Which school do you belong to?

[Echognome]

[hv=d=n&s=saxxhkxxxdxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (Dbl) - ?[/hv]

 

What's your call?

 

Does your call change if 1♣ promised 4+ clubs?

[temp3600]

I'd start with a simple 1H in both cases.

[Winstonm]

I have no choice but redouble - my partner requires a major suit bid here to be 5+ long.

[Walddk]

1♥ in both cases (F1). I ignore the double and bid as if there has been none. No point in redoubling when you know they have a safe haven (diamonds). Let me start describing my hand now; saves room compared to waiting.

 

Roland

[Echognome]

Forgot to add "other (please explain)" to the poll if one of the moderators wouldn't mind.

[Winstonm]

Thanks for the post - it has partner and I realizing we have a problem - either of us likes starting with redouble but he is adamant (due to potential bad splits) about bidding only 5-card majors. A possible solution we are discussing is using crisscross raises here are game forcing minor raises.

[Cascade]

We are in the "Other" category.

 

Our system bid is 2♥ showing 4+ ♥ 4+♣ and at least game invitational values.

[P_Marlowe]

1H, and no this would still be my call,

even if 1C would be a 4 card suit.

 

The only alternatie would be 2NT as limit

or better raise for clubs.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

You always forget one, and you always forget to give us another choice! :P

 

1♠ = GF 4+♥, can have longer m

 

1♣ showed 15+ any distribution

[1eyedjack]

I have no choice but redouble - my partner requires a major suit bid here to be 5+ long.

I think I would be happy to play in Hearts in a 4-4 fit. It is a bit unlikely to happen, but I still respond 1H (or 1D if playing transfers).

[helene_t]

Playing "Boring Club" (1!c is 12-20 bal), I have a clear 1!d, transfer.

 

Playing Acol, I would make a GF raise, whatever that is.

[kenrexford]

Another other here. I would start with a specialized 2NT, as either weak or GF, club support. My plan is to continue with 3H after the expected 3C from partner.

[neilkaz]

I prefer to ingore doubles of minor suit openings as much as possible.

 

Thus, I prefer to play invm rather than Jordon (Truscott) 2NT after minor suit openings are doubled. I lose just a bit in that I cannot make a simple raise with 4 trumps over 1C, but I gain in that when I call 2NT I have the majors stopped and sometimes help in the other minor and I rightsided the NT contract.

 

But with most PD's I cannot use invm when I have a 4 card major, (in comp or not) so I'll just bid 1H here and catch up on club support later with my GF hand.

 

So many opps make offshape takeout doubles now which is why many players just bid 4 card majors anyhow (especially Hearts which can be lost).

 

An opp playing equal level conversion after a take out double may hold...

 

ATxx,xx,KQJx,Jxx here for example and while he could have a disaster pending, if his PD responds in H, he justs bids spades at the same equal level which says."PD I have 4 spades, rather than H, and if you don't like spades, run to Diamonds or NT ). Off course playing this method responder to the double really cannot blast to game without 6 cards and often has to Q bid to show GF hands. The doubler, if he holds a hand too good to overcall, needs to jump a round in his own suit to show it.

 

Anyhow...so many opps make offshape takeout doubles regardless of what they play. Thus 1H for me.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Gerben42]

I bid 1♥ (or transfer if we agreed that).

 

If 1♣ shows 4+ cards I wonder what drug my partner put in my drink before the system discussion, but still bid 1♥.

[akhare]

Believe it or not, we would bid 1♥ in our system too (Dejeneur starting a invite+ relay). Note that 1♣ opening would have promised 4+♥ and 9-13 points in our system.

 

In any case, starting off w/ a simple 1♥ response over a natural 1♣ opening seems pretty straightforward.

[EricK]

I think that if you have a strong fitting hand on this auction, the correct call is often Pass. Opponents are in a forcing auction, and LHO will have nothing. A lot of the time he will be in a rather uncomfortable position, especially if his partner is in the habit of making low-level offshape doubles. I don't see any need to rescue him from the burden of having to come up with a bid.

 

The chances are that he will bid at the one-level and either partner will bid again, or it will be passed round to me. It is very unlikley that RHO, with an obvioulsy minimum double, will be able to scrape up another bid.

 

When it is my next turn to bid, I will have a cheap cue-bid to show a strong hand. I will later support Clubs. When we finally declare the hand, we will have a better idea of the distribution of the opposing hands because we have forced LHO to bid.

[Poky]

1NT showing 5+♣ with 7+, followed by 2♥. Natural bidding.

[Dwingo]

I don't find 2NT as one of the options. Limit raise or better in ♣'s after the double. I thought this was quite standard in most Natural systems.

 

Get the word out for pd's ♣ support as quickly as possible.

 

The problem that I see with the 1♥ bid , is if you hear 3♦ or 3♠ to your left, then it will be difficult to convince your partner that you had such lovely support for his suit later on in the bidding.

[Winstonm]

I prefer to ingore doubles of minor suit openings as much as possible.

 

Thus, I prefer to play invm rather than Jordon (Truscott) 2NT after minor suit openings are doubled. I lose just a bit in that I cannot make a simple raise with 4 trumps over 1C, but I gain in that when I call 2NT I have the majors stopped and sometimes help in the other minor and I rightsided the NT contract.

 

But with most PD's I cannot use invm when I have a 4 card major, (in comp or not) so I'll just bid 1H here and catch up on club support later with my GF hand.

 

So many opps make offshape takeout doubles now which is why many players just bid 4 card majors anyhow (especially Hearts which can be lost).

 

An opp playing equal level conversion after a take out double may hold...

 

ATxx,xx,KQJx,Jxx here for example and while he could have a disaster pending, if his PD responds in H, he justs bids spades at the same equal level which says."PD I have 4 spades, rather than H, and if you don't like spades, run to Diamonds or NT ). Off course playing this method responder to the double really cannot blast to game without 6 cards and often has to Q bid to show GF hands. The doubler, if he holds a hand too good to overcall, needs to jump a round in his own suit to show it.

 

Anyhow...so many opps make offshape takeout doubles regardless of what they play. Thus 1H for me.

 

.. neilkaz ..

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions? His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

 

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise. Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

 

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

 

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

[1eyedjack]

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

 

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

I agree (I think) with the principle, although I am not sure about the particular odds.

 

Knowledge that the prospective trump suit (ie Hearts in this case) is (more) likely to be breaking badly may affect the desirable level to which to bid, but I do not see it as having much effect on the choice of trumps. Especially since you are on advance notice of which opponent will possess the long trumps.

[mikeh]

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

 

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

 

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

 

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass :) So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

 

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

 

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

 

As for your partner's views that you need a 5 card major to survive bad splits, I don't think that (in a good field) you have to worry about anyone doubling with KQJx Jx AKxxx xx for example.. that is not an ELC hand as far as I understand the convention... but who would not double with AJxx AJx KJxx xx after a 1♣ opening? In other words, the double does NOT promise 4=4 in the majors, so your 4=4 fit may play well. Furthermore, even when the suit breaks badly, a good declarer, armed with knowledge of the auction, can often cater to the bad break. Finally, bidding is not all about taking control at the first opportunity, so why not describe your hand to partner... why, in particular, allow the opps bidding to distort your methods... requiring a 5 card major changes all kinds of further bidding for your side, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

 

The only argument I can see here against 1♥ is that a bump in ♦ by 4th seat may complicate your auction..... but it hasn't happened yet and, if it does, you can probably survive... a cue of 3♦ (if possible) followed by 4♣ is one possible route.

[Winstonm]

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

 

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

 

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

 

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass :) So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

 

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

 

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

 

As for your partner's views that you need a 5 card major to survive bad splits, I don't think that (in a good field) you have to worry about anyone doubling with KQJx Jx AKxxx xx for example.. that is not an ELC hand as far as I understand the convention... but who would not double with AJxx AJx KJxx xx after a 1♣ opening? In other words, the double does NOT promise 4=4 in the majors, so your 4=4 fit may play well. Furthermore, even when the suit breaks badly, a good declarer, armed with knowledge of the auction, can often cater to the bad break. Finally, bidding is not all about taking control at the first opportunity, so why not describe your hand to partner... why, in particular, allow the opps bidding to distort your methods... requiring a 5 card major changes all kinds of further bidding for your side, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

 

The only argument I can see here against 1♥ is that a bump in ♦ by 4th seat may complicate your auction..... but it hasn't happened yet and, if it does, you can probably survive... a cue of 3♦ (if possible) followed by 4♣ is one possible route.

Thanks, Mike.

[1eyedjack]

One point of interest to me would be the probability of there being a 4-4 Heart fit and how that probability is affected by the double.

 

It might be a valid argument for requiring 1H to show a 5 card suit if the double reduces the likelihood of a 4-4 heart fit to so low a figure as to make it not worthwhile investigating the possibility. Note that this is a different argument than the fear of a bad break in the event of a 4-4 heart fit arising.

 

The near certainty that doubler has at least 3 hearts, and the increased probability (if not close to certainty) that he has 4 of them, must reduce the probability of our side having a 4-4 heart fit and, in the event that there is indeed no heart fit, there are certainly more important features to show than Kxxx in Hearts.

[cherdano]

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

 

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass :blink: So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

 

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

 

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

One more point: Having the strong opponent (here: the takeout-doubler) on lead is more often right-siding than wrong-siding.

 

Arend

[Finch]

The near certainty that doubler has at least 3 hearts, and the increased probability (if not close to certainty) that he has 4 of them, must reduce the probability of our side having a 4-4 heart fit and, in the event that there is indeed no heart fit, there are certainly more important features to show than Kxxx in Hearts.

There is nothing like certainty that the doubler has 4 hearts. 4342, 3352, 4333, possibly 4351 are all more or less take-out double shapes. And if partner had opened 1D, the probability that the doubler has 4H descreases sharply (because now 4315 and 3325 and going to be take-out doubels for everyone, not just some).

 

Incidentally, the chance of a 4-card heart suit on our right decreases as our HCP reduce. Here we have a load of HCP so it's more likely that RHO is a classicial shape with minimum values. Give us a 6-count, and RHO could have all sorts of hands.

 

Also, just because they break 4-1 is no reason not to play in a 4-4 fit. Playing strong NT, short club I would say 4H is still our most likely game. Give partner some boring weak NT with

 

Kxx

Axxx

Axx

Qxx

 

and 4H is the best game by miles as it can probably cope with both 4-1 hearts and 4-1 clubs, which 3NT certainly can't. Obviously I can produce hands with a 4-4 heart fit where 3NT is better, but I wouldn't write it off just because they are more likely not the break: the potential bad club break is a very good reason to look for the heart game.

 

 

If partner has promised 4+ clubs I would prefer to make a forcing club raise, if I have one available.