Renew an old discussion

[MickyB]

Whereas my IMP expectation is rarely positive if I am declaring or defending the hand.

[mikeh]

I think I've been convinced that this reopening double should show extras.

 

How high should you get before switching style? Does 1♥ (2♠) require extras to reopen?

 

 

Forgive me for what may appear to be either or both a ramble and a descrition of the obvious, but I like your question and there is an element of frustrated lecturer in my makeup (as if that weren't already apparent from my earlier postings :) )

 

This is not a matter of switching styles, in the sense that my previous post discussed. It is a question of bridge logic.

 

The truth is that the higher one bids, the more strength one needs if one is to make the contract or, if failure is inevitable, ensure that the minus is less than the minus one would have got by passing.

 

We also have to understand that the opps, by bidding, have consumed some of our bidding space: a concept that all experts and systems developers consider vitally important. This means that the variety of hands that we can describe is reduced by enemy action.

 

These two factors combine to require, in any rational bidding method, that the higher we have to make our first response, the more strength we need. BTW, this is one reason behind negative free bids: a conscious inversion of the free-bid/negative double division. Ignoring negative free bids for the moment (and I think that they ought to be ignored at imps but are 'interesting' at mps), we see that a negative double of 1♠ (after opener bids 1 minor) does not need much strength, because we are forcing partner only as high as 1N or the 2-level. If partner has 12+ hcp and we have a decent 6 or so, then we have roughly half the deck, and with any kind of fit, an 8 trick contract is going to play ok.

 

But if the overcall was 2♠, now we are forcing partner to contract for an extra trick, and we need our side to hold a little more: say another 3 points or so.

 

In addition, if we double 1♠, and partner likes his hand, he has lots of room and therefore lots of ways to communicate that to us. For example, if he likes the ♥ we have shown, he can bid 2, or 3. or 4♥ or even 2♠ followd by ♥.

 

He can differentiate between no game interest, game invitational, game force and slammish ♥ raises.

 

Over 2♠, he can no longer describe as many hands. He must bid 3♥ on minimums and 4♥ on good hands, and 3♠ followed by 4♥ on slammish hands. Notice that he can no longer show a very useful and relatively common holding: an invitational hand. So most players bid 4♥ with a good invite and settle for 3♥ with a poor invite: there is no middle ground. This in turn means that responder definitely should NOT stretch to make a negative double of 2♠, since by doing so you risk going minus when the hand belongs to you.

 

Bear in mind that the fact that the overcall was weak does not strengthen your hand: your hand is what it is (altho obviously the bid may cause you to evaluate positional holdings and length/strength in the opps' suit differently if the overcall were weak or strong), and nor does it mean that opener must have extras. The partner of the overcaller may be the one with the 'missing' strength.

 

I could go on..... and on, and on, but I stop here B)

[MickyB]

I think there should be a definite break between the styles, because responder needs to know what to do with a GF hand with a trump stack. Having a reopening double at any level showing an extra queen seems wrong to me, it should either show an extra king or no extras at all.

 

I also think that there is a limit to how far you can go saying that you need more points because you are at a higher level. If you say that responder needs a near-opening hand to bid over a 3♠ WJO, and opener needs significant extras, you land up missing a lot of games when neither partner can act.

[Double !]

I am going to bring some closure to this discussion. I believe that 100% of the responsibility for not bidding this game goes to ME, the east hand (although I'm still not sure of the value of the club-king (in theory) opposiite club shortness. (had the king been elsewhere in my hand, i would've bid 4H in a heartbeat: I just didn't evaluate the hand well).

For the longest time, I played that the re-opening showed more than a minimum, with agreements that we 1) wouldn't trap for a penalty and would just bid our game, and 2) that we weren't reopening in the pressure/ balancing seat in order to stop on a dime at the 3-level. To look at it from the opposite perspective, failure to take some action such as negX over the pre-empt had a meaning, so in re-opening seat it wasn't enough to just have the right shape to re-open with a DBL: one needed to have enough to give partner some reasonable protection should partner's hand not be so good. The I changed to believing that the re-opening could be made on a relatively minimum hand with some controls and the right shape. (Never was really comfortable with doing it this way) Why the change?

 

It's a long story, but then came a hand at nationals in Toronto a few years ago where this situation came up and one member of the partnership re-opened with a double with the correct shape, but with little if anything more than a minimum opener. The other member of the partnership thought his hand would clearly give the partnership a good chance in 3NT bid if opener had a little something extra...........................WRONG: -150 ps: -150 had a lot of company. Interestingly, -140, letting the opps play 3H, was an above-average score. The urge to re-open and compete when partner had been unable to take action over the pre-empt resulted in a poorer score (oh, well. no double, no trouble. The hand would've been a wash at imps.)

 

There was another hand that occurred somewhat more recently that also impacted on my difficulty knowing whether or not to take a bid or how high after P has acted over a pre-empt (again bringing into question this issue of borrowing or bidding a certain number of partner's presumed values when taking action.

 

It was last round of 2-session regional flight X open pairs in a fairly strong field. Unknown to us, we were (as it turned out) close to if not in the lead flight X starting the round (came in 4th-oh, well). I don't recall the vulnerability: I think it was all white. I held something like xxxx, xxxxx, Kx, Ax. The bidding went pass on my right, pass by me, 3 clubs on my left, 3-diamonds by partner, pass on my right, and it was now my bid. How much of my hand had my partner borrowed for his 3-diamond bid? Yes, I "only" had 7 hcps, but they looked like just the right 7-hcps. To bid 3NT or not to bid 3NT? Do I rate to be able to run 9 tricks once I gain the lead? What do I need from partner in order to be able to have a play for 3NT? That was the question!.

 

Same partner: an extremely good player.

 

I know that these two hands have impacted on if not screwed up my handing of these situations.

 

DHL.