Takout Double

[ArcLight]

You are vulnerable, IMPS RHO deals and opens 1♦

 

You hold:

 

S: A J T x x

H: A T 8 x

D: x

C: T 9 x

 

What action do you take?

Dbl

1 S

1H

2 D (Michaels)

Pass

Other

 

 

 

I chose Dbl because:

- although I was a little short in HCP, I felt my Major Suit holdings were nice, and my shape was good. The 10s were nice too.

- I did not want to bid 1S, too unilateral, pard may have long hearts and short spades

- I wanted to complete with a stiff in their suit

 

 

Bidding continued:

(1♦) - X - (2♦) => pard bids 3♦

(Dbl) - ?

 

What do you bid:

3H?

4H?

3S?

4S?

4D? (pick a major?)

Redouble (what could that mean?)

Pass

 

 

I chose 4 Spades, since I had a nice spade suit, and pard was shoing a game forcing hand. I didnt want to get passed out in 3S.

 

 

Pard then put me in 6 Spades, down 1. (the club finesse was off, and although I was able to perform a backward finesse in hearts I couldn't drop the JQ of hearts for 2 dime discards in dummy, so I had to resort to the double club finesse and lost a club and a diamond)

 

Dummy held:

S: K Q x x x

H: K x

D: x x

C: A Q x x

 

Any comments on the bidding?

 

 

Pard thought I should have passed the opponents Dbl of his 3♦ bid and let him choose the contract. He said the jump to 4♠ showed a bigger hand.

I can see his point. But it strikes me that slam is probably unlikely when the opponents open the suit, and the original opener is behind dummies AQ tenace.

[Gerben42]

It's much easier to control the auction if you start with 1♠. See also ML's book on Take Out Doubles.

 

Think 4♠ bid is okay, you don't want to play 3♠.

[pbleighton]

I would have bid 1S originally - I am too weak for a direct seat double, and I don't do Michaels on a 5-4 when vulnerable.

 

"Pard thought I should have passed the opponents Dbl of his 3D bid and let him choose the contract. He said the jump to 4♠ showed a bigger hand."

 

This is especially true since you were light for your double to begin with.

 

Peter

[mike777]

You are vulnerable, IMPS RHO deals and opens 1♦

 

You hold:

 

S: A J T x x

H: A T 8 x

D: x

C: T 9 x

 

What action do you take?

Dbl

1 S

1H

2 D (Michaels)

Pass

Other

 

 

 

I chose Dbl because:

- although I was a little short in HCP, I felt my Major Suit holdings were nice, and my shape was good.  The 10s were nice too.

- I did not want to bid 1S, too unilateral, pard may have long hearts and short spades

- I wanted to complete with a stiff in their suit

 

 

Bidding continued:

(1♦) - X - (2♦)    =>  pard bids 3♦

(Dbl) - ?

 

What do you bid:

3H?

4H?

3S?

4S?

4D?  (pick a major?)

Redouble (what could that mean?)

Pass

 

 

I chose 4 Spades, since I had a nice spade suit, and pard was shoing a game forcing hand.  I didnt want to get passed out in 3S.

 

 

Pard then put me in 6 Spades, down 1.  (the club finesse was off, and although I was able to perform a backward finesse in hearts I couldn't drop the JQ of hearts for 2 dime discards in dummy, so I had to resort to the double club finesse and lost a club and a diamond)

 

Dummy held:

S: K Q x x x

H: K x

D: x x

C: A Q x x

 

Any comments on the bidding?

 

 

Pard thought I should have passed the opponents Dbl of his 3♦ bid and let him choose the contract.  He said the jump to 4♠ showed a bigger hand.

I can see his point.  But it strikes me that slam is probably unlikely when the opponents open the suit, and the original opener is behind dummies AQ tenace.

Very tough hand.

 

I will bid one spade since with Pass I may get shut out. Prefer x in this situation, in front of unpassed partner to be better and prefer to show 5 card spade suit. Check out what Lawrence suggests and what Bergen suggests with this hand type and please post.

 

I do think pass is a close option.

 

I do note Bergen's rule of not bidding slam when the opp's open a one bid! This rule is great, I strongly recommend you give it a test run and see if your results improve!

[paulg]

You are vulnerable, IMPS RHO deals and opens 1♦

 

You hold:

 

S: A J T x x

H: A T 8 x

D: x

C: T 9 x

 

What action do you take?

I think most experts would chose 1♠ over double (as Peter & Mike have suggested) as double really promises more high-card points.

 

I don't believe good players would consider Michaels on a 5-4 shape. So many beginners/ints/adv players bid Michaels with 5-4 shape just so they get to play the convention, but they'd be better copying the experts.

 

Bidding continued:

(1♦) - X - (2♦)    =>  pard bids 3♦

(Dbl) - ?

 

What do you bid:

Having doubled I would bid 3♠ here as I have a minimum double and we are in a forcing situation (partner has committed us to 3♥/♠).

I chose 4 Spades, since I had a nice spade suit, and pard was shoing a game forcing hand.  I didnt want to get passed out in 3S.

If partner has shown a game forcing hand then why would 3♠ get passed out? However, there is the question of the meanings for 3♠, pass and 3/4♠ or direct 4♠ bids.

 

I think 3♠ is minimum, pass then 3♠ shows a reasonable hand but still seeking best contract, a direct 4♠ shows a reasonable double and clear spade preference, and pass then 4♠ shows a huge hand.

 

But I haven't discussed this with my partner yet :D .... although we would agree on the weaker meaning of the direct 3♠.

 

I like this hand. It is an excellent problem for all levels of player as it allows everyone to show their 'style' in competitive auctions, one of the more difficult elements of the game.

 

Paul

[mikeh]

For me the first action should clearly be 1♠. I understand the urge to double, but it is incorrect to distort your hand when there is no need to do so. The fear of losing the ♥ suit is misplaced, provided that you play responsive doubles. There is little risk of being shut out if partner holds sufficent strength to make a ♥ game reasonable. Yes, I know that in theory LHO might blast 5♦, but that rarely happens and is not worth distorting your bidding.

 

Having inflicted the double on partner, his cue bid is usually (by good players) treated as game force: usually this cue is treated as establishing a force to game or a bid and raised suit.

 

Note that this works well with responsive doubles, since partner, if only wanting to compete or invite could start with double of 2♦ or could bid his own suit.

 

Once the cue was doubled, this is an area in which it is useful to have some general understanding. Whenever partner makes a strength-showing cue (as opposed to a cue that shows a contorl in the suit) you should have an agreement as to the relative strengths shown by pass or bid. For me, as a general rule, pass shows a better hand than does a non-jump bid. And on this hand, not only am I below minimum for the double, I also have an off-shape hand: a 5th (and very unexpected)♠. So I would bid 3♠. Remember that the double gave partner another chance to bid, which is why most good players rarely double cue bids like this one: the double gives the opponents a free round of bidding.

 

Note that the effect of partner's cue was to allow me to bid 3♠, rather than jump to 4♠.

 

Partner cannot pass 3♠.

 

Indeed, consider whether partner's cue showed BOTH majors, or merely a strong hand: possibly a ♥-♣ two suiter with some slam interest.

 

For me the double and the jump to 4♠ would show a hand that intended to double and then bid ♠: say AKQxxx Ax xx KQx. Here, partner knows, looking at his ♠, that you do not have that hand and may suspect something is off the rails, but clearly has a slam try on his actual hand even knowing that you have less than your bidding promised.

 

As a general rule, less experienced players tend to rush the auction, in part because of a lack of knowledge and in part ( I think) because of a lack of confidence in themselves and in partner. So the double was due to a lack of confidence that ♥ could be found after 1♠ and 4♠ due to a lack of confidence that partner would bid over 3♠. This is understandable, and playing a more disciplined style will lead to some missed contracts until your partners catch on, but equally it will make you a better partner and a tougher opponent.

 

BTW, when you have made a control cue bid and the opp doubles, you need an agreement as to redouble, pass and any other bid. Usually (but not always) the redouble is played as second-round control, esp. if partner has shown 1st round control with is cue-bid.

[ArcLight]

According to Mike Lawrenece I should have overcalled 1♠ and not doubled.

And my jump to 4♠ because I didn't want to miss game doesn't make sense because we are already in a game force. :)

 

I misbid, and got to enjoy declaring 6♠ down 1, while everyone else made 4. :P

Ok, I learned something.

 

Thank you all for responding.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

I don't believe good players would consider Michaels on a 5-4 shape. So many beginners/ints/adv players bid Michaels with 5-4 shape just so they get to play the convention, but they'd be better copying the experts.

<snip>

Hi,

 

at least Marshall Miles advocates Michaels Cue Bids

with 5-4.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Stephen Tu]

Does he? I recall him advocating Michaels with certain 4-5 hand types with chunky spades which would be difficult to show otherwise (e.g. shortness in the unbid minor, unsuited to overcalling then doubling back in if the opponents raise to 2 of opener's minor). With 5-4, you can usually overcall spades and bid 2H later if given the chance. I don't remember him recommending Michaels on any 5-4 hands, do you have a page number?

[Kalvan14]

With all the respect that I have for both ML and MM, I do prefer a t/o double with this hand: with a double fit (5-3 in spades and 4-4 in hearts, I prefer playing hearts). However, it's obvious that if pard bids clubs, that will be the strain.

Over 3♦, 3♠ (in any case GF) is more than enough (also because there is a chance that partner has ♥/♣).

[EricK]

It's much easier to control the auction if you start with 1♠. See also ML's book on Take Out Doubles.

 

Think 4♠ bid is okay, you don't want to play 3♠.

Nobody wants to play in 3♠ but that doesn't make 4♠ the correct bid. Partner won't particularly want to play in 3♠ either, so if he decides to leave himself in 3♠ there is a good chance that 4♠ would be a terrible contract.

[P_Marlowe]

Does he? I recall him advocating Michaels with certain 4-5 hand types with chunky spades which would be difficult to show otherwise (e.g. shortness in the unbid minor, unsuited to overcalling then doubling back in if the opponents raise to 2 of opener's minor). With 5-4, you can usually overcall spades and bid 2H later if given the chance. I don't remember him recommending Michaels on any 5-4 hands, do you have a page number?

Hi,

 

I did not claim, he does advocate Michaels Cue Bids

on any 5-4 hand, I just said, he advocated the use

of a Michales Cue on hands with 5-4 shape.

 

My comment was intended as response to a player,

who claimed, that no good player would consider a

Michaels Cue on a hand with a 5-4 shape.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: If you have a 5-4-3-1 shape, with shortage in

their suit, MIles recommendation would probably be

a take out dbl (... if the strength is ok), because the

dbl would decribe the shape better.

[Stephen Tu]

I am fairly certain that Miles was recommending Michaels on some hands with 4 spades and 5 hearts, but NOT with 5 spades and 4 hearts. There is a significant difference between the two situations, the ability to bid 2 suits without reversing. I will look these up tonight to verify.

 

With shortness in the opponent's suit, and one 5 cd major, the strong tendency of most modern experts, and I believe Miles as well, is to favor overcalling the major, planning to make a takeout double later if the opponents raise their suit to the 2 level & partner doesn't support yours. The problem with the immediate takeout double is that it will simply bury a TON of 5-3 major fits, because you aren't strong enough to bid your 5 cd suit after doubling, and partner will practically never bid his 3 bagger (you could have only 3 cds in that suit after all!). So you end up in your 4-3 minor fit rather than your 5-3 major fit, or in NT, or letting the opponents buy it when overcalling would have trivially found your 5-3 fit. Overcalling also helps partner take the right view in 3 over 3 decisions when your side has a 9 cd fit.

 

People have gone through world championship records & examined boards where one table overcalled the major while the other table doubled. The overcallers came out substantially ahead in net results.

 

As for finding 4-4 fit rather than 5-3 fit ... not that many hands are double fit, even where there is, it doesn't always help you especially at the partscore level (opps usually take their side suit winners before you can make use of any discards on the 5-3 suit), and you may find it the 4-4 fit after overcalling anyway (e.g. cue bid, overcaller bids 2nd suit, responder bids game in 2nd suit).