In the fourth, partner has made a negative double at his first opportunity and now is doubling again. The auction:
West | North | East | South |
---|---|---|---|
- | - | Pass | 1♦ |
2♠ | Dbl | 3♠ | Pass |
Pass | Dbl | Pass | ? |
Nobody asks the obvious question "is partner's double for penalties?" but from the discussion, it's clear that it is a two-way double. We can take it out if we think that is right, otherwise we should leave it in (i.e. hopefully, we do something intelligent). Passing the double, with ♠84 ♥K86 ♦AQ953 ♣KJT, was the most popular option this time, scoring 100.
This, and the quotation I will present from the fifth problem, boosts my confidence that my "system" of doubles, which I have tried to codify elsewhere in this blog, is in fact close to "expert standard".
The fifth problem is similar to the second in that we are quickly at the five-level. The difference this time around is that we've never even had a chance to make a bid yet. LHO has opened 2♥, partner has doubled and RHO has bid 5♥. We are vulnerable at IMPs with this hand: ♠AT53 ♥– ♦QJT9854 ♣T2. There is only one vote for double this time (from Allan Falk) and the call is awarded only 20 points. But while I'm not sure I agree with his judgment on this particular hand, I do laud his comments:
My "rules" are an attempt to reduce the expert mind to a formula, inasmuch as such a thing is possible. I've concluded that it's probably impossible to create a rule to cover 100% of all situations but I think the rules get us 95% of the way. In the other 5%, a little bridge logic, or perhaps just "table feel" should be enough to guide us to the right call.
No comments:
Post a Comment