Partner opens in a Major and they double

[Hanoi5]

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1♠ and RHO doubles. Holding:

 

♠QTx

♥Kxx

♦xx

♣Axxxx

 

What's your bid? How do you consider your hand?

 

You can play one-under, 2NT limit in spades or you could play 'system-on' (1NT forcing, bergen, jacoby, etc). Of course there might be other options but, what is considered standard and what do you think is better?

[Fluffy]

2♠ is clear IMO, but I never raise on junk on this situation (many other's do I think, for them 2♠ might be not enough and I understand it).

[jullman]

I would value this hand as a 1S-2S raise if there were no double. After the X of 1M I like to play transfer advances, with 2M-1 showing about 7-9 (a good 1S-2S raise) and 2M directly showing about 3-6. So, in my preferred methods, I bid 2H. Playing standard methods I don't think the double makes my hand especially better or worse so I'd bid 2S and hope partner doesn't give me too much room.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy, in discussing Hardy raises, suggested the system is on over a double. I'm not sure what Bergen says. Not sure there's a standard here, either.

 

I like Cappalletti. I'd bid 2♥ with this hand - a good raise to 2♠. With better intermediates, I'd upgrade to a limit raise, and probably bid 1NT (transfer to clubs) and then 3♠. Direct 2♠ would show a weaker raise than this hand.

[655321]

I also like to play 2♥ here as a good raise to 2♠.

 

When RHO doubles, it is very important to let partner know about a fit. But if 2♠ could be a junky 4 count or a nice 10 count the range is too wide. So having one bid to show a weak raise, and another to show a good raise is very useful.

[mike777]

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1♠ and RHO doubles. Holding:

 

♠QTx

♥Kxx

♦xx

♣Axxxx

 

What's your bid? How do you consider your hand?

 

You can play one-under, 2NT limit in spades or you could play 'system-on' (1NT forcing, bergen, jacoby, etc). Of course there might be other options but, what is considered standard and what do you think is better?

With no discussion I just bid 2s..otherwise Bergen style over x.

[Hanoi5]

So, playing forcing NT is normal here? I thought it was better to change your agreements and adapt to the 'special' situation.

[mike777]

I dont play drury with many partners if open bergen/crane style. The reason is partner will never(99.9) have a limit raise as a passed hand. So now I just keep full bergen on by past hand... If opp takeout x then BROMAD/bergen is on.

 

Of course if you open sound then Drury(rev) and BROMAD is a must.

[Hanoi5]

Partner was not a passed hand.

[mike777]

Partner was not a passed hand.

As I said then BROMAD and full bergen on.

 

IN this case for me....2h as a full "constructive raise"......

2s=less than const.

2h=const.

xx=3 piece lmt or better in support (xx does not promise support, you have to raise later)

[aguahombre]

Max Hardy, in discussing Hardy raises, suggested the system is on over a double. I'm not sure what Bergen says. Not sure there's a standard here, either.

 

I like Cappalletti. I'd bid 2♥ with this hand - a good raise to 2♠. With better intermediates, I'd upgrade to a limit raise, and probably bid 1NT (transfer to clubs) and then 3♠. Direct 2♠ would show a weaker raise than this hand.

cappelletti over major doubled also allows room for full splinters, mini splinters, balanced limits, balanced game, penalty, and long undersuits with or without points. I really like it.

[andy_h]

I play the reverse of transfer advances, where direct 2♠ here is a good raise and 2♥ is a junky raise.

[aguahombre]

I play the reverse of transfer advances, where direct 2♠ here is a good raise and 2♥ is a junky raise.

yeh, we thought about that and decided transfering with junk has a higher frequency of giving the opps two extra calls. less likely they have a useful double or 2S cue if advancer has a constructive raise.

[ochinko]

Isn't 1NT a standard strong raise to 2♠ after a double? It shows about 6-9 HCP? 2♠ is reserved for a preemptive raise.

 

What follows is not that standard: I play 2NT and 3NT as strong raises to 3♠ and 4♠ respectively. That way when I redouble with 10+ HCP, I deny having a fit. Actually every other bid except ♠ or NT denies a fit. Knowing right away whether you have a fit in the opening suit makes life much easier.

 

If you like that you can also try new suit from the responder as non-forcing. I find it very convenient.

[EricK]

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double. Opponents are in a forcing situation with probably fewer, and possibly much fewer, than half the points. LHO might be sitting there dreading having to dredge up a bid on his hand (eg a 4333 yarborough!) and by bidding we just let him off the hook.

 

It is almost certain that we are going to play this hand in some number of spades whatever we do now. If we play that pass followed by showing spade support when the bidding comes back to us shows this sort of hand (reasonable hand, spade support, some desire to defend if opponents bid on) we gain a few advantages over standard methods:

1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid

2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid

3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO

4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

[Codo]

we gain a few advantages over standard methods:

1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid

2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid

3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO

4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

This is nice, but does this compensate for the cases, where they found their fit on a lower level and especially for the cases where we need to enter the auction after

1♠ (X) pass (2♦)

pass (3♦)?

[ochinko]

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double.

The single most important thing in the competitive bidding is to show the fit when you have one.

 

On the other hand I agree with you that opps being in a forcing situation means that you're not always obliged to bid over the double. That's what I do - all the hands that would bid 1NT with passing opps, but have neither a fit, nor a good five cards suit I feel quite comfortable to pass, and wait to see how things are going to develop.

 

But when it goes, for example:

 

1♠ - (Dbl) - Redbl - (4♥)

Pass - (Pass) - ?

 

you feel really uncomfortable not knowing whether you should now show your fit, or double. And it gets even worse when your suit is ♥, and opps have the spades.

 

Even in the part score you don't have to be follower of the Law to know that you compete with lengths, not with strength. When all you have is strength you should either pass or double.

[helene_t]

So, playing forcing NT is normal here? I thought it was better to change your agreements and adapt to the 'special' situation.

It is not common to play forcing 1NT here (in another thread I learned to be careful with saying the "nobody" plays forcing 1NT :) )

 

Without aggreements I would just bid 2♠ here which can't be very wrong. I think it used to be standard to rdbl with this hand since 2♠ would have a slightly lower range than without the double, but as Ochinko explains that is a bad strategy.

 

Best to make some agreement with pd about how to differentiate a good raise from a bad one. Without such an agreement I would just support with support.

 

I think the most widespread agreement is to play freebids at the 2-level as (7)8-11 points and redouble with GF hands without a fit, and that is what I would assume without discussion unless playing with a beginner who would probably assume that we ignore the dbl. But there is hardly a single standard here.

[bid_em_up]

It is not common to play forcing 1NT here ....

If by "here", you meant where you are located geographically, you may be right.

 

If you meant "in this auction when holding what is a normal spade raise", we can probably agree.

 

But if you meant "in this auction when holding a normal 1N forcing hand type", then again, you may find it's more common than you think.

 

:lol:

[aguahombre]

(in another thread I learned to be careful with saying the "nobody" plays forcing 1NT :) )

 

:rolleyes: peace!!

[pooltuna]

Support with support if 2NT is a ♠LR that is the bid

[Echognome]

Clear 2♥ to me the way you have agreed it (and also the way I like to play it as well).

[mikeh]

'standard' methods are not even close to universal, as this thread shows. But my understanding of standard in a 2/1 context is that one either bids 2♠ as a wide-range single raise, with no constructive overtones, or one decides, a la pooltuna, that this is a limit raise. I tend to be conservative in my limit raises, so would prefer a single raise.

 

Fortunately, I wouldn't have that problem because, like most here, I have science available. My preferred method, which I don't get to play all the time, is xx=a 1N bid, 1N and up are transfers, with 2♥ being a semi-constructive or better single raise... which seems to me to fit this hand well.

[EricK]

we gain a few advantages over standard methods:

1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid

2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid

3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO

4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

This is nice, but does this compensate for the cases, where they found their fit on a lower level and especially for the cases where we need to enter the auction after

1♠ (X) pass (2♦)

pass (3♦)?

It does when we are strong because:

1. Normally the opps are too weak to raise to the 3 level. It's all very well saying they will bid there pre-emptively because of their fit and "the law", but it doesn't seem to happen in practice. Probably because LHO can't trust RHO's double to contain 4 of every suit, and RHO can't trust LHO's forced bid to be genuine.

 

2. Even in the rare cases where we have to enter at the 3 level, we are probably only worse off if:

a. We go down and

b. The opps would have let us play at the 2 level had we bid an immediate 2♠ and

c. We would have freely chosen to play at the 2 level had we bid immediately

[barryallen]

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double. Opponents are in a forcing situation with probably fewer, and possibly much fewer, than half the points. LHO might be sitting there dreading having to dredge up a bid on his hand (eg a 4333 yarborough!) and by bidding we just let him off the hook.

 

It is almost certain that we are going to play this hand in some number of spades whatever we do now. If we play that pass followed by showing spade support when the bidding comes back to us shows this sort of hand (reasonable hand, spade support, some desire to defend if opponents bid on) we gain a few advantages over standard methods:

1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid

2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid

3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO

4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed.

 

As for reversing the 2♥/2♠ meaning I am struggling with the logic in this situation. Surely better to put the natural block in immediately when the opposition may be unsure of their combined strength?