Is there a standard? If yes, how many?

[Gerben42]

Another possible misunderstanding auction:

 

(1♠) 2♠* (3♠) ?

 

* Michael's Cuebid: ♥ + ♣/♦ (we play this either weak or strong)

 

Dbl = ?

3NT = ?

4♣ = ?

[Guest Jlall]

X=penalty

3N=to play

4C=p/c.

 

Not sure if any of this is standard, just how I'm used to playing it.

[Kalvan14]

The first question to ask is the meaning of 3♠: I'd assume that it is a competitive raise.

 

4♣ is easy: pass or correct (4♦ is a forcing raise in clubs; the forcing raise in diamonds is obviously 4♣).

 

Double denies a fit in hearts, and proposes a penalty (not necessarily with a trump stack). I say "propose": if pard has chosen a very distributional 2♠, he should pull to his minor (where the double guarantees at least 3 cards). IMO, Marshall Miles would agree with this definition.

 

3NT is a forcing raise in hearts (as opposed to 4♥, which is not forward going): pard bids his minor with a good hand, and 4♥ with a minimum.

 

4♠ is a forcing raise in both minors (with spade control) and 4 (?) covers

 

4NT ditto, but no spade control

 

5♣ is pass or correct - not forward going (IMO, should mostly be pre-emptive)

 

I don't think there is a standard (except - maybe - for the double). This is what I play, but I'd guess that a lot of partnerships never discussed this auction.

[Finch]

I would have thought in this type of position 'standard' should mean the most natural interpretation for the bid. So

 

Dbl = penalties

3NT = to play in 3NT

4C = pass or correct

 

I wouldn't impose 3NT = forcing raise in hearts on partner without discussion. A natural 3NT bid is useful in this auction (possibly more useful when you play 2S as a specific 2-suiter, I agree).

[luis]

I would have thought in this type of position 'standard' should mean the most natural interpretation for the bid. So

 

Dbl = penalties

3NT = to play in 3NT

4C = pass or correct

 

I wouldn't impose 3NT = forcing raise in hearts on partner without discussion. A natural 3NT bid is useful in this auction (possibly more useful when you play 2S as a specific 2-suiter, I agree).

4♥ = to play

3NT = to play

4♣ = pass/correct

4♦ = pass/bid 5♣

X = asking for the minor

 

I think that a penalty double after 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♠ is useless, they are not goint to bid 3♠ to go for a number and if pd has a lot of shape and very few defensive values you are in a good position to do something really terrible.

There has to be a way to ask pd to bid his minor and then proceed in a smart way and I think a non-penalty double does the job.

 

Luis

[Finch]

We can argue about the best use of the double in this sequence if you like, but I don't think you are suggesting that x = bid your minor is a 'standard' meaning, are you?

 

The only auction in which you need double to mean "bid your minor" is when you have a slam try without a spade control. Any other time you can bid a minor poc or bid 4NT to ask for partner's minor, or bid 4S unspecific. So I don't think this use is particularly wonderful.

 

(p.s. yes, they do go for penalties in this auction, admittedly slightly more often at the 4-level than the 3-level. The auction isn't exactly the same, but last night I was reading a 1994 BW when 2 World Class teams were playing each other, and one went for 1100 against a partial after a light pre-emptive raise hit a 5-0 break. I'm not totally convinced double for penalties is best, as I do see the merits in double for 'take-out', but it certainly isn't useless.)

[cherdano]

I am sure double must be penalty in standard here. I am not sure how useful it is when the doubler doesn't know partner's minor. If he has, say, 5=1=2=5, this might be a be a massacre if partner has the red suits, but it might make when partner has hearts + clubs. After (1♠)-2N-(3♠), I can see a lot more penalty doubles.

 

Arend

[Gerben42]

At the table I doubled, thinking of our "default agreement" that when in doubt, double is for take out. I thought it would apply here. Needless to say, partner did not. We now agreed to play this double for take out.

 

At the table 3♠X was made with an overtrick. Without the double LHO would have bid 4♠ and then I would have to make an uninformed decision to bid 5m or not.

 

I also thought like Luis that there should be a way to ask for the minor in a way other than pass or correct and that this should be it, and bid double to achieve this.

[Finch]

There are two 'default' agreements many pairs have:

- double is always penalties after partner has pre-empted

- when in doubt double is penalties

 

Partner was on the second, you were on the first

 

My question on this, is why is it superior to have double mean 'bid your minor' rather than simply bidding a minor pass or correct? I'm dubious, because I cannot see where the advantage is. Usually, the advantage of double as take-out is that partner can pass with a hand suitable for penalties, but I don't think that is going to apply on this auction.

 

Take this hand as an example: you double showing interest in the minors, and next hand bids 4S. Partner can (I assume) choose to bid on if he wants. Alternatively, you bid 4C showing interest in the minors, the next hand bids 4S, and partner can choose to bid on if he wants. Slightly better, you can 4D showing you are prepared to play there but you are very keen on clubs and partner can choose whether to bid on with diamonds but will always do so with clubs. How are you worse off than playing double for the minors? If you play double as the minors, what do 4C and 4D mean?

 

One sequence where I do see a gain is 1H (2H) 3H. Now you could, for example, play double as 3-card spade support with a diamond fit and 3S as a club fit (with 4S you will often bid 4S or just show your better minor). Here I can see an advantage for a conventional double. Maybe I'm being thick, but I can't see the gain in the sample auction.

[Kalvan14]

Quite funny. I was strongly convinced that there were just 3 standard bids in this sequence (all the rest is subject to agreements):

- double, proposing a penalty

- 4C, pass or correct

- 4H, to play

 

Now it look like that 4H is the only one on which there is a consensus