Reopening double or not?

[ewj]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sxhakjxdxxxckt8xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

RHO passes and you open 1♣, LHO bids 3♠ and it is passed back to you. Do you reopen?

 

How close is your action?

[Guest Jlall]

no, not close.

[jdonn]

Pass. Over 2♠ it would be close.

[ArtK78]

So what you are saying is that partner, with a penalty double of 3♠ and otherwise a hand good enough to bid 3NT, can't afford to pass over 3♠ for fear that you will not reopen with a double?

 

I guess our opponents can preempt more freely against us than I thought.

[jdonn]

So what you are saying is that partner, with a penalty double of 3♠ and otherwise a hand good enough to bid 3NT, can't afford to pass over 3♠ for fear that you will not reopen with a double?

Yes, he probably has to just bid 3NT, and the opponents have neither gained nor lost anything.

 

I guess our opponents can preempt more freely against us than I thought.

I didn't realize they could see through our cards that our strength was divided this way, as opposed to us having a king from partner's hand so we are in a position to nail them.

 

I know we have all been in the following situation. Partner preempts and you have a hand that is just barely not good enough to bid, like some 16 count 15 without much fit or something. You pass, cross your fingers, and pray the opponents reopen without very much.....

[MickyB]

I know we have all been in the following situation. Partner preempts and you have a hand that is just barely not good enough to bid, like some 16 count 15 without much fit or something. You pass, cross your fingers, and pray the opponents reopen without very much.....

Not as a passed hand, I haven't :rolleyes:

 

But yeah. I play reopening doubles at the two-level don't show extras (so it would be a big mistake to not protect over 2♠) but at the three-level they do show extras.

[jdonn]

I know we have all been in the following situation. Partner preempts and you have a hand that is just barely not good enough to bid, like some 16 count 15 without much fit or something. You pass, cross your fingers, and pray the opponents reopen without very much.....

Not as a passed hand, I haven't :rolleyes:

Fair enough. You have certainly had times you hoped the opponents would balance though :)

[Guest Jlall]

But yeah. I play reopening doubles at the two-level don't show extras (so it would be a big mistake to not protect over 2♠) but at the three-level they do show extras.

agree, this is a clear X of 2S.

[ewj]

I passed without even considering bidding but was told that double was automatic. At the time, I simply poo pooed this, thinking it was ridiculus but lots of players have told me that they consider double automatic, including some top players.

Would people in the know say that this position is simply a matter of style?...I'm just so confused at the hugely contrasting view of what action is "right".

[rogerclee]

I pass, but like the others, I reopen over 2S.

[Guest Jlall]

Would people in the know say that this position is simply a matter of style?...I'm just so confused at the hugely contrasting view of what action is "right".

Obviously one can say anything amounts to style, but there are good styles and bad styles. If you really want to try and decide what is the right bid here then you can try running a simulation. In my opinion reopening with a X when this light is a losing proposition.

[neilkaz]

Would people in the know say that this position is simply a matter of style?...I'm just so confused at the hugely contrasting view of what action is "right".

Obviously one can say anything amounts to style, but there are good styles and bad styles. If you really want to try and decide what is the right bid here then you can try running a simulation. In my opinion reopening with a X when this light is a losing proposition.

Yes..a sim is a good idea. I agree that reopening over 3♠ is probably wrong, but don't think it is as far wrong as I think you do.

 

Off course reopen over 2♠ with these cards. .. neilkaz ..

[dburn]

Not sure what a simulation would prove - the question appears to be whether North should bid 3NT on some hands where he would double for penalty if playing penalty doubles, and if so, on what proportion of such hands. That is a matter of style, or judgement, or experience, or whatever you want to call it, and such things cannot really be simulated.

 

One might reason thus: RHO has passed as dealer; LHO has pre-empted; I don't have very much; partner must therefore have quite a lot; the only reason he didn't bid is therefore that he has a penalty double. But West also heard East pass as dealer, and West can see the vulnerability as well as can. It may well be that East has a maximum pass with defensive values, West a sound pre-empt, and our side no fit.

 

I would double with these cards anyway, since although my opening bid is minimum in terms of high cards, it does at least contain solid defensive values - a lot of 15- or 16-point hands will not take as many tricks in defence as this one will. Moreover, I have five clubs when I might have only three; if North has to remove to four clubs, he should not be disappointed by the outcome. But passing could easily be the right thing to do.

[Walddk]

Let me put it this way. Against erratic juniors I would double; they rarely have their bids. Against rock solid rubber bridge players in London or New York I would not; they often have their bids (and some in reserve).

 

I have a feeling that ewj is a junior and played against juniors. If so, I would double.

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

But... you didn't tell us if partner tank or not!

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I passed without even considering bidding but was told that double was automatic. At the time, I simply poo pooed this, thinking it was ridiculus but lots of players have told me that they consider double automatic, including some top players.

Would people in the know say that this position is simply a matter of style?...I'm just so confused at the hugely contrasting view of what action is "right".

Hi,

 

to a certain degree, it depends on your requirements

regarding the neg. X by responder over the 3S.

 

I would say, for most a neg. X is now heaviliy optional,

i.e. card showing, i.e. most would have acted with

a bal. 11 count.

If your partner would / should have acted depends also

on your opening style, I cant tell, if the given hand is

dead min. or if you also open weaker hands.

If you do, partner will / should certainly pass with bal.

11 counts, else wise it may turn out nasty.

 

So to answer your question, it is a matter of style,

but requiering a reopening double on the 3 level

without add. strength is far away from mainstream,

... and with the given hand, I am not even certain,

if I would reopen after a 2S overcall, but at least

this may just be matter of experience, and you could

sell me that double.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ulven]

X - warts and all. My experience is that should reopen when faced with a choice, if shape is satisfactory. Highest EV.

[Walddk]

... and with the given hand, I am not even certain,

if I would reopen after a 2S overcall

Then, in my view, you should give up playing negative doubles. This is a clear double after 2♠, not so clear after 3.

 

The reason is obvious, to me at least. If you don't re-open with a double over your LHOs 2♠, your opponents can get away with murder and your partner can never pass, even when he has a clear penalty double, for fear of a pass by opener. He will have to bid and your opponents get out of jail without sweat. If that is correct, you had better dump negative doubles and return to the stone age and play them as penalties.

 

Now, let's assume that you do play negative doubles and that your partner is weakish with no bid over 2♠ (or 3♠ for that matter), then it's less dangerous for him to take out at the 3-level than at the 4-level.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

... and with the given hand, I am not even certain,

if I would reopen after a 2S overcall

Then, in my view, you should give up playing negative doubles. This is a clear double after 2♠, not so clear after 3.

 

The reason is obvious, to me at least. If you don't re-open with a double over your LHOs 2♠, your opponents can get away with murder and your partner can never pass, even when he has a clear penalty double, for fear of a pass by opener. He will have to bid and your opponents get out of jail without sweat. If that is correct, you had better dump negative doubles and return to the stone age and play them as penalties.

 

Now, let's assume that you do play negative doubles and that your partner is weakish with no bid over 2♠ (or 3♠ for that matter), then it's less dangerous for him to take out at the 3-level than at the 4-level.

 

Roland

Hi Roland,

 

i know, I should, but this does not mean, that I would,

... a matter of experience and conviction.

After 2S you have at least 2NT scrambling available,

but I would guess, nobody plays 3NT after a reopening

X in the original sequence as scrambling.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[microcap]

Rex and I play thrump doubles at the 3 level, as we found there are just more hands where responder is hamstrung by the preempt with a decent hand than perfect negative doubles. So double here just shows 10+ HCP---

 

for instance, Qxx, Qxx Ajxxx Qx. Yes I know that 3 ♠ could make on this layout, but we have found this to be a winner overall. And it takes a lot of pressure off the reopener.

[dake50]

3S preempted our partial is my best guess. We make 3H, 3C or partner's 3D.

Let them win preempt partial hands. I want to win back the our game hands.

Pass, not close.

[jdonn]

I have seen the logic a number of times that when the opponents have a passed hand opposite a preempt, our side must have strength. But the preempt opposite a passed hand can be very wide ranging, including very heavy. Perhaps the logic holds to some degree, but I don't hang my hat on it.

[benlessard]

Even over 2S its a close decision for me so over 3S its a clear pass. Chance for penalty pass a very low IMHO and chance to go offboard non-negligeable.