Do you bid, if so what

[DWM]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxhxxxxdkq9xcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding Starting with West

 

(2♣*) - P - (2♦) - P

(P) - X - (3♦) - ??

 

2♣ was 21+ any shape or weak ♦'s

 

Do you enter the auction here? if so with what bid.

[jtfanclub]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxhxxxxdkq9xcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding Starting with West

 

(2♣*) - P - (2♦) - P

(P) - X - (3♦) - ??

 

2♣ was 21+ any shape or weak ♦'s

 

Do you enter the auction here? if so with what bid.

Looks like 3NT to me....

 

If partner then bids 4♣ or 4♦, I'll say 4♥.

[Codo]

A resonable pd had known that 2 Club contains the weak two in about 90 % of all cases, so with a strong take out, he had act early.

So I give him 8-14 HCPs which makes 3 NT no nice goal.

 

I bid 3 HEart, this is just a little bid out of the LAW but many good things can happen. Besides some really ugly ones. :D

[Fluffy]

I agree with Roland, but I ain't so sure partner would like to act over 3 clubs with diamond shortness, was he sure enough 2♦ was take out?.

 

Depends on who is partner and how much do we know each other, but with a random one I think I would just bid 3NT.

[hrothgar]

I'm hitting 3♦

 

If we can make 9 tricks in Hearts, we should set them two in three Diamonds

[helene_t]

Pass, afraid dbl is not penalty.

[Fluffy]

I wouldn't take double as penalty either.

[pclayton]

Agree with Roland, although I've only played against this doo-dad once (an Iceland pair played it).

 

Is this multi 2♣ is rising in popularity? How long has it been around?

[jtfanclub]

So I give him 8-14 HCPs which makes 3 NT no nice goal.

Bah. Do you really think the opps are sitting on 22 hcp on this auction?

 

If partner has 14 we should be in 3NT. If he has 12 I'll take my chances with their fit being jammed by my double stopper. It's Imps, we're vulnerable, I rolls the dice and I takes my chances. If he has 8, well, congratulate the opponents and move on.

[Apollo81]

Defending conventions like this without any discussion is always difficult.

 

Anyway, I think the most reasonable thing to assume is that partner may have doubled 2♣ with 15+ HCP, so I'd pass now. Game is probably a stretch at best, and doubling 3♦ probably isn't penalty. Even if I'm wrong and pard has a good hand, he may double again anyway.

[655321]

(Edited after I realised the ♦ are on my left.) :P

 

Auction similar to (2♦) X (3♦).

So X is not penalty (to me), and I therefore pass.

If partner re-opens with X, I will pass.

 

I don't like 3NT with sub-minimum values, no tricks, and ♦ sitting over the KQ.

Bidding ♥ doen't feel right on this hand, with 4 small, and half the hand in ♦.

Edited January 3, 2008 by 655321

[pclayton]

What's the recommended defense to this anyway? I would think:

 

Double = takeout of diamonds

2♦ = majors

 

else natural.

[andy_h]

Don't mind pass or 3H. I wouldn't take X as penalty as the auction looks like (2D) X (3D) X, where it'll just be responsive for me.

[Apollo81]

What's the recommended defense to this anyway? I would think:

 

Double = takeout of diamonds

2♦ = majors

 

else natural.

Some people seem to like being able to show "cards" without necessarily making a takeout double. For them:

 

Double = 13-16 balancedish or any power double

2♦ = majors

2M = normal

2NT = 17-19

 

pass then double = light takeout

double then double = sound takeout

 

An auction like (2c) Dbl (2d) Dbl is responsiveish and just says "bid your hand" ... advancer could still have 4 card major(s)

 

I personally don't see a huge advantage to either method and tend to play the simpler one (Phil's suggestion)

[hrothgar]

I am very skeptical whether you can safely treat

 

(2♣) - P - (2♦) - P

(P) - X - (3♦) - X

 

as responsive

 

Partner's pass over the 2♣ opening already denies a good hand. His balancing double should probably show a nice pure minimum takeout double. If you use a responsive double over 3♦ the opponents are going to be able to rob you blind.

 

On the one hand, you're creating a fine opportunity for the opponents to raise 2♦ or a stiff or even a void because you can't hit them for penalties.

 

Moreover, if you start catering for this by forcing the takeout doubler to balance once again at the three level to protect your trap pass you now enable the 2♦ to sandbag a 3♦ raise with a relatively good hand. (Please note: There are a number of hands that would have made a preemptive raise or a mixed raise opposite a normal 2♦ opening that will be forced to bid 3♦ opposite the 2♣ multi)

 

I'm all for responsive doubles. I'm happy to play a responsive double after

 

(2♦) - X - (3♦)

 

But this strikes me as a very different beast

[whereagles]

Pass. Regardless of your agreements demanding immediate action or not, this rates to be the percentage bid. Will pass a further dbl by pard.

[jdonn]

I would pass. I think double is clearly responsive, at least by meta agreements that I believe I always play.

[Edmunte1]

Pass. It's a small chance that we can have a playable contract above 3♦ and double won't be penality in my methods.

[joker_gib]

Pass

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I will bid, it is either a penalty dbl or 3NT,

depends on the vulnerability, ... and maybe

a double by me is responsive, which would

mean I cant make a penalty double.

 

Since we are red vs. green 3NT it is.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

What's the recommended defense to this anyway? I would think:

 

Double = takeout of diamonds

2♦ = majors

 

else natural.

We treat the 2C opening similar as

a 2D multi opener, and play the same

defence.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

A resonable pd had known that 2 Club contains the weak two in about 90 % of all cases, so with a strong take out, he had act early.

So I give him 8-14 HCPs which makes 3 NT no nice goal.

 

I bid 3 HEart, this is just a little bid out of the LAW but many good things can happen. Besides some really ugly ones. :P

In the given situation, I doubt that there

was an agreed defence, and the guy sitting

direct behind the 2C opener passed, which

was the safe thing to do, absent an agreed

defence, because he was sure to get

another chance.

So just because he passed the first time, does

not mean he has limited itself.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[miguelm]

What do we know.....?

 

Partner didn't overcall 2C (although it isn't clear what a 2D o/c could be, I would had take it as a take out double).

Partner didn't Double 2C. We also know (, at least after 3D we are 100% positive) partner didn't have any shape problems whatsoever that could prevent him from Double (or o/c 2D for that matter).

 

So, I gather partner is just trying to compete with second round double.

 

With this assumption, I Pass.

Double doesn't strike me clearly as penalty and even if it would, I am far from counting 5 tricks on defense.

3H is also possible, but I fear this can be too high and I absolutely dislike the fact of 50% of my hand being in Diams. (which also recomends we defend, right?).

[Gerben42]

Agree with Roland, although I've only played against this doo-dad once (an Iceland pair played it).

 

Is this multi 2♣ is rising in popularity? How long has it been around?

 

Has been around for ages in the Netherlands. And it is VERY popular there, if you play a tournaments or strong bridge clubs you'll run into it on a daily basis. There has even been an article in the member's monthly about "protecting the strong hand against interference" in this way.

 

I play it with anyone who wants to, here in Germany they are not really into such a thing even though it does NOT disturb the 2♣ opening structure much.

 

Defending against it you basically ignore the strong option. Apparently I am not playing my normal agreements against this opening bid because partner's Dbl would be penalty (he was trapping the round before).

 

The hand he is showing now would be Dbl then Pass in my system, using this defense I now pass.

 

Assuming opponents make the same mistake when partner Dbls directly and bid 2♦ then 3♦, the auction will go:

 

2♣ X 2♦ 2♥

P P 3♦ X

 

Thanks!