Is partner showing extras?

[cherdano]

This is basically what I learned at course one (except that we happened not to learn ELC). Now I have a general aversion against putting things into categories (watercooler topic?) and it also applies here. So the style that I have addopted from studying books and master solvers' club-like bidding fora suits me better:

 

I make take-out-doubles with a single continiuum of hand types. A take-out double always shows a flexible hand. It's just that the more strength I have the less flexible it has to be. With an unflexible hand I would bid game directly, make a jump cue asking for a heart stop or make a slightly off-shape Michaels, U2NT or 1NT.

 

This means that the logic "3♦ shows a hand too strong for an overcall so opposite a 1NT response to the take-out double you must have GF values" does not necesarily hold.

But in the MSC style, bidding a new suit after a double still shows a big hand, just that it promises a flexible hand, too.

 

About your other remarks:

 

- Of course 2N should be natural.

- Double of 2♥ is still takeout and shows extras (and IMHO a much much better bid than 3♦ with a "4153 hand that doesn't want to sell out to 2♥")

- I would much rather bid 2♦-then-double-the-heart raise, than double-bid-diamonds later with a 4063 hand and, say, 16 hcp.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

But in any case, I don't bye the logic that you'll have to sell out to 2♥ unless you have a hand too strong for an overcall.

Interesting. Maybe you should read your first post again ...

 

I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing, you wrote. Do you consider 14 hcp "extras" when you already promised 12 with no upper limit?

 

As I have pointed out before, it will not come as a big schock to your partner that you have a 14 count with 4-1-5-3 shape when you pass. He did see your double one would assume. He is still at the table, and if he has 9 or 10 hcp, he can still act if thinks it's right.

 

When he has less, he will pass. Bid your own cards, not partner's. Once you double with that hand (excellent), you have nothing further to say unless forced to.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

But in any case, I don't bye the logic that you'll have to sell out to 2♥ unless you have a hand too strong for an overcall.

Interesting. Maybe you should read your first post again ...

 

I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing, you wrote. Do you consider 14 hcp "extras" when you already promised 12 with no upper limit?

Opposite 6-10, 14 is less than invitational. I think 3♦ should be invitational, 15-17 in principle. I don't think that is too much for an overcall.

 

So if I want to bid with 14 HCP it would have to be via G/B 2NT (if available).

 

As for the hand posted, I would probably pass anyway no matter what agreements I have.

 

And no, I'm not bidding partner's hand. But I might have something to tell myself. And I don't think I should pass just because I don't have too much for an overcall. Nor do I think that partner's next decision should depend primarily on whether he has 9-10 HCPs. Points, schmoints.

[whereagles]

Whereagles has a point, but it is NOT the norm.

I'm not sure there actually exists a norm here.

 

You can, of course, say that "dbl + new suit = strong, ALWAYS". This certainly makes sense if pard is broke (e.g. makes a min response to the take-out dbl), but when pard is NOT broke you can do away with that requirement.

[Codo]

1. this is no poll, but I am with the majority, that 3 ♦ surely shows extras.

 

2. With the given hand, 3 ♦ is always wrong. Pd promises at least 1 and a half stop in Heart and you have the ace. So, if you want to compete, bid NT, that is where you belong.

3.There are many ways to bid with a GOSH hand, besides 2 or 3 NT you can bid 4 Diamond or 3 or 4 ♥, quite enough ways. But this is no reason to play 3 ♦ competetive. First, you may need 3 Diamond to show other hands then you could with 2 or 3 NT, f.e. 5 card suits, game forcing, but not sure whether NT or D is the best spot?

4. Where is the sense to introduce a 5 card suit at the 3. level? Hoping, that the 5-2 fit plays better then 2 NT? What shall pd do, who tried to bid to the best spot with f.e. xxx, KJxx, x, Kxxxx?

[MickyB]

I strongly disagree with whereagles and Helene. How can you bid a competitive 3♦ with a 5-card suit at the 3-level, AFTER your partner has said most of his values are opposite your singleton? Why play a 5-2 fit at the 3-level?

Precisely. If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

[helene_t]

If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

Agree basically (unless we play ELC in which case I could have a 4162 with which I would also like to compete. Or if we play 2NT as scramble in which case I might wanty to compete with a 3154).

 

But how do you compete with a void hearts if all calls show 18+ points?

 

Anyway, as for Roland(Codo)'s example hand, it must also depend on what kind of hands partner responds 1NT. I would usually bid a 5-card minor when I have one, especially when it's clubs. So there is a suggestion that I have at least 3-3 in the minors if I bid 1NT. No guarantee, I could have a 3514.

[Walddk]

If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

Agree basically (unless we play ELC in which case I could have a 4162 with which I would also like to compete. Or if we play 2NT as scramble in which case I might wanty to compete with a 3154).

 

But how do you compete with a void hearts if all calls show 18+ points?

You can't have a 4-1-6-2 hand unless you are strong (18+). If you are weaker, you would have made a simple 2♦ overcall on your first turn. If you are 4-0-5-4 for your double, you can double again to show extras, but you should not do it with a minimum hand, and you should not suggest your 5-card suit at the 3-level either.

 

I may have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you have got the concept of ELC (Equal Level Conversion) wrong. It works in a situation like the following:

 

1♥ dbl pass 2♣

p - 2♦

 

Originally, that would show an 18+ hand with long diamonds; in other words a hand too strong to overcall 2♦. In recent years, however, many have decided to play the concept of ELC so that a conversion at the same level as the response doesn't promise extras. As usual, this is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

In this thread we do not have an ELC situation because advancer didn't bid a suit; he bid NT. ELC only applies after a suit response for an obvious reason:

 

You can't have an equal level after a notrump response.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

You can't have an equal level after a notrump response.

You could have a hand with which your decision to dbl initially depends on whether you play ELC or not. As an extreme case, in Hardy's system

(1♥)-dbl-(pass)-1NT

(pass)-2♦

suggests 5♠+5♦ without extras. I know this is not called ELC but still it shows a hand which you could show via a double because you play ELC and otherwise you probably would not have doubled.

 

As for your criteria for dbl versus overcall we just disagree.

[Walddk]

As for your criteria for dbl versus overcall we just disagree.

Possibly. Let me ask you this. What do you bid with this hand when your RHO opens 1♠?

 

♠ J84

♥ K9

♦ AQ10864

♣ AQ

 

If your answer is "double", then yes, we do disagree. I am not sure what your rebid will be when you get the likely 2♥ response.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

2. With the given hand, 3 ♦ is always wrong. Pd promises at least 1 and a half stop in Heart and you have the ace. So, if you want to compete, bid NT, that is where you belong.

 

4. Where is the sense to introduce a 5 card suit at the 3. level? Hoping, that the 5-2 fit plays better then 2 NT? What shall pd do, who tried to bid to the best spot with f.e. xxx, KJxx, x, Kxxxx?

2. Compete in NT? You mean that 2NT here (instead of 3♦) should be competitive rather than invitational? This can't be right. You don't compete in NT. When your side has 23-24 hcp and no fit, you don't compete, you DOUBLE opps.

 

4. Well... a 5-2 fit is possible but odds that pard has 3 diamonds are huge. Pard would have to be exactly 3-4-2-4 for the fit to be a 5-2er. All other likely shapes contain 3 diamonds, even 4 in many cases. By the way, you hand looks more like a 2♣ bid to me, rather than 1NT.

[helene_t]

What do you bid with this hand when your RHO opens 1♠?

♠ J84

♥ K9

♦ AQ10864

♣ AQ

2♦ of course, wtp. Or 1NT if partner insists that it's too strong for 2♦. Anyway, I thought this thread was about flexible hands. So I don't see the relevance of your example.

 

Look, I'm not stupid. I just prefer a different style than you do. It occurs to me that you apply the following logic: Helene disagrees with me, therefore she must be an ignorant who doesn't know what t/o doubles are and what ELC means.

[Walddk]

Look, I'm not stupid. I just prefer a different style than you do. It occurs to me that you apply the following logic: Helene disagrees with me, therefore she must be an ignorant who doesn't know what t/o doubles are and what ELC means.

I don't know where I implied that you are stupid or ignorant. You (and whereagles for that matter) are obviously entitled to your view, but I am contesting your method where a double followed by 3♦ over your partner's 1NT is nothing more than competitive.

 

As I pointed out in a previous post, I am not even sure what you actually mean when you started by saying "I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing". You haven't told us where "extras" come into the picture with the actual hand:

 

♠ KQxx

♥ A

♦ A10xxx

♣ Jxx

 

The 1NT response didn't make the hand any better, to the contrary because some of the few high cards partner has are wasted in his heart suit.

 

However, let's assume that you treat the hand as better than minimum and that 3♦ is no more than competitive, I still think it's unsound to bid again. Why turn a likely plus into a likely minus? Let me give you an average hand for the 1NT response.

 

♠ Jxx

♥ Qxxx

♦ Jxx

♦ Axx

 

I even gave your partner a fit (you have no guarantee that he has) and yet 3♦ almost always goes down. So does 2♥. It's actually an excellent Law example. Do not compete to the 3-level unless you are certain that your side has 9 trumps between you.

 

You would be extremely lucky to find partner with four diamonds.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

As I pointed out in a previous post, I am not even sure what you actually mean when you started by saying "I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing". You haven't told us where "extras" come into the picture with the actual hand.

I don't care about the actual hand since I consider a pass quite obvious: The hand is too weak for a game try and has no extra O/D ratio. I'm concerned about the general meaning of the 3♦ call.

[mcphee]

I'm a bit surprised many do not consider the 3D bid to show extras. Does it make sense to bid with a minimum hand at the 3 level with out knowledge of a fit? The idea that once you have made a t/o you have shown this type of hand is completely normal. The more you bid the more you have is also a simple concept.

[whereagles]

I'm a bit surprised many do not consider the 3D bid to show extras. Does it make sense to bid with a minimum hand at the 3 level with out knowledge of a fit? The idea that once you have made a t/o you have shown this type of hand is completely normal. The more you bid the more you have is also a simple concept.

Well, there are 2 arguments for 3♦ to be competitive:

 

1. There are many alternatives for doubler to show a strong hand, so 3♦ as merely competitive does not hamper bidding with strong hands. Besides, strong hands are rare.

 

2. There is a real need to compete to the 3 level, and doubler is arguably better positioned than pard to make that decision because doubler is the stronger hand.

 

People say "doubler has told his story, thus he should leave further decisions to pard". To this I say: so what? Advancer has told his story as well! Furthermore, advancer's 1NT bid is far more precise than doubler's dbl. If a player here has something extra to say, that player is the DOUBLER.

[mila85]

It seems obvious to me that 3♦ shows extras if I don't have other agreement. But I see other questions:

 

- What's 2nt here?

Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer double over 2nt.

Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it without a good agreement.

Scramble? Why I didn't double again?

Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.

How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

 

- If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if you play ELC?

 

- If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

 

Sorry, my english is not perfect B)

[whereagles]

I see other questions:

 

- What's 2nt here?

Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer double over 2nt.

Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it without a good agreement.

Scramble? Why I didn't double again?

Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.

How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

 

- If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if you play ELC?

 

- If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

 

Sorry, my english is not perfect B)

Mila:

 

> - What's 2nt here?

> Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with

> partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer

> double over 2nt.

 

It can be played as invitational, in the same way it would be had RHO not bid 2♥. Dbl (instead of 2NT) should be for penalties because your original double asked pard to pick a suit, but he didn't: he bid NT. It doesn't make sense to ask pard for a suit again when he already said he didn't have one! :)

 

 

> Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it

> without a good agreement.

 

It is one good way to tell a forcing from a NF raise to 3♦, but you lose the invitational meaning of 2NT, something you might not want to.

 

 

> Scramble? Why I didn't double again?

 

That's the least necessary of meanings for 2NT.

 

 

> Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't

> show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.

 

To make 2NT you need 23-24 hcp. But, as I said before, with 23-24 hcp and a misfit you don't compete: you double for penalties.

 

 

> How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

 

Natural, around 15-16 hcp.

 

 

 

> - If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't

> probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if

> you play ELC?

 

There's a case to play 3♦ even without playing ELC.. but, playing ELC, 3♦ certainly is better used as competitive.

 

 

> - If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

 

Penalty. Take-out dbls are made to find a fit, and advancer already said there probably isn't one.

[kenberg]

More disagreement.

 

After 2H, what is double (by the original doubler)? Above it says penalty. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "penalty" but I don't think it can show a good heart holding: This is unlikely given the original double, and it becomes more unlikely, basically impossible, after the partner of the doubler has bid nt and there has been a 2H rebid. How many hearts does this deck have? It seems to me it shows a hand with more values than have been shown so far, but if the partner of the doubler wants to play for penalties he should not expect to find heart tricks in doubler's hand.

 

As to the 3D bid, it's hard to say much that hasn't been said, except: Maybe Patsy could show us the hand and then if, as I expect, 3D is a good contract then everyone can explain how to reach it after a pass by the doubler. Of course if it's a lousy contract then no explanation of how to reach it needs to be given. Of course one hand doesn't prove anything,as we all know, but there have been constructed hands offered in support of various arguments so we may as well look at the real thing.

 

Well, one more comment: Assume for the moment doubler could say "3D and don't you dare bid, partner" I think I would like to know the scoring. Non-vul at mps, I would do it. Vul at imps I would not. In between I would think about it. With pard showing 8-11 as per their style, it would be tempting. The Law of Total Tricks has undergone significant transformation from its original formulation some 30 years ago, but I have never before heard even its strongest advocates quote it as saying you should never go to the three level unless you are certain you have nine trumps. Eight would be nice though, and I agree you may not have them.

[whereagles]

1. After 2H, what is double (by the original doubler)? Above it says penalty. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "penalty" but I don't think it can show a good heart holding:

 

2. (about LOTT) I have never before heard even its strongest advocates quote it as saying you should never go to the three level unless you are certain you have nine trumps. Eight would be nice though, and I agree you may not have them.

1. Well, penalty doesn't mean you have KQJT of trumps, but sure have points B)

 

2. Actually, the law says you should force opps out of their LOTT level, and in this case there's a high chance opps do have 8 hearts combined, so some "action" to drive them to the 3 level is warranted.

 

The LOTT does, however, also say that you should not compete to the 3 level if that would take you above your safety level. Meaning: opps should not try 3♥ over 3♦, but rather to dbl you. Of course, this is only if they think they have the most hcp, which in this case I don't think they can know.

[mikeh]

Rested from my trip to Hawaii, I will jump into the fray.

 

I agree (almost entirely) with Roland.

 

3♦ has to be played as forcing: bridge logic requires that treatment. It need not, in my view, promise quite as much as it would had advancer shown no cards, but it has to be forcing.

 

The arguments against that treatment are weak. One cannot simply use either a cue bid or 3N as the strong bids for reasons that ought to be too obvious to need stating, but which, for some, appear elusive.

 

A cue bid renders it impossible for doubler to show his suit and offer advancer the chance to play in 3N if he has the wrong hand for a high-level adventure.

 

3N ends all auctions.

 

For those who claim that looking for a minor suit game over 1N is wrong, I can assure you that it is not. In Hawaii, we had a minor suit slam in a similar auction.

 

And, as Roland has observed, a pass allows advancer to keep the bidding alive. Now, admittedly, he will not often hold the appropriate hand to do so, but sometimes that is okay, since maybe defending is either the last plus or the smallest minus: advancer hardly promises primary support for any suit bid by doubler... and the willingness of opener to bid 2♥ in the face of a weak partner who has promised no support suggests that whichever minor one lands in may break badly. Finally, it is NO CRIME to sometimes allow the opps to steal the occasional partscore.

 

We don't have to like it, but preserving the integrity of our overall method, if the method is coherent, is more important than trying to win every single board..... and it is foolish to think, in any event, that bidding a competitive 3♦ on a poor suit with a minimum 4=1=5=3 will always or even usually win the board.

[whereagles]

This is funny, mikeh.. first you try and talk yourself out of 3♦ as NF, and then, in the last 2 paragraphs, you actually present a bunch of arguments FOR 3♦ to be NF!

[mikeh]

This is funny, mikeh.. first you try and talk yourself out of 3♦ as NF, and then, in the last 2 paragraphs, you actually present a bunch of arguments FOR 3♦ to be NF!

re-read my post: I do not have to talk myself out of anything: 3♦ as non-foricing makes no sense to me at all. And if you think that anything I wrote was a justification for playing it non-forcing, then you did not understand me.

 

There are often times in auctions in which we would like to be able to make a certain bid if only it showed the hand we held. Thus there will be hands on which we'd like to be able to bid 3♦ as non-forcing and we would not like having to pass. Yet, a good player will pass because a good player stays within his partnership's methods in constructive situations. A bad player yields to the temptation, either at the table or in this forum.

 

Having said that, there are many occasions when players step out... some of the world's best players do so... but there are situations in which one can and perhaps should and situations when one shouldn't. This is one of the latter, not the former.

[whereagles]

1. if you think that anything I wrote was a justification for playing it non-forcing, then you did not understand me.

 

2. a good player will pass because a good player stays within his partnership's methods in constructive situations.

 

3. A bad player yields to the temptation, either at the table or in this forum.

1. Of course you didn't mean those 2 paragraphs as justifications for a NF 3♦. I didn't misunderstand you. Just that somehow those lines seem to reflect a desire (be it conscious or subconscious) to be able to bid a NF 3♦. At least that's how I felt when I read it. But ok, maybe this was caused by my bias.

 

2. Sure they do. I would surely pass if I had either no agreement or an explicit agreement that 3♦ would be forcing. The point is that a competitive 3♦ here seems to me more effective than a forcing 3♦.

 

3. That's a non-issue. A bad player won't even know whether he's playing it forcing or not.. lol.

[helene_t]

People say "doubler has told his story, thus he should leave further decisions to pard". To this I say: so what? Advancer has told his story as well! Furthermore, advancer's 1NT bid is far more precise than doubler's dbl. If a player here has something extra to say, that player is the DOUBLER.

The assumption you make here is part the root of this debate. Some seem to assume (but I might misunderstand this) that 1NT is less descriptive than dbl so the 1NT-bidder is better positioned to make the decision. It's hard to compare, I think. Doubler is more likely than responder to hold a five-card minor, but he also has less assurance of a fit for his minor. I think. We could have slightly different styles with respect to requirements for dbl and for the 1NT-response but hardly big differences. These issues are not very controversial anymore (some 40 years ago you saw top players making doubles with all kind of crazy hands).

 

Then there are strategic considerations. Personally, I'm very much under influence by Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen: O/D ratio, not general strength, is what you need to evaluate in order to make competitive decisions. In this auction, we will typically have a 5- or 6-"fit" in hearts. The LOTT says that we should let them play 2♥ if we have 6 but take out if we have 5. It's quite obvious to me that responder must take out with 3 and doubler must take out with a void. The question is who should take out when we have a 4-1-"fit". If responder is maximal he can double, then doubler can take out. But if responder is minimal he must pass, catering for a minimum and 2 hearts by doubler. (This is a gross simplification of course. Please take trump count as an abstract measure of O/D ratio, not necesarilly literal trump count. Case in point: the actual hand may suggest competing on the basis on literal trump count but I would certainly pass with such a low purity, even at love-all MP).

 

Then there's the usual confusion about what this whole thread is about:

- What to aim for with the actual hand opposite a standard 1NT reponse?

- What to aim for with the actual hand opposite the stated 8-11 1NT reponse?

- Does 3♦ promise extras in standard (non-ELC) methods? Of course it does, nobody disputes this.

- Is 3♦ forcing or just invitational in standard (non-ELC) methods?

- What is "standard" if you play ELC?

- What would you like to play in a perfect World, not restricted by standards or your own memory capacity?

- What would you like to play in a less perfect World, were you can afford only a few, simple modifications of standard methods?