Below freezing

[gwnn]

Except a takeout double can't have a weak hand with a long suit :)

[jdonn]

Disagree strongly. As always, you bid the cheaper of the suits (♥) in case partner has a weakish hand with a long cheaper suit (♥).

 

Well I disagree strongly with you. If partner has a neg free bid hearts, you have a 9 cd heart fit and are extremely unlikely to be able to buy the contract for 2H. The opps surely will balance with 2s/3c. So there is no advantage in staying low vs. that hand.

 

One doesn't always bid the cheapest of suits when you might have a fit in either of them and want to show both. Similarly with 4-4 in the majors, not strong enough to cue-bid, one responds 1s to a takeout double of a minor anticipating a chance to bid 2h later.

I think there a two flaws in your reasoning.

 

One is that the opponents won't automatically balance if you happen upon a 9 card heart fit since they don't know you even have a fit at all. It's like when the opponents open 1NT and transfer, it can be very tricky to know when to balance if the opponents may or may not have a fit.

 

Another issue is that this particular north hand, vul to boot, may well want to sell out if the opponents bid 3♣.

 

To be honest I don't think it should matter much what north would do on this hand. I'm fine with 2♥. I think both of your "strongly's" are overbids.

[Stephen Tu]

I'll agree with your 2nd point but not the first. The 2nd point stems mostly from opener not having a real opening hand to begin with. I think in general if opener has these 4441/4450s though and a real opener (but not strong enough for 3c/4c) that they should prefer 2S over 2H and we shouldn't be teaching people that one always bids up-the-line as gwynn advocates.

 

As for the opps not balancing, you have 9 cd heart fit and singleton club, maybe it's not 100% but it'll be awfully high % that one of the opps has a 3c call. They may not know 100% that you have a fit, but they will be looking at their own fit a lot of the time since partner bid, plus one of them will be looking at short hearts a lot. And as an opp, I would expect opening side to have a heart fit a lot more often on this auction than after a 1nt transfer sequence, since the double and 2h were voluntarily offered; on very many hands where there is not a real heart fit either opener or responder has alternate rebid options. Whereas after 1nt, transfer, opener bids 2H whether he has fit or not.

 

I was more strongly disagreeing with gwynn's "strong disagreement", implying that 2H is much better than 2S, than trying to claim that 2S is a lot better than 2H. I also think not much difference on most hand, but think in long run when opener has a real hand that it is slightly better to bid 2s first.

[neilkaz]

I don't understand why people say that North should run from 3NT doubled.

 

I think it should be South.

;) North should put on his track shoes and do his best Usain Bolt imitation!!

 

North should know a couple things here:

 

1) PD is a passed hand and can't be expected to have more than 11 HCP.

 

2) PD took a preference to 3♦ rather than leave it in 2♥ and clearly has 4 or even 5♦.

 

3) The scoring is IMPs and the partnership is in at least a 4-4 fit with at most 22 HCP and N's Q♣ maybe worthless. No one has been doubled yet, so N most definately shouldn't confuse the issue by preferring another known 4-4♠ fit. Bidding again when unforced with N's junk is just asking for trouble and has little possible reward and good chances for loss at IMPs (perhaps ♠ split badly and get X'd)

 

4) How on earth can N expect to make 3NTx with a max of 22 HCP and considering the X at best a shaky stop ?

 

North has to realize that he's taken an extra call(3♠ is awful here) with his garbage and that PD has missunderstood that he has more and take the bull by the horns and RUN.

 

South on her part doesn't have ♣ stopped. She's heard N bid again after her preference to 3♦ but she's failed to realize that N could be 4432 and simply playing the known 44 fit and that 2♥ was not showing anything more than a min when she bid 3NT. Now South has to run and if unsure where to run to, just bid 4♣ so PD can pick a pointed suit.

 

Blame 80% North 20% South

[mike777]

<!-- PARTNERSNS begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> All </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A632 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Q864 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K853 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KT85 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> J97 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AJ94 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> J5 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- PARTNERSNS end -->

 

West  North East  South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 Pass  1♦    2♣    Dbl

 Pass  2♥    Pass  3♦

 Pass  3♠    Pass  3NT

 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

 

Who gets the blame?

 

Agree 100% with first pass by south.

Agree 100% with 1d.

I think x is debatable, I might bid 2d. IMPs and we got an 8 card fit. Of course I think a free raise of 2d vul over a third seat opener shows values. No deduction if you prefer x to try and find a close spade game at imps.

Agree 100% with 2h

Now I pass with south hand.

[hanp]

I disagree with a lot that is written in this thread.

 

I also don't like the 1D opening. Having said that, I've opened far worse hands than this, and there are definitely plusses to opening this hand. I wouldn't encourage B/I players to do so though.

 

The negative double is not just "reasonable", it is automatic. Anything but double is very unreasonable.

 

2H is also the right bid imo, as is 3D.

 

Now 3S has received a lot of critique. I think there would be no or very little critique if it was passed out. There isn't much upside to bidding 3S but there also isn't much downside, unless...

 

Partner bids 3NT, enough said about that call.

[1eyedjack]

The negative double is not just "reasonable", it is automatic. Anything but double is very unreasonable.

Spare us the hyperbole. Not much bad is going to happen if you choose either option. So one may be better than the other, but not by so great a margin that the other is rendered "very unreasonable". It is more a partnership style issue than one of merit. Obviously if you bid 2D on a hand which partner expects a double, or for that matter double on a hand which partner expects 2D, then you will reduce the accuracy of the auctions, but whichever style you agree within the partnership to adopt on this hand you will do OK by sticking to it. In fact 2D is so not "very unreasonable" that in this case I do not expect a disaster if you bid 2D even having agreed on the alternative style.

[jdonn]

The negative double is not just "reasonable", it is automatic. Anything but double is very unreasonable.

Spare us the hyperbole. Not much bad is going to happen if you choose either option. So one may be better than the other, but not by so great a margin that the other is rendered "very unreasonable". It is more a partnership style issue than one of merit. Obviously if you bid 2D on a hand which partner expects a double, or for that matter double on a hand which partner expects 2D, then you will reduce the accuracy of the auctions, but whichever style you agree within the partnership to adopt on this hand you will do OK by sticking to it. In fact 2D is so not "very unreasonable" that in this case I do not expect a disaster if you bid 2D even having agreed on the alternative style.

Why is that hyperbole? What does partnership style have to do with it if you bid 2♦ and the next player bids 3♣ and you lose a spade fit, whereas having doubled you could comfortably balance with 3♦? I happen to agree with han that 2♦ is very much inferior to double. Just because you happen to disagree does not make 2♦ a particularly reasonable bid.

 

Anyway we could argue all day about the particular merits in this case, but I totally dispute your point that it's a matter of style more than merit when comparing these two calls. You can easily weigh the merits. It would be as though you were arguing the 'style' of opening 1♦ on Kxx Axx KQJx Kxx even though you play strong notrumps. Having partner on the same page won't create a rebid for you or give you any method to consistently reach the proper level. Having an agreement about style is all well and good, but you can agree to play a bad style too!

[mike777]

As a nonexpert this thread has raised a very interesting point for me.

 

On this deal, if I double and the next player bids 3c I would not have a comfortable balance to 3d. Just to present what my thinking as a nonexpert would be; I would think I should not bid 3 over 3 when I have no reason to think we have 9 diamonds or a double fit.

 

I hope the true experts will post more on this issue.

[hotShot]

After opps interference "inverted minors" should be off. South is a passed hand, but close to a maximum. The hand is to strong for a single raise to 2♦ in this situation. Raising ♦ South would deny the possession of a 4 card major.

 

So dbl is by far the better description of the South hand than 2♦.

 

South does not know yet, that North opening was very weak, so he should bid normally.

[Fluffy]

If the auction is competitive it is often better to bid 2♠ first and later 3♥.

 

Bidding 2♥ will find us a bit clueless when the bidding goes 3♣-pass-pass

[hanp]

The negative double is not just "reasonable", it is automatic. Anything but double is very unreasonable.

Spare us the hyperbole. Not much bad is going to happen if you choose either option. So one may be better than the other, but not by so great a margin that the other is rendered "very unreasonable". It is more a partnership style issue than one of merit. Obviously if you bid 2D on a hand which partner expects a double, or for that matter double on a hand which partner expects 2D, then you will reduce the accuracy of the auctions, but whichever style you agree within the partnership to adopt on this hand you will do OK by sticking to it. In fact 2D is so not "very unreasonable" that in this case I do not expect a disaster if you bid 2D even having agreed on the alternative style.

When I wrote my post I was reacting to echognome who said double was "reasonable". I must not have read all the comments and wasn't aware that anybody was in favor of an alternative to double. If I had read that I would have used different words.

 

I think bidding 2D makes it reasonably likely that you miss a good 4S contract. vulnerable at IMPs I think that counts as a disaster.

 

I notice mike777 writes about the possibility that double reaches a close 4S game. Of course partner could have all sorts of hands and by bidding 2D you risk missing very good spade games.

 

I think that many of the posters who reacted to this thread let the final outcome influence what they think about earlier bids. There really wasn't that much wrong with the auction until South bid 3NT, (though opening 1D on this hand was very aggressive). 3S would have been a reasonable spot to rest.

[1eyedjack]

I must not have read all the comments and wasn't aware that anybody was in favor of an alternative to double. If I had read that I would have used different words.

I have not noticed anyone expressing a preference for 2D. It certainly wasn't me, although I did express an opinion that I do not think it an unreasonable choice.

 

On numerous occasions in the past I have lived to regret not giving immediate support to partner when holding it.

 

There is a possibility that you will miss a good 4S contract. I agree with that, and if it happens vul at IMPs then I agree that counts as a disaster. Whether it is a reasonably likely outcome is a point on which we may differ. When I made my post on the matter I was of the opinion that it was not "reasonably likely".

 

Some players may conclude that it is reasonably likely to miss game because partner holding 4 card Spades and values for game may conclude that it is not possible to have a Spade fit when partner chooses 2D in preference to double. This is what I meant when I mentioned that it is a style issue, to which jdonn to such exception. Obviously, if 2D raise may conceal 4S then it is important that partner realises that fact and investigates the possibility when appropriate. It would require further competitve bidding to freeze you out of that investigation, but then further competitive bidding may cause you to regret concealing the Diamond fit on those hands when you are not making 4S.

 

Whether the likelihood of missing 4S, however low, outweighs the possible complications inherent in withholding the Diamond support on those occasions when you do not have 4S game on, I don't have a strong opinion. I am pretty confident that on those occasions that 4S is not on, those who bid 2D will gain over the doublers, and it is just a question of by how much and how frequently.

 

At the table I would have doubled along with everyone else, confident that at least I would have some support in the postmortem when it doesn't work. But if teammates bid 2D and missed 4S due to opposition preemption I think I would have held back on the barbed remarks. I have seen (and made) a lot of worse judgement decisions.

[neilkaz]

1eyedjack has a good thoughtful post here. But I still think it is very clear to try to bring ♠ into the picture with a negX since a ♠ game could be missed after 2♦ and responder is prepared to return to 3♦ after 2♥. (Whether she should just pass 2♥ is another matter and I have no strong feelings but would have also gone to 3♦)

 

Once again, I think opener's 3♠ is just asking for trouble with a very poor hand.

Quite a few people don't even want to open that trash in 3rd seat. Opener should be very happy at IMPs to leave things in 3♦ where there is at least a 4-4 fit rather than to possibly confuse the issue with 3♠ and perhaps walk into a penalty X in spite of being 4-4 if they split badly.

 

Once again, opener has to realize that PD has missunderstood the 3♠ call and run from 3NTx which simply has to be hopeless with a max of a combined 22 hcp and likely less.

[gwnn]

I was more strongly disagreeing with gwynn's "strong disagreement", implying that 2H is much better than 2S, than trying to claim that 2S is a lot better than 2H. I also think not much difference on most hand, but think in long run when opener has a real hand that it is slightly better to bid 2s first.

Fair enough. My "strongly" was probably uncalled for and we can agree to disagree.

 

ps: my nickname is gwnn

[mike777]

BTW I wanted to give JB a big thank you. This is an excellent post with many issues that I learned from. Thank you to JB and to all of you who took time to post.

I learn from all of them.

[skjaeran]

With my previous partner I played transfers here. I know it's not a B/I subject, but anyway.

 

A negative double showed at least two places to play.

Thus with the OP hand we doubled, and over 2♥ we could bid 2♠, showing 4-card spades and ♦ support. And play in 2♠.

 

The rest of the structure:

2♦= trf ♥

2♥ = trf ♠

2♠ = trf NT, inv+ with club stopper

2NT = constructive ♦ raise, non-inv

3♣ = inv+ ♦ raise

3x = pre