question about take-out double

[chastey]

(1♦)-X-(P)-1♠ ; (2♦)-2♠

 

what does 2sp mean here?

[pclayton]

Welcome to the forums.

 

The sages here advocate that 2♠ needn't show extras. We didn't promise 4♠ for our double.

 

OTOH, to take a competitive call at the three level (pretend the spade and diamond suits are switched) does require something more than just 4 trump.

[rogerclee]

The sages here advocate that 2♠ needn't show extras. We didn't promise 4♠ for our double.

 

OTOH, to take a competitive call at the three level (pretend the spade and diamond suits are switched) does require something more than just 4 trump.

Yeah. Old-fashioned standard is that this does indeed promise a good hand though, and some people still play it this way.

[Lobowolf]

Yeah. Old-fashioned standard is that this does indeed promise a good hand though, and some people still play it this way.

That's how I like it. I'm a big boy, and I can compete to 2♠ (as the 4th seat bidder) on my own, and even play a 4-3 fit at the 2-level when I have to. Opening bid with spade support? Call me old-fashioned, but I heard the double the first time.

[chastey]

Thanks for your answers, but one more question. What should 3♦ instead of 2♠ mean?

[barmar]

3♦ should be game forcing, and asks you to describe your hand further. Bid 3NT with a ♦ stop, otherwise show extra length in ♠ or your next best suit.

[1eyedjack]

I'm a simple soul and play it rogerclee's way. Simple rule I live by: Have I got an alternative way to show a good raise to 2S? If not then 2S is a good raise.

Had 2D cue remained available to me, THEN I would play that 2S is just a preemptive raise (2D by me then being the sound raise, if not playing it as some weird transfer to H, but then 2H would be sound raise, not the stuff for BIL though).

 

You could play a repeated double (ie of 2D) as being takeout with extras over and above the original double. That would free up 2S as a competitive raise, but you lose the ability to double to express a strong balanced hand, which might actually want to suggest penalising 2D.

 

Without doubt there is a benefit to the competitive raise. The initial double does not promise 4 card support. If your pass over 2S promises fewer than 4 card support (and almost certainly therefore holding 3 card support), then partner is better placed to decide to compete from his side. Sure, he may be happy to play in a 4-3 fit but I would rather in that case that he bid it with eyes open.

 

So either method is playable. Playing with a BIL partner I would go for the simple arrangement, and it does not harm to instil a discipline that having bid your hand once, there is no need to bid it again while partner is still in the race.

[EricK]

and it does not harm to instil a discipline that having bid your hand once, there is no need to bid it again while partner is still in the race.

 

To what extent is partner "still in the race"? Can he not justly argue that he has shown his suit (as you requested), and also shown his limited strength (by not jumping). Is he not justified in passing if 2♦ is passed round to him almost no matter what he holds?

[1eyedjack]

and it does not harm to instil a discipline that having bid your hand once, there is no need to bid it again while partner is still in the race.

 

To what extent is partner "still in the race"? Can he not justly argue that he has shown his suit (as you requested), and also shown his limited strength (by not jumping). Is he not justified in passing if 2♦ is passed round to him almost no matter what he holds?

1S is limited, certainly, but that limit is quite wide in my opinion.

Assuming that doubler's second round pass denies a powerhouse it must be based on a hand with tolerance for advancer.

So absolutely partner is still in the race. He could have anything from a yarborough with (in extreme cases) only a 3 card spade suit, to an 8 count with a 5 card spade suit. In the latter case he is assured of a fit even if doubler only has 3 card support and fears to show it.

 

Generally, I think you are more at liberty to bid your hand "twice" if you are in the pass-out seat than when partner as another shot even if you pass. If the only way that your side gets to compete is by one or other of your partnership showing his hand a second time, then I would place that responsibility on the final bidder.

[P_Marlowe]

(1♦)-X-(P)-1♠ ; (2♦)-2♠

 

what does 2sp mean here?

Fighting for the part score.

The bid does not promise extras, just a reason

to bid, I doubt I would raise with a bal. 12 count.

 

The 1S bidder can raise to 3S, if he happens

to hold a maximum for his call.

It may also be helpful, if he has 5 spades.

I am hard pressed to come up with a hand

with only 3 spades, which raises to 2S, but

I believe those hands exist, maybe a hand

with a 5431 shape.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[EricK]

1S is limited, certainly, but that limit is quite wide in my opinion.

Assuming that doubler's second round pass denies a powerhouse it must be based on a hand with tolerance for advancer.

So absolutely partner is still in the race. He could have anything from a yarborough with (in extreme cases) only a 3 card spade suit, to an 8 count with a 5 card spade suit. In the latter case he is assured of a fit even if doubler only has 3 card support and fears to show it.

I didn't realise people played the minimum response as so wide ranging. Certianly 8 points and 5 card spades is too strong for 1♠ "in my bidding book".

 

But isn't the issue here that in direct seat, we can afford to pass with minimum-ish hands and only 3♠ because partner will bid again with 5♠ and a reasonable hand in context; whereas if we have 4♠ can we afford to pass since partner is unlikely to bid again if he only has 4♠ as well?

[NickRW]

I didn't realise people played the minimum response as so wide ranging. Certianly 8 points and 5 card spades is too strong for 1♠ "in my bidding book".

 

But isn't the issue here that in direct seat, we can afford to pass with minimum-ish hands and only 3♠ because partner will bid again with 5♠ and a reasonable hand in context; whereas if we have 4♠ can we afford to pass since partner is unlikely to bid again if he only has 4♠ as well?

So, have I got this right, doubler might be about 12 or 13hcp with 4 spades and advancer might be about 5 or 6 with 4 spades and you don't propose that either should compete with 2♠?

 

This may be workable at IMP, but at MP you're just handing the opps a likely top in my mind. Everybody and their mother where I play, including most of the LOLs, are going to be bidding 2♠ and they are either making it or only one off, while 2D, plus one like as not, will be making the other way. The only bad thing that can happen is if you really are one off and the opps find the MP double - but in practice this is more of a concern in expert circles than at every day bridge tables.

 

Nick

[EricK]

I didn't realise people played the minimum response as so wide ranging. Certianly 8 points and 5 card spades is too strong for 1♠ "in my bidding book".

 

But isn't the issue here that in direct seat, we can afford to pass with minimum-ish hands and only 3♠ because partner will bid again with 5♠ and a reasonable hand in context; whereas if we have 4♠ can we afford to pass since partner is unlikely to bid again if he only has 4♠ as well?

So, have I got this right, doubler might be about 12 or 13hcp with 4 spades and advancer might be about 5 or 6 with 4 spades and you don't propose that either should compete with 2♠?

 

This may be workable at IMP, but at MP you're just handing the opps a likely top in my mind. Everybody and their mother where I play, including most of the LOLs, are going to be bidding 2♠ and they are either making it or only one off, while 2D, plus one like as not, will be making the other way. The only bad thing that can happen is if you really are one off and the opps find the MP double - but in practice this is more of a concern in expert circles than at every day bridge tables.

 

Nick

You haven't got this right. I am suggesting that doubler advances with 4 spades. I am not sure anybody is suggesting that responder to the doubler should rebid his spades on just a 4 card suit and 5 points - although maybe some are.

[NickRW]

You haven't got this right. I am suggesting that doubler advances with 4 spades.

Ah, ok. Sorry. Apparently I misunderstood you.

 

Nick

[Lobowolf]

You haven't got this right. I am suggesting that doubler advances with 4 spades. I am not sure anybody is suggesting that responder to the doubler should rebid his spades on just a 4 card suit and 5 points - although maybe some are.

I'll suggest it. The responder to the doubler, if he has 5 points, knows that his side has close to half the deck and a spade fit of at least 7 cards and more often 8. He's in the seat of last resort, where the only choices are to defend 2♦ or compete to 2♠. I'd rather have that hand throw in a 2♠ call rather than make 2♠ by the doubler mean merely "I have a 4th spade" rather than the traditional "I have more than just bare opening hand values," especially given that at the time of the doubler's second bid, his partner will get another turn; at the time of partner's second bid, it's compete or defend.

[y66]

After 1C X p 1H; 2C ?

 

Mike Lawrence (in 2003) offers these suggestions:

 

AJxx KQx Kxxx xx => pass. When p makes a minimum response, do not bid again without extras. This hand is minimum and has only 3-card support.

 

KJx KJxx AJxx xx => pass. You have 4-card support, but still minimum.

 

xxxx AQJx AKJ xx => 2H. You need more than a minimum to double and raise a minimum response from partner (a queen or more when opener competes; a king or more when opener passes).

 

Lawrence's ideas are usually fairly conservative and standardish.

 

p.s. Sequence above differs from OP but is analagous.

[dydyboni]

To extend the discussion a bit, what would you bid after this auction (None Vul):

 

(1♦) - X - (1♥) - pass; (pass) - 2♠ - (pass) - ??

 

holding ♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦x ♣Jxxxxx ? Or more generally - is a suit bid after a take out double forcing ?

[Codo]

For your first problem: There are different views and all have strong views about their own view.

 

I belong to Lawrence et al. If I bid again I have some extras. Pronouncation on SOME, I don`t need the world. F.E. AQxx, Axxx,x,Axxx is enough.

 

For your second: X and an own suit is strong.

Double and jump in an own suit is GF for me.

 

So I had bid 4 Spade, the weakest possible action in your second example.