switched partners. – Tom Au Jun 13 '11 at 21:12
1  
Downvoted because 5 down doubled would be far worse than a game, and lack of analysis about why takeout double is good or bad. – Drew Hoskins Jun 15 '11 at 19:26
@Drew: 5 down doubled is pretty darn bad, but as I say, giving the opponents certain game, and the 500/700 point rubber bridge game bonus, without even trying to contest it, is also bad. I know a lot of Bridge players who would always rather go down fighting. There's nothing to worry about here: the takeout double was a normal, if borderline bid, and just because complete disaster struck in the actual event doesn't mean that the bidder should be excoriated. Always look on the bright side of Bridge, I say! – thesunneversets Jun 16 '11 at 16:36
@thesunneversets: "Down five" was a bit unlucky (all the finesses "offside"). But even a more normal "down three" was pretty bad; that's -800 when vulnerable. Maybe the double was acceptable at "favorable" vulnerability (-500 for down three non-vul vs. -620 for a vulnerable game), but not otherwise. – Tom Au Feb 24 at 20:47
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.