Advancing Partner's Double

[MarkDean]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sj9642ha6d82cat83]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 1♣ in second seat and partner doubles.

 

First time playing with this partner, so you are not sure his doubling style.

[matmat]

initially thought 2♠... after a brief chat wit MD... maybe a little more :/

 

i hate this game.

[jdonn]

I think it's a maximum 2♠ bid, that is adequate.

[whereagles]

By FTL lore, placing pard with a 4441, we have a short suit total of -1, meaning game is on with 17-19 working points. We got 8 of those (the spade jack is probably as good as a small one) and pard should have at least as many.

 

Adding all up, this calls for a 4♠ bid opposite the 4441. Since pard's more likely to have, say, a 4432 or even just 3 spades, 3♠ seems just about par.

[gwnn]

normal 2♠ bid. I play 3♠ as 6 spades with some points in the suits and out, I thought that was normal?

[jdonn]

I bet if pard is 4441 he won't pass! And if he does, his hand is not comprised entirely of working points.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sj9642ha6d82cat83]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 1♣ in second seat and partner doubles.

 

First time playing with this partner, so you are not sure his doubling style.

I am inclined to bid whatever shows a limit raise in ♠ for me that would be 3♠

[kenrexford]

If I had to make a one-bid decision, I'd bid 4♠, which is likely the right contract.

 

Deciding what to do with a random partner is tough. Better to know his style and his knowledge of mine.

[nigel_k]

Just enough to bid 3♠ for me.

[jdonn]

Since when is 3♠ a stronger invitation than 2♠? It shows a different type of hand...

[bluecalm]

Standard 2♠ for me.

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sj9642ha6d82cat83]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 1♣ in second seat and partner doubles.

 

First time playing with this partner, so you are not sure his doubling style.

2s

 

no problem yet

[the hog]

2S. I also agree with Josh's comment that a 3S bid shows a different hand type - a 6th spade to start off with and not in conjunction with the 2 bullets, of course.

[Siegmund]

Simple straightforward 2♠.

 

Apparently my partners make more subminimum takeout doubles than your partners do, if you think this is the top of the range of 2♠ hands... I'd call it more the middle of the 2♠ range, and a full trick shy of insisting on game.

[mich-b]

We play that 3♠ is stronger than 2♠ , about 9-10 hcp with a 5 card suit.

NF , but highly encouraging. Partner is expected to raise any time he has 4 card support.

Often that 5th ♠ is very important to a doubler who has some moderate extras , but only 3 card ♠ support, and is worried about going on after a 2♠ response.

[mike777]

3s=5 spades and 9 hcp...

 

 

 

ok I did not know that.

[gnasher]

I think 3♠ is like a 2♠ bid but better.

 

Lawrence doesn't mention the sequence, so far as I can see. Crowhurst (in 1973) noted that traditionally it was a weak one-suiter, but recommended playing it as a stronger version of 2♠. Who else might have written about this sort of sequence?

[gwnn]

everyone thought I was insane when I suggested a simple jump to 2M should somehow show 5 cards. looks like because everyone always jumps to 3M? (plz don't take my post seriously, especially the everyone).

[Fluffy]

the french style we adopted is that 2♠ i sexactly 4 cards and 8-11 and 3♠ is 5 cards 8-11

[gwnn]

well I just don't see why do I need to force to the 3 level if I have 5 cards and a decent hand. Partner's spade expectancy is closer to 3 than 4 if we have 5 cards (unless partner doesn't like to double very often) so it's against the law.

 

/* here could come a section where I show a hand with Kxx of spades and opps can't make anything on even the 2 level and 3♠ goes 2 off, preferably doubled. then someone would reply with a 3451 13 count and we just missed a grand slam and we are playing on the 2 level, but then I would say yes but partner could easily have a 3433 12 count with xxx of clubs so why don't we cater to that instead and then people would reply that doubling with that is insane and I would say that yes but look at this example hand where we just lost a double game swing because our failure to x. then we'd agree that the frequency is the most important but nobody would agree on which is more frequent. so I will not open this section */

[hanp]

I would bid 2S. Somehow partner never has the 4441 shape I am hoping for.

[Codo]

I guess we have this discussion frequently and it is as fruitless as always.

 

Fi you play a style where 3 Spade shows 5 spades 8-11 (common in continental europe) you have no problem. (Frencvh style, I play this too, great stuff, but I would hate to debate this again with GWYNN or JOSE or anybody else...)

 

If you have a style where 2 Spade shows normally 5 spades with 8-11 you have no problem.

 

If you play another system, choose whatever shows this handtype.

 

If you have no bid for this hand type, change your system- this is a frequent handtype, you should be able to handle it.

[pooltuna]

Since when is 3♠ a stronger invitation than 2♠? It shows a different type of hand...

some of us are still rooted in the stone age :)

[cherdanno]

I think 3♠ is like a 2♠ bid but better.

 

Lawrence doesn't mention the sequence, so far as I can see. Crowhurst (in 1973) noted that traditionally it was a weak one-suiter, but recommended playing it as a stronger version of 2♠. Who else might have written about this sort of sequence?

There was a thread ages ago where Justin called this bid "preemptive" and Frances "invitational", although I think it seemed they didn't agree all that much on which hands would bid it (Justin's preemptive hands where still ok to get raised opposite a min with 4 trumps and controls). Maybe Csaba can find it...

[whereagles]

Since when is 3♠ a stronger invitation than 2♠? It shows a different type of hand...

since I (and lots of europe teoreticians) have defined it as such

 

double jump = 5-7 and 6 cards OR 8-10 and 5 cards