Takeout Doubles

[ArcLight]

IMPS, Opps Vulnerable

 

RHO opens 1♣

 

You Double with:

 

♠ Q 8 6 5

♥ K Q 7 2

♦ A 8 7 3

♣ x

 

LHO passes, pard bids 1♥, RHO bids 2♣

 

LHO pard RHO You

                1♣    X

  p   1♥    2♣  ?

 

What do you do?

(Pass, bid 2 hearts, what else?

 

 

 

Someone sugegsted now bidding 2 ♥.

Is that right?

Isn't it up to pard to bid that?

Pard can bid with more than 0-3 and 4 hearts.

[pbleighton]

2H. Why don't you want to play in your 8 card fit at the 2 level?

 

BTW, instandard bidding, 2H by partner shows 9+ points or so (might include distribution. In any case, you won't have game, but it's crazy not to compete.

 

Peter

[ArcLight]

>2H. Why don't you want to play in your 8 card fit at the 2 level?

 

Because you might not have a 4-4 fit.

Pard might be 3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4. We'll probably not 3343 but maybe 3325 with no stopper for NT. Would they bid 1NT anyway?

 

 

>BTW, instandard bidding, 2H by partner shows 9+ points or so (might include distribution. In any case, you won't have game, but it's crazy not to compete.

 

Pard is showing 0-8. Why not pass, and let him bid again with 5-8, and defend with 0-4. Let them play in 2♣ making some over tricks, instead of risking a bad contract. Maybe RHO has 4 hearts and 8 HCP

 

 

I may be wrong, I'm just asking what others think.

It just seems to me I have my bid (perhaps a tad more) so no reason to bid again.

[Gerben42]

I think Arc means that if partner is not "broke" he will bid 2♥ after you pass at this point. But I agree that 2♥ here should be competetive, not trying for game.

[pbleighton]

Because you might not have a 4-4 fit.

Pard might be 3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4

 

Might, but the distributions you mentioned are 5% of hands.

 

Why not pass, and let him bid again with 5-8, and defend with 0-4. Let them play in 2♣ making some over tricks, instead of risking a bad contract

 

We aren't vulnerable. Down 2 is better than 2C making 3 or 4. Playing 2M doubled at imps is unlikley.

 

If we were vulnerable, I might pass, though I would probably bid.

 

BTW, LHO passed the first time.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

This is the third article in essentially as many days calling Bridge Clues out and questioning their advise/suggestion. Once I thought, ok, np. Twice I thought I wonder if there is some vendetta against Bridge Clues. Now three times, and I am getting highly suspecious there is some agenda here.

 

So I am going to enforce a long standing Bridge Base Forum rule about publishing information from other sites. From now on, new threads referecing bridge clues and the bidding there will be deleted and users posting them have their warning levels elevated and potentially their posting rights removed.

 

Will this stop legitamate questions? No. simply post the hands/auction in question and ask if such and so bid is what you would do. Experts disagree on the right bid fequently, so whatever you post, you will hear views that disagree. I see no reason why our forum should constantly be posting bridge clue hands and trying to find fault with their "answers". The right answer depends upon the audience the question is posed to in the first place.

 

Ben

[mikeh]

I have no clue about Bridge Clues, and am not interested in criticizing other sites with which I am unfamiliar: and I do not know what reasoning was given by the other site.

 

However, my advice is that this is a clear pass.

 

I have always believed that it is useful for doubler and advancer to consider, when deciding how aggressive to be, the assumption that doubler is Axxx Axxx Axxx x or equivalent.

 

Both partners should assume that doubler has a hand of approximately that shape and strength. So, on the hand in question, our double was based on something very close to this. Accordingly, when we pass the decision around to partner, he will act on the correct assumption: if his hand warrants 2♥ opposite my actual hand, he will bid it.

 

This is the basis of partnership bidding: once you show your values, and if partner has another opportunity to bid, there is no need to show the same values twice. Trust partner.

 

If partner passes when he should be bidding (arguing, for example, that he can't rebid a 4 card suit), remind him or tell him of this principle.

 

That way, when you hold Axxx KQxx Axxx x, and bid 2♥, he can, if need be, take the correct call over 3♣ by the opps, because he can trust that you have extra values for your 2♥ call.

 

Note: I agree that one needs less to double and bid 2♥ in this sequence than one needs to double and raise to 2♥ after opener passes 1♥. In the first sequence, we show some extras, but in a non-invitational way, while in second, we are seeking game if partner is maximum for 1♥. But 'less' does not mean 'bare bones minimum'.

[han]

This is a matter of style. There are at least 3 different styles:

 

1. Any 2H bid by the doubler shows extras.

 

2. A raise to 2H by the doubler does not show extras if the opponents competed over 1H, else it does.

 

3. A raise to 2H never shows extras, it merely shows 4-card support.

 

You can imagine what the advantages and disadvantages are. The authors should probably say that the right answer to this question is somewhat controversial, but they have written this often in the past.

 

BTW, bidding 1H with a 3-3-4-3 shape is crazy Arclight.

[han]

Mike, I'm sure that you are aware of the downsides of your style. In modern bridge the takeout doubler rarely has a 4-4-4-1 shape. If the 1H bidder has a 7-count with a poor 4-card heart suit then it could be really bad if she bids 2H. However, if we do have a 4-4-4-1 hand then it could be really bad to defend 2C.

 

Playing the style recommended in the article we'd raise to 2H with a minimal 4-4-4-1 hand, and partner can safely pass with the flat 7-count.

 

I play the same style as you d, and I would recommend this style to beginners. But I do think that the other style has merits.

[kenberg]

I would bid 2H.

 

If I pass, it is partner who will worry that we might not have eight hearts. I have been known to make a take-out double when 4-3 in the majors. As a secondary point, partner might have five hearts. If the opponents compete to 3C it may or may not be right to go on to 3H, but if I show my four hearts now I will respect partner's decision.

 

I have never (until now) heard of bridge clues. I think I agree with Ben here. I guess I can see that if a hand is imported verbatim from another website there should be a source cited, but this would apply to exotic, or at least clearly original, constructions. Everyday hands such as this are surely public domain.

[jdonn]

If you are playing "standard" you have to pass since you are minimum. If you have agreed you can raise in competition just to show four card support you raise. This doesn't seem difficult either way.

[Flame]

This is a matter of style and i know experts who play both of these style.

1. supprt when you have a 4 card, this doesnt show any extra.

2. any bid including support show extra and therefore without it you pass, this mean that partner even with a 4 card suit should protect you by bidding 2♥ himself if the bidding passed to him.

I have no preference but i think many more play the first way so either agree on this or if you dont, assume 1.

[ArcLight]

>If you are playing "standard" you have to pass since you are minimum.

 

I guess this is what I was getting at, though I might have been more clear.

 

Its my understanding that playing "standard" you would pass and not bid 2♥.

(The alternative way may have merit, I'm not knocking it. But I don't think its "standard")

[mikeh]

Mike, I'm sure that you are aware of the downsides of your style. In modern bridge the takeout doubler rarely has a 4-4-4-1 shape. If the 1H bidder has a 7-count with a poor 4-card heart suit then it could be really bad if she bids 2H. However, if we do have a 4-4-4-1 hand then it could be really bad to defend 2C.

 

Playing the style recommended in the article we'd raise to 2H with a minimal 4-4-4-1 hand, and partner can safely pass with the flat 7-count.

 

I play the same style as you d, and I would recommend this style to beginners. But I do think that the other style has merits.

I was not, for a moment, suggesting that the double should always deliver 4 card support. I was saying that advancer should, on the given sequence, bid on the basis that doubler holds 4 cards in the major.

 

Unless we are doubling with hands such as 4=2=4=3 (which I would NEVER DO unless I were rebidding some number of notrump next... ie held a big hand), the worst that this will create is a 4=3 fit at the 2-level when advancer has a decent 1♥ response and can compete.

 

Playing that we always have to raise with 4 cards may work if the opps promise to shut up. But if we bid 2♥ and LHO bids 3♣, just exactly how is advancer supposed to know what to do? The range for our 2♥ call becomes too wide for intelligent decisions.

 

Yes, if we pass and LHO bids 3♣, and partner doesn't know how many ♥s we have, he is equally handicapped... but, in the real world, this rarely happens... LHO is far, far more likely to bid 3♣ over our 2♥ than over our pass.. so that the 'how many ♥s does partner have' dilemma is rare, while the 'how good a hand does partner have' dilemma is common.

 

But, on the whole, your points (as usual) are well-taken... this is indeed an area in which there can be disagreement.....

[pbleighton]

(The alternative way may have merit, I'm not knocking it. But I don't think its "standard")

 

Well, it may not be *standard* in a 30 year old bidding text, but I'd guess that a majority of current duplicate players would raise to 2H in this situation (at least a majority of the people I play against). Does that make it *standard*?

 

Peter

[ArcLight]

>Well, it may not be *standard* in a 30 year old bidding text, but I'd guess that a majority of current duplicate players would raise to 2H in this situation (at least a majority of the people I play against). Does that make it *standard*?

 

Thats what I'm wondering?

Is "standard" not used much anymore?

Do most people play that 2♥ is competitive?

 

 

If you bid 2♥ then what about this that MikeH wrote:

>This is the basis of partnership bidding: once you show your values, and if partner has another opportunity to bid, there is no need to show the same values twice. Trust partner.

[pbleighton]

If you bid 2♥ then what about this that MikeH wrote:

>This is the basis of partnership bidding: once you show your values, and if partner has another opportunity to bid, there is no need to show the same values twice. Trust partner.

 

I'm not saying Mike is *wrong*, but I prefer a different approach, showing pd that I have 4 hearts, and not letting opps play in 2C.

 

Peter

[pclayton]

I checked BWS (Ben: is THAT going to get me into trouble?) a few years ago for this exact question. Their notes say "a raise in competition promises a King more than a minimum".

 

Other than the 4th heart, what is this hand delivering that hasn't been already shown with the x?

 

So I pass.

[P_Marlowe]

2H, wtp.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

I thought this was an easy pass.

 

Do most experts really bid 2H with this hand meaning what? Competitive, if so what do they do with more? How much more ? Force to the 3 level?

[cherdano]

My usual BWS plug: Bidding 2♥ here shows a queen above a minimum takeout double in BWS 2001. This matches Mike's example hand very well.

[kenberg]

I checked BWS (Ben: is THAT going to get me into trouble?) a few years ago for this exact question. Their notes say "a raise in competition promises a King more than a minimum".

 

Other than the 4th heart, what is this hand delivering that hasn't been already shown with the x?

 

So I pass.

Inspired by your seeking out BWS, I took a look in Lawrence's Complete Book of Takeout Doubles. Despite the title, I could not find this exact sequence. ML does recommend aggressive bidding by the doubler (if rho rebids something), but does not recommend that all four card holdings raise to 2H

 

Here is a hand, with an opening bid of 1D:

 

A972 / AQJ8 / T4 /K97. 1D-X-P-1H-2C. A different auction, a different hand. But not a great hand. More points, a well-placed club, but two diamonds rather than a stiff.

 

The recommendation is to bid 2H.

 

Partner's hand is 653 / K973 / Q732 / J4.

 

The recommendation, if the 2C call is followed by two passes, is for a pass leading to 2C making.

 

I'm not really claiming that this hand, or any hand I found in ML, supports my decision to bid 2H on the given hand, and in some cases his suggestion is to go quietly. I like my heart holding and I like my stiff club, still...

 

One further point: mikeh mentioned that lho can bid 3C over 2H easier than over a pass. True enough, but it isn't the whole story. If I pass, and partner bids 2H, then lho still has an opportunity to bid 3C, and it will be far clearer that his bid is merely competitive since with decent values (a hand that got significantly better after the club rebid) he could have bid it sooner. If I bid 2H now, lho can bid 3C or not, but he doesn't get to clarify how happy he is to be doing this. Maybe they have some conventional means of clarifying this. Maybe they don't.

[SoTired]

In Washington Standard, 1C X p 1H 2C 2H = 4♥ and no extras. The raise only confirms 4-card support. 3-card support is implied by the X.

[bid_em_up]

This is the third article in essentially as many days calling Bridge Clues out and questioning their advise/suggestion. Once I thought, ok, np. Twice I thought I wonder if there is some vendetta against Bridge Clues. Now three times, and I am getting highly suspecious there is some agenda here.

 

So I am going to enforce a long standing Bridge Base Forum rule about publishing information from other sites. From now on, new threads referecing bridge clues and the bidding there will be deleted and users posting them have their warning levels elevated and potentially their posting rights removed.

 

Will this stop legitamate questions? No. simply post the hands/auction in question and ask if such and so bid is what you would do. Experts disagree on the right bid fequently, so whatever you post, you will hear views that disagree. I see no reason why our forum should constantly be posting bridge clue hands and trying to find fault with their "answers". The right answer depends upon the audience the question is posed to in the first place.

 

Ben

I think you are reading too much into this.

 

I visited the site, it offers a daily problem. I seen no reason to infer that the OP is either promoting the site or criticizing the site. It appears to me that someone is just reposting the hand here and asking our opinions on the hands/bids.

 

However, there are probably some "content rights" issues involved (I doubt the OP has the other sites permission to publish this elsewhere), so its still probably a good idea that you don't allow it to continue.