Competitive Situation

[jdeegan]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk76hat4dj95cq973]133|100|Scoring: MP

P-P-1♠-Dbl-2♠-???[/hv]

;) Your bid

[Guest Jlall]

textbook X to me.

[jdeegan]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk76hat3dj93cq972&s=sathj974dk765caj3]133|200|Scoring: MP

P-P-1♠-Dbl-2♠-Dbl-P-???[/hv]

 

:) Pard did make a responsive double, and unless I guess to bid 2NT, disaster follows. I actually bid 3♦ and ended up in a ridiculous contract. How do you think the auction should have gone? Is 2NT the correct bid? If so, why? What exactly does pard's double advertise in this auction?

[Winstonm]

This is one double where it doesn't pay to be too strict on holdings, such as promising 44 minors. Double here is more card-showing, suggesting a hand good enough to compete to the 3 level. With equal length minors, doubler then should bid 2N to have responder pick a minor.

 

When the opponents have bid and raised a suit, suggesting at least an 8-card fit and knowing what suit to lead, it is usually unwise to use 2N at natural and it is better used an good/bad IMO.

 

Winston

[han]

The first double was correct without doubt, the second double is reasonable and your 3D bid is normal. I don't think that you should strive to end up in 2NT in such auctions. In fact, I would play 2NT as a choice between clubs and diamonds. So there is nothing wrong about ending up in 3D. It is not comfortable contract, but it far from ridiculous.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes 2N is the right bid, but no it is not natural. It says you have no strong preference about where to play. Partner will assume youre offering a choice between the minors. In this case if he bids 3C, you can bid 3D showing diamonds and hearts.

[Winstonm]

At MPs you might want to just gut it out at 2S doubled with a semibalanced defensive hand knowing you hold the balance of the power - if they make it's just another zero. :)

 

Winston

[han]

I disagree, at MP's I do not want to gut it out in 2S.

 

EDIT: I just looked again and nobody is vulnerable Winston, you still think passing out 2S is a good idea?

[jdeegan]

The first double was correct without doubt, the second double is reasonable and your 3D bid is normal. I don't think that you should strive to end up in 2NT in such auctions. In fact, I would play 2NT as a choice between clubs and diamonds. So there is nothing wrong about ending up in 3D. It is not  comfortable contract, but it far from ridiculous.

:o "Beauty is in the eye.....". "Perfect" bidding has me competing to the three level in a weak 4-3 fit with the tap in the long hand. This would never have happened w/o the responsive double, so I am led to believe that either that convention is bad or that (most likely) it was misused.

 

Isn't it supposed to show length in the unbid suits? But on this hand the responsive doubler had only one moderate 4 bagger. Indeed, when looking at the north hand, disaster looks to be a favorite after the responsive double. The only POSSIBLE decent landing spot is 3♣ (assuming pard has four), and it may not be there. 3-4 in the minors is a wholly different proposition than 4-4 which would almost guarantee an eight card fit.

 

To me, it is clear that a responsive (card showing?) double with that hand is a terrible bid. It courts disaster unless partner has four clubs or five diamonds or five hearts. Why on earth would you want your side to declare when you are 3-3-3-4 and 30% or your strength is in the opponents' suit?

 

Card showing doubles seem to work OK in the hands of really good players, but here anyone can see that a double, call it card showing or responsive as you like, is a likely ticket to average minus or worse.

 

 

P.S. I was only kidding about bidding 2 NT to play with the south hand. It should be pick a minor as several commentators have pointed out.

[Guest Jlall]

Indeed, when looking at the north hand, disaster looks to be a favorite after the responsive double.  The only POSSIBLE decent landing spot is 3♣ (assuming pard has four), and it may not be there.

 

To me, it is clear that a responsive (card showing?) double with that hand is a terrible bid.  It courts disaster unless partner has four clubs or five diamonds or five hearts.

The second part of the quote condradicts the first. Clearly diamonds an hearts are possible landing spots. What are partners possible shapes that give us an 8+ card fit?

 

1444

1453

1435

1345

1354

1534

1435

2434

2425

2344

2452

2335

2353

2533

 

What are partners possible shapes where don't have an 8+ card fit?

 

2443

 

Bridge is a game of percentages. With 14 good shapes and 1 bad shape, I don't think it's reasonable to cater to the 1 bad shape. And it definitely is not reasonable to say that "disaster is a favorite" when making this X, finding a fit is a huge favorite.

[han]

Justin, you forgot 1543, which makes it 15-1.

 

This would never have happened w/o the responsive double, so I am led to believe that either that convention is bad or that (most likely) it was misused.

 

Ah, you are in a bad spot, you wouldn't have been in this bad spot without the responsive double so therefore the double was bad?!? Spoken like a true politician, not a bridge player.

[Guest Jlall]

heh good point.

 

admittedly, some of those holdings are less likely than 2443. The real odds of having a fit are probably somewhere between 8:1 and 12:1 depending on your opps (are they law obiding etc) and your style (how many 2533's do you overcall with vs X etc).

 

Some 1336's and 1363's I would X with, depending on suit quality and hand strength. I left out hands with spade voids as the opps probably would be bidding more and partner would probably reopen anyways.

[Chamaco]

To me, it is clear that a responsive (card showing?) double with that hand is a terrible bid.  It courts disaster unless partner has four clubs or five diamonds or five hearts.  Why on earth would you want your side to declare when you are 3-3-3-4 and 30% or your strength is in the opponents' suit?

In the majority of cases, "When opps have a fit, WE have a fit".

 

Here they found their spades fit, so, at MP pairs, nobody vuln, I think it's losing bridge topass, not showing the strength, afraid of the antipercentage risk of misfit.

 

As it happens, here we do not have a fit, oh well.

 

Just payoff the usual tribute to the spade suit. :D

[jdeegan]

*Hannie,Jan 23 2006, 06:55 PM* Justin, you forgot 1543, which makes it 15-1

:D

The responsive doubler with 3-3-3-4 shape and the king of spades knows that unless pard has a big hand (in such case he will reopen in the pass out seat) the only possible 8+ card fit is in clubs or just maybe a diamond 5-3 or a heart 5-3 where pard's hearts are too weak to overcall.

 

So, what are the odds that partner holds four or five clubs or five diamonds or five bad hearts? Pretty good, but not 15-1.

 

0-4-5-4

0-4-4-5

1-4-4-4

1-4-5-3

1-4-3-5

2-4-3-4

2-4-5-2

 

2-4-5-2

 

Leaving out a few less probable shapes it looks like around 3 of 4 on a frequency-adjusted basis.

 

Three additional points,

 

* the spade king is liable to reduce total tricks so that we go down when 2 spades won't make either even though we have an eight card fit

 

* prospects that 2 spades doubled is best for us is not good

 

* pard may reopen if I pass

 

Should the reponsive double option be viewed with extra caution by a four triple three hand?

[inquiry]

Should the reponsive double option be viewed with extra caution by a four triple three hand?

I think responsive double is ok on this hand but I genenerally have no strong felling aobut this thread...but I had to comment on this. With 4333 hands, always view bidding on the side of caution. This doesn't mean don;t bid, yes contrary to populare opinion I will open with 4333 and 18 hcp... but I don't treat it like 18 :-)

 

Ben

[Winstonm]

I disagree, at MP's I do not want to gut it out in 2S.

 

EDIT: I just looked again and nobody is vulnerable Winston, you still think passing out 2S is a good idea?

To paraphrase Billy Budd: What has vulnerability do do with going set?

 

And the answer is yes: I've seen your overcalls, Han. :(

 

Winston

[HeartA]

The first dbl is a little light, imo. The second dbl is OK.

[luis]

This is an interesting situation that I have discussed with my pd

After 1♠ - X - 2♠

The most frequent problem you can have is to determine how to distinguish a hand that wants to compete to 3♥ from a hand that wants to invite 4♥. For example:

 

xxx

QT643

Kxx

xx

 

You want to compete to 3♥, you have probably a 9 card fit so passing 2♠ is probably wrong.

 

But with

 

xxx

ATxx

Axxx

xx

 

You also want to compete to 3♥ but this time you want pd to bid 4♥ with a good double.

 

Maybe the examples are not best but you should understand the problem

 

So I agreed to use 2NT to show a good 3♥ bid and 3♥ to show just a competitive bid in hearts. Then X is used to show minors. A natural 2NT was almost completely useless in our long time partnership.

 

So this hand is a problem I can bid 3♣ (not happy) or double missing a diamond card or pass and risk missing something. Not sure what I would do at the table, probably bid 3♣.

 

Luis

[han]

Quoting Winston:

 

To paraphrase Billy Budd: What has vulnerability do do with going set?

 

Vulnerable down is 100 per trick, Non-vulnerable down is 50 per trick (when undoubled). If they can make 8 tricks in spades and we can make 8 tricks in clubs then it pays to play in 3C when nobody is vulnerable, even if they double 3C; -100 vs -110 may make a big difference at matchpoints. If we can make 3C but they go down 1 or 2 in 2S then bidding is once again more attractive when nobody is vulnerable. That is my serious answer to a bad question, of course it is more attractive to compete over 2S when nobody is vulnerable! I think that the beginners and intermediates who read this thread are not served by such a simplistic quote...

 

And the answer is yes: I've seen your overcalls, Han. tongue.gif

 

Feel free to insult my bridge level at any time (I probably deserve it), but my overcalls have little to do with the auction (1S)-Dbl-(2S).

[luke warm]

with the hand shown, i can't imagine leaving them in 2♠ undoubled at MPs... a comment on vulnerability.. at MPs, 200 is considered the magic number for part score zero/100... so it matters a lot, imo

 

i like luis' treatment, but maybe reverse the 2nt and 3 level meanings?