enough is enough?

[han]

[hv=d=w&s=s107hj63dkj542c984]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

(1H) - Dbl - (1S) - ??

 

Do you bid? Does the vulnerability affect your decision?

[Guest Jlall]

2D always for me.

[Codo]

Easiest 2 ♦ ever - to quote one of my favourite authors....

[the hog]

Partner asked me to bid. I have a D suit, so I bid it.

[kenrexford]

I'm reserving opinion here, but I thought this was a situation where I kept getting chastised in my youth for making a "free bid" with unexpectedly low values. Something about a 2-level call after a takeout double and an intervening bid showing 8+, or maybe 6+.

[Gerben42]

I'm reserving opinion here, but I thought this was a situation where I kept getting chastised in my youth for making a "free bid" with unexpectedly low values. Something about a 2-level call after a takeout double and an intervening bid showing 8+, or maybe 6+.

 

I hope the damage was not permanent. You must be confusing the situation with 1♥ (1♠) 2♦.

 

2♦

[mcphee]

This FREE bid as it is termed seems a bit of a disputed area. It strikes me that you expect to have a play to make 2D, if you fail to bid how would you get to play in 2D? Surely passing is not going to get partner to bid again on many hands.

[Fluffy]

I wouldn't bid vulnerable. Partner should expect a bit more

[kenrexford]

Devil's advocate here.

 

I'm not all that concerned about a pass-out. Is Opener for some reason passes 1♠ and partner equally passes 1♠, then I like holding this trashy hand. At IMP's, it is very unlikely that the hand passes out and we should have taken a plus here.

 

The greater concern seems to be when we have a game but Responder's 3-count response jams us just enough that partner is not comfortable taking action. If 2♦ shows some real values, he may stab at 3NT successfully. If this weak hand is allowed, then I either must jump with relative weakness or partner must gamble quite a bit or we miss nice 3NT contracts too often.

 

Still not sure what the expert field decision is and/or should be, but I do see a problem.

[y66]

2D, just raising diamonds (I think).

 

Of possible interest: Mike Lawrence discusses this problem in first 2 pages of Ch. 14 in his book on takeout doubles. Looks like he'd bid 2D here and try to look like he's enjoying it. In a related sequence, (1C) dbl (1H) ?, he likes pass with xxx, Jx, Q9864, Q8x, but says he knows some who would bid 2D here as well.

[jtfanclub]

(1H) - Dbl - (1S) - ??

Partner was expecting me to have to bid 2♦ with a 4 card suit and 0 points before the interference. He'd better be able handle it with 5 card suit and 5 points.

 

If the auction had been:

 

(1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ??

 

Now I'd probably pass.

[awm]

Seems clear to bid. In addition to competing for the partial (and it may well be our hand), we get partner off to a good lead if we end up defending some number of hearts. Obviously a bid here isn't forced, but I don't think it should promise more than competitive values. We have jumps and a cuebid available to express really good hands, and with both opponents bidding the values are usually split anyway.

 

It helps that I don't seem to double as freely with 4-3-2-4 and 4-2-2-5 shapes as some people on these forums do, but even if partner would sometimes double with only two diamonds, I don't think we should pass in fear of that hand.

[neilkaz]

2♦ ,,I have a 5 card suit headed by the KJ !

[han]

The player at the table where I was kibitzing passed. Partner had extras and AQxx of diamonds, but neither felt that they could act later and they ended up defending 2H, not a success.

[skjaeran]

Clear 2♦ for me. Can't imagine me passing with this.

[pclayton]

2♦. Its OK to have a minimum once in awhile. If diamonds were only 4 pieces, I'd pass this.

[jdonn]

You know they are propably about to play in hearts with just three opposite a takeout double, so its very important to get partner off to the right lead, even if you expect to be outbid.

[keylime]

I agree with both Josh and Phil: 2D from me.

 

I would think that a free bid is not of any strength requirements in this situation.

[mikeh]

Clear 2♦ for me. Can't imagine me passing with this.

agreed: altho this is a minimum hand for the auction. We are allowed to hold minimums. In fact, I like to hold minimums early in a partnership so partner learns not to expect much from me ;)

[bhall]

As Ken says, there is a problem with giving a too-wide range to 2♦. Another is that on this auction you shouldn't expect to make opposite doubler's minimum. Surely you want him to double with AQxx xx Qxx AJxx, a layout on which you could go two down against good defense.

 

The bid will get partner off to a good lead, but it is equally likely to get him to compete too high in diamonds. What do you want to bet that opener isn't looking at a near-automatic 2♥ rebid? Where are the hearts?

 

After (1♥)-X-(1♠)-P-(2♥)-P-(P), there is some reason to suspect that pd is better than minimum, and a 3♦ balance might be tried. Unless partner is one of those who will frequently turn up with a diamond doubleton. My guess is that this is exactly what was going through South's head when he passed the second time.

[mikeh]

As Ken says, there is a problem with giving a too-wide range to 2♦. Another is that on this auction you shouldn't expect to make opposite doubler's minimum. Surely you want him to double with AQxx xx Qxx AJxx, a layout on which you could go two down against good defense.

 

The bid will get partner off to a good lead, but it is equally likely to get him to compete too high in diamonds. What do you want to bet that opener isn't looking at a near-automatic 2♥ rebid? Where are the hearts?

 

After (1♥)-X-(1♠)-P-(2♥)-P-(P), there is some reason to suspect that pd is better than minimum, and a 3♦ balance might be tried. Unless partner is one of those who will frequently turn up with a diamond doubleton. My guess is that this is exactly what was going through South's head when he passed the second time.

While nothing is risk-free, I wouldn't expect partner to over-compete in diamonds very often. One of my pet peeves is a partner who shows his (or her) hand by a takeout double and then, in competition, competes ahead of me with no real extras. If LHO bids, as he probably will, a competent partner passes with a normal takeout double with 4 diamonds, expecting me to balance if I have the hand that is worth pushing. Now, there is a narrow range of hands on which he should push and on which, because my hand is minimal, it works out poorly. But that can be said of virtually every sequence in which there is any range of strength/shape in a competitive auction. I'd far rather get into the auction than stay out... but, then, my partners understand this principle of not bidding the same hand twice.