Two bidding problems

[Cascade]

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

[MFA]

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

??

[sathyab]

Surely partner can't have more than two Diamonds for his double and if he has Qx and a spade stopper he'd have bid 3nt himself, especially as you can have a better hand, since you are not handicapped by the burden of conventions such as good-bad 2nt. If you bid 3nt you're hoping that partner has a full stopper when opponents have a nine card fit or Qxx of spades when they have only an 8-card fit (LHO's 3s being based on distribution, but not necessarily a six bagger) and of course a doubleton Diamond rather than a stiff. The chances of 3nt seem to be pretty bleak if it's intended seriously to make, but a pretty good bid if you think of it as a sacrifice against 3s.

[gnasher]

The chances of 3nt seem to be pretty bleak if it's intended seriously to make, but a pretty good bid if you think of it as a sacrifice against 3s.

Isn't 3NT quite likely to go three down? Partner might have xx AQxx xx KQxxx.

[Guest Jlall]

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

 

edit: this reminds me of when I was like 13 and I used to overcall on a 5 card suit and crappy hand then compete to the 3 level if my partner raised on an auction just like this (1m 1M X 2M 3m 3M) because they did not know how to get to 3N if opener had a stopper and responder didn't (ie, X, pass 3N). So they would invariably go to 4m or 5m. Maybe I got cracked for penalty sometimes but it is worth it to have your opps not be able to bid 3N.

[mikeh]

On the first one I think passing is most often the right decision. However, the downside (3♠x making) is horrible, and the upside of 3NT (it makes) is so big, that I believe bidding 3NT is the long time IMP winner. Thus I'm in the 3NT camp.

 

On the 2nd hand it's an easy pass.

I think he said it very well.

I think Josh expressed my views very well

[Cascade]

In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement.

Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

No

??

No we are not "forced to start with a negative double with 4♥".

 

I would bid 3NT with four hearts often.

 

And I would double without four hearts often.

[gnasher]

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

Oddly enough, someone has just told me about this auction, playing a weak notrump and four-card majors:

 

  1♥   1♠   2♥  2♠

  Dbl  3♠   Dbl

 

2H was the only way to raise to the two level, and might have three or four card support; opener's double showed a strong notrump with only four hearts. Should responder's double be asking opener to bid 3NT with a stopper?

[Cascade]

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

Oddly enough, someone has just told me about this auction, playing a weak notrump and four-card majors:

 

  1♥   1♠   2♥  2♠

  Dbl  3♠   Dbl

 

2H was the only way to raise to the two level, and might have three or four card support; opener's double showed a strong notrump with only four hearts. Should responder's double be asking opener to bid 3NT with a stopper?

Why not?

 

I'm not sure I would use the double of 2♠ for this purpose though. What would 2NT/3NT have meant?

 

Against double asking for a stopper there are not that many hands that would raise 1♥ to 2♥ that would be that interested in 3NT opposite a minimum strong NT hand. Perhaps opener would pass with some of the minimum 15/16 balanced hands.

[sathyab]

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper...

 

edit: this reminds me of when I was like 13 and I used to overcall on a 5 card suit and crappy hand then compete to the 3 level if my partner raised on an auction just like this (1m 1M X 2M 3m 3M) because they did not know how to get to 3N if opener had a stopper and responder didn't (ie, X, pass 3N). So they would invariably go to 4m or 5m. Maybe I got cracked for penalty sometimes but it is worth it to have your opps not be able to bid 3N.

Amazing. This post could qualify for the Saturday Night Live segment "Really ?!$%". So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow ? What would you do when you were dealt a defensive hand with shortness in Diamonds ?

[jdonn]

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

 

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

[mikeh]

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

 

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

I think he said it very well

[the hog]

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

 

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

So do I and I still would like to know why partner can't have more than xx in Ds. Are you suggesting that with more Ds should be raised? If so what happened o a possible 3NT contract?

[sathyab]

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

 

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

Okay, sure I understand there're auctions where you're cramped for space and double is the only way to suggest that you have the values not to sell out to opponents but that you don't have a clear-cut action. Say an auction such as 1c-1s-X-3s(preempt)-X, where the X is most likely not for penalties, but just looking for a playable spot. But in this auction it's not clear at all the X wasn't a legitimate penalty double, but a "card showing" or "an offer to do something intelligent, for some definition of the word intelligent which is left to you as an exercise in bidding judgement".

 

You argue that without your interpretation of the double, your side would be stolen blind, miss 3nt sometimes. Fair enough. But can't it be argued too that

 

1) You will often be pulling partner's double when your side wasn't making 3nt quite often when neither side was making anything.

 

2) Having witnessed your tendency to pull his doubles to 7 or 8-trick 3nt contracts often enough, your partner starts passing instead of venturing a double.

 

Do you have any reason to believe that statistically 3nt makes far more often than 3s X going down when 3nt wasn't making ?

[CSGibson]

So the "standard" meaning of double of 3s is to ask partner to bid 3nt with a spade stopper regardless of his suit quality, the assumption being that whenever you have a stopper and a six card suit, there will invariably be nine tricks somehow?

Not to sound simplistic, but the standard meaning is "points", or I guess I would sound more advanced to say "card showing" or "do something intelligent". And if you have the strength to act but no spade stopper, what else do you suggest? There are only three options. Pass and be stolen blind. Raise partner and miss 3NT. Or double. I don't even understand how this can be controversial.

 

It's not that it asks partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. It's that bidding 3NT will generally be the obvious thing to do when he holds a spade stopper.

Okay, sure I understand there're auctions where you're cramped for space and double is the only way to suggest that you have the values not to sell out to opponents but that you don't have a clear-cut action. Say an auction such as 1c-1s-X-3s(preempt)-X, where the X is most likely not for penalties, but just looking for a playable spot. But in this auction it's not clear at all the X wasn't a legitimate penalty double, but a "card showing" or "an offer to do something intelligent, for some definition of the word intelligent which is left to you as an exercise in bidding judgement".

 

You argue that without your interpretation of the double, your side would be stolen blind, miss 3nt sometimes. Fair enough. But can't it be argued too that

 

1) You will often be pulling partner's double when your side wasn't making 3nt quite often when neither side was making anything.

 

2) Having witnessed your tendency to pull his doubles to 7 or 8-trick 3nt contracts often enough, your partner starts passing instead of venturing a double.

 

Do you have any reason to believe that statistically 3nt makes far more often than 3s X going down when 3nt wasn't making ?

If partner's double was penalty, then he has more spade stoppers for us or a very good hand outside of spades. If it's the first, we don't need 9 running tricks, and if the second, 9 running tricks have play often enough to be effective.

[sathyab]

If partner's double was penalty, then he has more spade stoppers for us or a very good hand outside of spades.  If it's the first, we don't need 9 running tricks, and if the second, 9 running tricks have play often enough to be effective.

If he had a spade stopper why would he not bid 3nt himself ? What most other posters are saying is that his double is "card showing" and the opener is supposed to bid 3nt with a stopper, which is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. And he has a lot of help in your suit without a stopper and you don't have a stopper either and leave the double in, you will get good at scoring up 3S X making, 3S X making 4 without looking at the table of scores behind the bidding cards.

[CSGibson]

If partner's double was penalty, then he has more spade stoppers for us or a very good hand outside of spades.  If it's the first, we don't need 9 running tricks, and if the second, 9 running tricks have play often enough to be effective.

If he had a spade stopper why would he not bid 3nt himself ? What most other posters are saying is that his double is "card showing" and the opener is supposed to bid 3nt with a stopper, which is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. And he has a lot of help in your suit without a stopper and you don't have a stopper either and leave the double in, you will get good at scoring up 3S X making, 3S X making 4 without looking at the table of scores behind the bidding cards.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I'm saying. What I was trying to say is that even if partner intends his double as penalty, you should have a play for 3NT, so it is not an unreasonable bid.

 

As for the rest, relax, dude, you don't have to worry about me. My partnerships have done fine in judging these situations.

[benlessard]

What is this nonsense about partner having at most 2 diamonds? He wants you to bid 3N with a stopper

 

Well if i had 6-7 diamonds AK and a S stopper i would have bid 2Nt (wich of course doesnt show 18-19).

 

Partner 2nd X at the 3 level is at least giving me the option the option to pass the X a fair amount of times.

 

Will he X with a singleton spades ? No. Will he X with Qxx in diamonds ? I hope not.

 

The critical holding is ♦Qx and ♠xx. With minimal strenght i think partner should play it safe and bid 4D. With maximum strenght (very unlikely considering the bidding) i guess X is ok.

 

 

From my point of view

 

1D----(1S)----X------(2S)

 

the 2S could be quite wide ranging. From 3 pts and 4 trumps to a good 8-9. So over my 3D the overcaller is maybe tempted to bid 3S without enough security. 3S in that postion is quite a good pressure bid.

 

I have no problem if the X is specially designed to find a stopper (if you play a artificial 2nt for example), if so partner can easily X with a stiff spades and D support wich mean i cant rarely pass the X. But without this agreement a X at 3S after our side made 3 naturals bids is clearly keeping the penalty in the picture.

[the hog]

"Will he X with a singleton spades ? No. Will he X with Qxx in diamonds ? I hope not"

 

So what do you suggest he should do with say

x Axxx Qxx KJxxx

You have by-passed your most likely game if he raises D to the 4 level.

[gnasher]

Why not?

 

I'm not sure I would use the double of 2♠ for this purpose though. What would 2NT/3NT have meant?

 

Against double asking for a stopper there are not that many hands that would raise 1♥ to 2♥ that would be that interested in 3NT opposite a minimum strong NT hand. Perhaps opener would pass with some of the minimum 15/16 balanced hands.

They're not my methods, but I think 2NT would have shown real invitational values - about 17 or more, and double showed either 15-16 or a stronger hand without a stop. So, if you bid game here, it's one that you wouldn't have bid without the intervention.

[655321]

"Will he X with a singleton spades ? No. Will he X with Qxx in diamonds ? I hope not"

 

So what do you suggest he should do with say You have by-passed your most likely game if he raises D to the 4 level.

 

x Axxx Qxx KJxxx

I don't disagree with your point, but this is a not a good hand to illustrate it.

I would never double with this hand, planning to pass 3NT. This hand should happily raise diamonds, expecting to make 5♦ most of the time, and 6♦ opposite many non-minimum 3♦ bids.

[gnasher]

What I was trying to say is that even if partner intends his double as penalty, you should have a play for 3NT, so it is not an unreasonable bid.

You might be OK if partner's penalty double happens to include either DQ or a running club suit. If he's doubled for penalties because he has a singleton diamond and defensive holdings in the round suits, 3NT is quite unlikely to make.

 

I don't mind either of the possible interpretations of the double, but I'm certain that you can't play it as both.

[sathyab]

What I was trying to say is that even if partner intends his double as penalty, you should have a play for 3NT, so it is not an unreasonable bid.

You might be OK if partner's penalty double happens to include either DQ or a running club suit. If he's doubled for penalties because he has a singleton diamond and defensive holdings in the round suits, 3NT is quite unlikely to make.

 

I don't mind either of the possible interpretations of the double, but I'm certain that you can't play it as both.

Succinctly put. That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along.