I want to discuss what do you do when it goes 4♠ -- Pass – Pass to you? Would you do something holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx? Would you something holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx? Now make it ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx? Does vulnerability make a difference? Would you pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx?
I’m in agreement with the following.
Doug Doub:---I think that the first hand should pass, and the third hand should double. Spade void and QJxxxx of hearts should bid 5♥ if partner doubles. With the 3=2=4=4 21 count, I think that partner will pass the double or make what he bids often enough to make double percentage. I don't think that the vulnerability matters much in the decisions. Jill Meyers---I would pass 4♠ holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. I would double 4♠ holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx? I think the most likely action by partner will be pass and I know I am beating 4♠ or so I think unless leftie has ♠KJ10xxxxx♥AKxx♦x♣- but partner could have a heart trick and I feel I have to protect equity with this hand. I would double 4♠ holding
♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. More offense. Vulnerability does not make a difference?
I would probably not pull 4♠ doubled holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx?
Mike Lawrence:---I must pass with hand number one and two since my methods include the standard Double is takeout and 4NT is two suited takeout. 4NT is possible but too rich for me. Also, whichever suit partner bids will be played with the lead coming thru my AQx of spades. The cost of bidding rates to be too expensive. ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx is an acceptable double of 4♠. If I held ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx facing a takeout double, I would pull to 5♥. Partner will expect more but I doubt it matters since their side will keep bidding spades. Frankly, this is an impossible hand.
Jeff Rubens:---I would pass 4♠ holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. I’d need to have nearly slam in hand not to pass with a doubleton heart. I would double 4♠ holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Imperfect but what can one do? Perhaps vulnerability matters on whether to overcall or pass but it seems not between double and pass. I certainly would pull 4♠ doubled holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx to 5♥ though I would call it "taking out," not "pulling.
The following play double of 4♠ as primarily for penalties.
Fred Stewart:---I would double 4♠ for penalties holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx.
I would double 4♠ holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx? But this time they are going down.
I would bid 4NT holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Take out and must have hearts for this.
Vulnerability does make a difference but on these hands I would make the same bids, although I would be nervous with the 4NT take-out if vulnerable. I would not in a million years pull 4♠ doubled holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx?
Kit Woolsey:---I play doubles of 4♠ and higher as primary penalties. Partner will normally pass unless he has some exciting distribution. The double might or might not be on a trump stack.
So it’s an easy double holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx and ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx.
I would bid 4NT holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Vulnerability is irrelevant to these decisions. If I held ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx and partner doubled, I would bid 5♥.
Billy Pollack:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx, I would double and pray. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would double and pray less, better chance for survival. I would bid 4NT holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Vulnerability does not make a difference I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx. Not even close. Yes, that turns a plus into a minus on the first two examples but that is what preempts can do.
Eric Greco:---I play double of 4♠ as takeout(ish). 1. On the first hand I am just fixed. I don’t have enough strength to compensate for my lack of shape. 2. On the second hand I would double and hope for the best. I just have way too much to pass it out of course when partner bids 5♥ I won’t be too happy but such is life. 3. ON the third hand I would double. Of course it would not be crazy to be forced to bid 4NT on this type of hand. I actually think that is very reasonable,(maybe correct), where double promises at least one spade. 4. Pulling the double is a complicated question. Do you pull with hands where you hope to make or hands which would be more likely to save? There is no clear answer but I would pull with most offensive hands regardless of points. I would certainly pull with the example hand as it has way to much offensive value to pass, even though I will likely go down in game or slam. One thing to possible play is that a direct 5♥ is a better hand and you start with 4NT and pull to 5♥ with the weaker hands such as this. The key to pulling is to have some offensive potential/shape.
Vulnerability does make a difference in that the more favorable the vulnerability to us the fewer points I might have to double as I could be looking for a cheap save. Lastly, if we are playing against players who aggressively open 4♠ than the double becomes more towards cards rather than takeout.
If they’re vulnerable and you’re not, it makes sense to play the double as strictly for takeout. Mainly because the opponent’s 4♠ openers figure to be sound and you could easily take nine or ten tricks in your best fit.
After partners takeout(ish) double, 4NT should be choice of suits. The best holding for 4NT is either minors or red suits. With both red suits, you correct partner’s 5♣-bid to 5♦. However, what if you have clubs and hearts? I’d bid 4NT and pass 5♣ but correct 5♦ to 5♥. I’m not sure that 4NT followed by 5♥ should be stronger or weaker than a direct 5♥.
Mark Lair:---Over ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx, depending on the state of the match, I would pass or double but Leaning towards a pass. Over ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would double and hope partner uses 4NT with two suits. Over ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx I would bid 4NT. I used to double with scattered results, but most often I regretted not bidding 4NT. Vulnerability make a somewhat makes a difference I would you pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx.
Mel Colchamiro:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx, I would pass and hope to go plus. To me, double here is basically still takeout. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx , I would double, unless 4NT here is to play, which I suspect not many of us play. This hand is just too strong to pass and 4NT which is a two-suiter too weird for me. I would double ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx with no regrets. Vulnerability does make a difference. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding
♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx.
Larry Cohen:---Double for me is NOT penalty-oriented. Partner is expected to sit with a flattish hand and pull with shape. If I happen to have good spades (unlikely), I'm stuck. So, I have to pass with the first two hands unless I want to take a flyer with 4NT on the second one. If I double, partner is almost sure to take it out -- maybe to hearts. And yes, on the third hand, I would double since 4NT is for a 2-suiter -- and partner should take it out with six hearts and zero spades. He has two ways to bid 5♥ -- one to show a good 5♥ bid -- like via 4NT first). Vulnerability does not effect the methods/theory -- just might effect the decision as I need a little more when vulnerable.
Barry Rigal:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx, I would pass. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would double and cross my fingers. I would double ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx and feel happy. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 4NT holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx and then remove a minor to 5♥ which is weaker than a direct 5♥ by partnership agreement.
Ron Smith:---I would pass with hand number one and double with the third. I bid 5♥ with the last hand.
Larry Mori:---I play 4♠ double as three-suit takeout and 4NT as two-suit takeout. As people make weaker 4♠ openers, there is more reason to think about going backwards in time. As it is now, I only double with the third hand. With a strong notrump holding, I stay fixed now. One cannot get all the bids he or she wants to get it.
Henry Bethe:---I play 4♠ - Pass – Pass – double is primarily takeout. Therefore I would pass with the first two hands, double with the third. I agree that it feels funny to pass with a balanced 21.
Would I pull 4♠ doubled with a 0=6=4=3 near yarborough? Yes at equal or favorable, probably also at unfavorable IMPs but not at unfavorable matchpoints.
Bobby Wolff:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. Pass, since too much of my stuff is in spades and although I would say against all but very conservative 4♠-bidders we are 75% to defeat them there is too much danger of partner venturing 5♥.
Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx, I would now venture 4NT, expecting five-of-the-right minor to make to the tune of 65%. However, some players play that 4NT is a three-suit takeout more subject to example #3, with double being balanced and MUCH more easily passed. With that type of understanding I would change #1 to double, although there is no assurance that 4♠ is not making. Holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, double seems to be the order of the day here, although on all three example hands disaster is also in the air.
Vulnerability makes some difference, of course, but not as much as knowing the bidder's tendencies toward preempting. Also the difference between IMPs, rubber bridge and matchpoints comes into play with rubber bridge demanding more conservatism in both doubling and sitting for the double rather than venturing out chancing -1100 or some such. However, IMPs against good players should suggest chance taking in not going quietly and matchpoints should show the most aggression since the "frequency of gain" rather than the "amount of gain" definitely comes into play.
5. Yes, I would, completing the "up in the air" nature of what is on the table. From this, prevents me from doubling with ♠KQ10x♥Ax♦Axxx♣ xxx. The learning experience on the above merely, emphasizes the frequency of hands usually associated with what is dealt and therefore the defense chosen, and therefore IMO, caters to what I consider that result. And, even going further, perhaps defending against 4♠ openings, represents a mindset unlike any other situation encountered on a sometimes, but fairly regular basis, suggesting that when behind in a match I would like as many possible 4♠ openings to appear as they represent great opportunities to gain IMPs when behind, but conversely to lose IMPs when ahead.
The above is very interesting to me and I suspect your responses will show "the character of the experienced good player" rather than necessarily the "truth" of what is the percentage action which, at least to me" will only indicate the optimism of that particular player.
Dave Berkowitz:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx, you have to pass, life is tough.
Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I guess I would double, and remove 5♥ to 5NT. Holding
♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, is an automatic to double at any colors. Vulnerability does make a difference. Holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx no other choice but to bid, but you should play 4NT followed by 5♥ is weaker than a direct 5♥.
Kerri Sanborn:---I would not act with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx. I think double is still primarily takeout, especially in passout seat. I would double with
♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, for takeout. Vulnerability does not make a difference. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx since I have defined it as a takeout double.
Marinesa Letisia:---I would not act with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx. I think double is still primarily takeout, especially in passout seat. I would double with
♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, for takeout. Vulnerability does not make a difference. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx since I have defined it as a takeout double.
Frank Stewart:---I'm hopeless in these situations. I would double. I believe that most experts now treat the double as for takeout, but to me the primary message is "I'm going to beat it." So I would double with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx. . I would pass or bid 4NT with ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx depending on the vulnerability, form of scoring and the state of my score. Vulnerability clearly makes a difference. Holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx I would pull, but with a bit less distribution I might pass.
Ralph Katz:---Would bid on all no matter what the vulnerability is. With the 0=4=5=4 hand depending upon my partner, I might bid 4NT. On the last hand, would likely bid 5♥ but if were 0=5=5=3 would bid 4NT and covert 5♣ to 5♦.
Chuck Berger:---I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx but double with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx and ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Vulnerability does not make a difference on these hands. I would not pull 4♠ doubled holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx. I have too many losers. Pull for make or clear sacrifice,
Joel Wooldridge:---Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx is a borderline case. I play double as optional here. Usually it says you have enough values that you think the deal belongs to your side, and partner is only supposed to remove with a lot of shape. With this hand I think pass if your side is non-vulnerable, and double if your side is vulnerable. It’s more likely that partner will only remove when he's thinking of a make. I double holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx
Holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx I bid 4NT and hope to land on my feet. I think pass is a possibility, but it feels against the odds. Double is something I'd never do.
Holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx I would pull the double. Only if the opening bidder is non-vulnerable and our side is vulnerable would I consider passing instead. I think I might pass under those conditions, but I'd certainly pull at all other colors.
George Jacobs:---I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would double with ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, for takeout. Vulnerability does make a difference. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx.
Zia---I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would pass if they’re vulnerable, guess if they’re not. Holding ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx I would double with reservations, but 4NT if same shape but much stronger.
Marty Bergen:---I would double with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx and bid 4NT with with ♠-♥Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. Vulnerability does not matter. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx.
Adam Wildavsky:---I play 4♠ - Pass – Pass – double is takeout, so most of the answers are clear.
I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would pass or double depending on vulnerability, state of the match and table feel. I would double with
♠-Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx. I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx in a heartbeat.
Kathie Wei-Sender— I would double with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx or ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx for penalty.
Danny Gerstman:---I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would bid 4NT. Too much to pass. I realize I'm well on the way to a 4-3 fit when they were going down plenty, nonetheless too much to pass. I would double with ♠-Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, the ideal hand. No the vulnerability doesn't matter. . I would pull 4♠ doubled to 5♥ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx. In summary: when I double I promise transferable values or a fit and as such when I have a long suit and promised one of those two things (as in the last choice) I bid 5♥ with alacrity. By the way with 3-2-4-4 21 count I bid 4nt with, I would have doubled had it included three hearts and if the corresponding hand were the one with the QJxxxx of hearts and out I would still bid 5♥ over that which is almost certainly down when 4♠ was going down.
Fred Hamilton:---I would pass with ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣QJxx. Holding ♠AQx♥xx♦AKJx♣AKxx I would double. I would bid 4NT with ♠-Kxxx♦KQxxx♣AQxx, and pull to 5♥ over a double of 4♠ holding ♠-♥QJxxxx♦xxxx♣xxx.
Steve Bloom:---Just a matter of agreement and frequency. We play a double to show, roughly, strong notrump values, so would double with the first two, and bid 4NT, take-out on the third. Is this theoretically best? Who knows? That probably depends on the preemptive style of your opponents.
Kit Woolsey ran a simulation of 100 deals. His parameters were:
West: ♠-♥QJ5432♦5432♣5432
South: Fewer than 11 HCP, any hand with eight spades. If seven spades, then not 7-2-2-2 and at least three of top five spade honors.
East: Greater than 15 HCP, at least one spade, no seven-card suit. If owned a six-card suit, at least two spades.
Obviously these parameters won't always get perfect bids, but they are good enough for this sort of thing. Also his adjudications might not always be accurate, but any such mistakes tend to cancel out and if there is a clear direction shown from the simulation that will be correct.
The results were:
Passing: +225 IMPs Bidding 5♥: +649
Difference: 424 IMPs, or 4.24 IMPs per board. That is a total blowout. Bidding 5♥ is hugely correct on these parameters.
Bart Bramley:---Doubles of 4♠ are takeout. If I can't stand for partner to take out a double, I pass. I would certainly pass your first example. I would probably pass your second example, although I MIGHT double and hope that partner either passes (unlikely) or removes to 4NT (possible) or has enough hearts to make 5♥ playable. The third example is a clear double. Bidding 4NT over 4♠ shows an ambiguous two-suiter. With three suits I double. Vulnerability doesn't matter. Bidding 5♥ on your last example is automatic.
As advancer the first thing I look at is my spades. I'm assuming that partner is short in spades, so with zero or one I bid, regardless of strength. With two I usually bid. With three I bid only with a good playing hand. With four I usually pass. I'm a true believer in this department.
Vulnerability should make a difference. If you’re vulnerable and they’re not, they might be jerking you around. Therefore, you should double with more balanced hands and pass the double unless you’re sure it’s right to bid. In other words holding ♠QJ♥xxx♦KQxxxx♣xx, and you’re vulnerable, pass partner’s double of 4♠.