a telling auction

[jillybean]

You hold AKJT2, KT3, void, T9743 and open 1♠ in second seat. (IMP NV)

 

(P) 1♠ (2♣) X

(3♣) P (P) 3♥

(P) ?

 

Experts, please hold off on your answers until some B/I's have had a chance to respond.

[Antrax]

Why didn't I double on my second round?

[jillybean]

Why didn't I double on my second round?

Why would you?

[Antrax]

Depends on what it would mean, obviously, but:

a) doesn't support double apply here?

b) if no support, won't it be for penalty?

My thinking is we already showed "our" suit so it's unlikely double is takeout of clubs, and we do have an interest in penalizing clubs, no?

[SimonFa]

You hold AKJT2, KT3, void, T9743 and open 1♠ in second seat. (IMP NV)

 

(P) 1♠ (2♣) X

(3♣) P (P) 3♥

(P) ?

 

Experts, please hold off on your answers until some B/I's have had a chance to respond.

 

 

Lessee, partner doesn't like my spades and its hard to see him having any clubs. He's used a neg dbl at the two level so has 8/9HCP+. Lets give him two spades and his choice of hearts makes it look like he's 6/5 in the reds.

 

I'm going 4♥with an aim to make it on cross ruffs.

[mgoetze]

Depends on what it would mean, obviously, but:

a) doesn't support double apply here?

b) if no support, won't it be for penalty?

 

No, and no. This would be a responsive double showing something like 5341 shape.

[Antrax]

Thanks. Why can't you bid 3♦ here? Would it necessarily show 5?

[gwnn]

Thanks. Why can't you bid 3♦ here? Would it necessarily show 5?

The problem is not that you can't bid 3♦, the problem is that double is much better. We're showing the nature of our hand better. We don't have a hand with spades and diamonds, we have a hand with spades, diamonds and an almost-fit for hearts.

[gwnn]

cf. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/33710-sanity-check/

[jillybean]

Partners hand was Q QJ98xx KT9xxx void, 4♥ the winning bid.

[Stephen Tu]

Depends on what it would mean, obviously, but:

a) doesn't support double apply here?

No. Support doubles apply when partner makes a *one bid* response that can be only 4 cds (e.g. 1♣-(p)-1♥-(some action), 1♣-(1♦)-1♥-(some action)), AND you have a 2 level raise available. Then the 2 level raise shows 4cds, the double shows 3. Some extend this to some auctions where partner has made a 1 bid showing 5 in competition, e.g. 1♣-(1♥)-1♠-(2♥)-x, on the theory that knowing 3 vs. 4 cd support will help partner evaluation in bidding 4♠ or competing to 3♠ over 3♥.

 

But one doesn't extend this to auctions where you don't have a 2-level raise available (opps have bid 2♠+ already), for two reasons:

(1) double is arguably necessary to show strong hands without guaranteeing 3 cd support (5242, 5233 shape)

(2) you are too high to auto-double on 3 cd support and minimum hands. If partner has only 4, his bailout is to 3M on a 4-3 fit, which is too high for comfort. 2M on a 4-3 isn't ideal but will survive way more often. If the double has extra values and the balance of the power, you have the extra possibilities of being able to pass for penalties, or bid a successful 3nt.

 

b) if no support, won't it be for penalty?

No. I don't think it's really as shape specific as mgoetze suggests, I think it includes strong 5332s and the like (17+ roughly?), basically double says "I have substantial extras, it's clearly our hand, but I don't have a 4 cd fit for the major your neg-double showed, nor is my suit good enough to rebid, nor is my club holding good enough to bid 3nt". Aka the "DSIP" "do something intelligent partner" double.

 

And besides it's not clear you want to penalty double here.

[Phil]

No. Support doubles apply when partner makes a *one bid* response that can be only 4 cds (e.g. 1♣-(p)-1♥-(some action), 1♣-(1♦)-1♥-(some action)), AND you have a 2 level raise available. Then the 2 level raise shows 4cds, the double shows 3.

 

Its SOP to play double after a negative double to show 3 cards in the other major too, i.e.,

 

1m - 1♥ - x - (2x)

dbl;

 

and

 

1m - 1♠ - x - 2♣/♦;

dbl.

[Stephen Tu]

Its SOP to play double after a negative double to show 3 cards in the other major too, i.e.,

 

1m - 1♥ - x - (2x)

dbl;

 

and

 

1m - 1♠ - x - 2♣/♦;

dbl.

 

Really? That's news to me. You are really doubling on all these routine 4333/2344 min wk nt hands?

 

It seems to me that you might want to just defend undoubled on a fair number of these hands, and it's better to just pass than give partner an awkward guess of whether to pull it.

 

I thought that it was standard expert practice for these doubles by opener to show extras without clear direction, not as support. Has this changed?

 

These auctions are rather rare though, 4th hand usually raises or passes.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

No, and no. This would be a responsive double showing something like 5341 shape.

I hate to be a "nitpicker" but the last DBL in the following auction is NOT a Responsive DBL :

 

(P) 1♠ (2♣) X

(3♣) X = DSID ( "do something inteligent partner " ...as per Stephen Tu ) .

 

" A Responsive DBL is similar to a Negative DBL only the Opponents have BEGUN the auction. "

Here, WE have begun the auction.

 

Neg-DBLs are ONLY made by Responders.

Responsive DBLs are ONLY made by Advancers.

[quiddity]

Negative double with 1=6=6=0?

[mgoetze]

" A Responsive DBL is similar to a Negative DBL only the Opponents have BEGUN the auction. "

 

Nice quotation marks, but what source are you quoting? Here's a quotation with source:

 

"Responsive double: after partner's informatory double, an informatory double over an opponent's raise."

 

-- Bridge World's Bridge Glossary, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bridge_glossary&f=glossr.html

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

[1eyedjack]

It is important for any (regular) partnership to have an agreement on the meaning of doubles so that in ANY auction there is no scope for disagreement about whether a particular double is penalties or takeout.

In my opinion, among B/I players without such an agreement, in the long term the points chucked from misinterpreting the meaning of the double far outweigh the points chucked from making an ill-judged double without misunderstanding.

 

The possible auctions when a double might require interpretation under such a set of agreements are very varied. The more advanced the partnership, the more complex your agreement can be with a view to optimising the meaning across the varied possibilities. A B/I partnership might be advised to adopt a fairly simple set of rules at a possible cost of playing in certain situations a method which is not optimal. Even then, with sensible agreements, if not optimal in a specific case it will not be an outrageously stupid meaning (there will be a respectable minority of hands well suited to the adopted treatment), and the non-optimal uses can be relegated to fairly rare situations without an overly burdensome set of agreements.

 

There was quite a recent thread somewhere in these forums which attempted to explore as many of the possible situations as could be identified.

 

Anyway, I think it not unreasonable to have a basic rule, at least for a B/I partnership, that if you have not yet found a fit, but the opponents have actively supported a suit below 3N, then a double of that suit is treated as take-out, If you want to introduce higher priority exceptions, such as your being in a forcing auction (which would not apply in the OP hand) then so be it.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Nice quotation marks, but what source are you quoting? Here's a quotation with source:

 

"Responsive double: after partner's informatory double, an informatory double over an opponent's raise."

 

-- Bridge World's Bridge Glossary, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bridge_glossary&f=glossr.html

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

I'm sorry, but the Bridge World's written definition couldn't be more ambiguous.

Look at ANY reference examples and you see that an OPENER ( as in OP's post here ) NEVER makes a Responsive DBL.

 

You forgot to give BW's example: " one spade--double--two spades--double " = Responsive ( as per the Responsive DBL Convention ) .

 

As for my Quote, it is from Pamela and Matthew Granovetter's booklet -- Conventions at a Glance .

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Another common "sematic error " is calling Overcaller's T/O DBL a Neg-DBL .

Admittedly, a T/O DBL does have a "negative connotation" toward the opponent's suit, but is NOT a Negative DBL ( as per the Neg-DBL Convention ).

[mgoetze]

I'm sorry, but the Bridge World's written definition couldn't be more ambiguous.

 

Whatever. I think it is perfectly clear. Note that "informatory double" is also defined in the glossary.

 

You forgot to give BW's example: " one spade--double--two spades--double " = Responsive ( as per the Responsive DBL Convention ) .

 

I'm not sure why you think that would have helped. It was, after all, only a single example.

[han]

Negative double with 1=6=6=0?

 

The sensible post of this thread.