Re: Ruling question (Re: Describe the second double)

On Jul 31, 10:43 am, Jeff Ford <jefff...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:40 pm, Jeff Ford <jefff...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MPs, V vs. NV, 4th seat

S KJxx
H 10
D Axxx
C KJ9x

(1D) P (1H) X;
(2H) P (P) X;
...

Normal?  Pushy?  Insane?

It's a club game, your opponents are reasonable, and your partner is
average.

Thanks for the comments.  At the table there was actually a pause over
2H.  Now obviously passing instead of doubling is something many
people are doing.  How much does style matter in determining peer
groups for assessing whether to adjust the score?  I know that the
double was automatic for the player without the hesitation for the
reasons given by the "normal" responders.  Do the "insane" responders
count as peers?  (Just to be clear, this wasn't me at the table.)

Jeff

I responded 'routine', but that does not mean it lacks a LA. I
predicted an average partner would tend to underbid in this situation
and he is marked with 4+ HCP unless the competent opps have trapped me
(quite a risky position for them to take). So a pause's worth of
value is surely not unexpected. Regarless, IMO it is clear that pass
is a LA. Although dbl may be routine in a theoretical sense,
partner's psychology could easily make it pushy or insane. Think of
it in terms of pro and client: if your average partner client is a bit
nervous (especially if doubled) and gets upset with zeroes [not
atypical, surely], wouldn't you seriously consider accepting average
minus here, preventing a client meltdown, and playing to win where you
have more control? In other words, as a *pro*, would you focus on the
battle or the war? I think it is obvious that no matter how strong
you are, you have peers who would seriously contemplate passing *even
though they know it is losing bridge at their own level or even with a
reasonable partner*.

-- Bill Shutts
.

Relevant Pages