Double without the other major?

[gwnn]

My partner doubled yesterday with a 2-3-4-4 (12 hcp) after

 

1♥-p-1NT-?

 

I'm not here to get "poor gwnn, get a better partner" or something (part of the problem is I think also my poor defence against 1NT contracts). I know that conventional knowledge holds that unless you're inordinately strong, you should have at least 3 spades for the X and that advancer should always bid a 4-card major in preference to a 4-card minor.

 

But I'm curious on this alternative style. I'm convinced that my partner thinks it's a perfectly reasonable style to double on such hands and look for a 4-4 fit on the 2-level, like a scrambling bid. You accept the losses if partner is exactly 4-3-3-3 or something. I know from a past thread that responsive doubles such as

 

1♦-x-2♦-x

 

are played by some as promising two four-card suits, not necessarily both majors and also

 

2♥-x-3♥-x is played by some as two four-card suits, perhaps both minors, perhaps spades and a minor.

 

So what I'm asking is, what do you think of such a style where opponents have bid only one suit and you double for scrambling? What about if we are both passed hands so game is not an issue?

[aguahombre]

"But I'm curious on this alternative style. I'm convinced that my partner thinks it's a perfectly reasonable style to double on such hands and look for a 4-4 fit on the 2-level, like a scrambling bid"

 

Is this really a style? Or is it a judgement (lack of?) I don't know.

 

With a 2-3-4-4 12-count after (1H) P (1NT), is it likely to be our hand? If it is, will we be able to buy it? If it isn't, aren't we likely to get into trouble? If we have the majority of the HCP, partner has 3 hearts and they have seven or more spades. This seems like a good time to defend.

[zasanya]

If you value your partnership you should accept partner's suggestion.If I had such a partner I would tell him "I do not like the idea. I have been playing a double promises at least 3 cards in other suits and usually suggests 4 cards in the other major for so many years but I am willing to experiment in practice games." If the idea has merit it will yield reasonable results. If the results are bad I think I could convince my partner to drop it. Reminds me that my partner once told me that 1 NT overcall should be like a takeout double and show 3 cards in other 3 suits. He had downloaded some " overcall structure " from net. I agreed . The first time we used it we lost 1100 (NV ! ) . We decided to drop the idea . Ultimately whether the idea has merit or not will be decided by results.:D

[mikeh]

I think the style, if that is what it can be called, is crap.

 

As with so many other bidding 'ideas', it suffers from a complete lack of real world thinking.

 

In the real world, the 1♥ opener will often be bidding, and may bid either 2♦ or 2♥ or even 3♥...of course there are other bids he can make but these 3 possibilities will suffice to demonstrate my point.

 

Give partner some modest but not-broke hand with some spades....over a 2-level bid give him 4 spades.

 

Can we ever play a style in which he has to hold back on some 4=3=2=4 7 count over either 2♦ or 2♥? I don't want to. I want to compete for the 2♠ partscore, and I can't with your partner's style. Even if you could assign 2N by doubler as a scramble over 2♠....in essence, saying 'guess again, partner'....why would we have a 4-4 minor fit and why would we have 3 level safety if we did? Why couldn't the 2♠ bidder be 4=4 majors or hold 5 spades?

 

As for opener jumping to 3♥,if partner has some weak hand with 5 spades, too weak to have overcalled, I may well want him to bid 3♠ when I hold the prototypical double of 1N, which is a 'takeout double of 1♥' to virtually the entire bridge playing population of the world...and rightly so, imo.

 

People who advocate offbeat ideas often fail to think things through. They think of the situations in which their approach would gain over standard methods.....if, for example, the double barred opener from bidding, then, yes, being able to scramble into 2minor will, in partner's unrealistic dreamworld, occasionally win. Too bad the double doesn't work that way.

 

PS if you value your partnership, you will refuse to play this method, unless he can persuade you that his style is, in real life, better than standard.

[bluecalm]

Yep, this is even worse than puppet stayman or 3S as transfer to 3N...

Just joking... I think Mikeh nailed it :)

[nigel_k]

If the double always has two four card suits, and both opponents have bid so your side is less likely to have game, and any unbid major is one that partner has already failed to overcall at the one level, and partner knows to respond appropriately, then I still don't like it but it might be playable.

[neilkaz]

"My partner doubled yesterday with a 2-3-4-4 (12 hcp) after

1♥-p-1NT-?"

 

I know this isn't what you're partner is looking to hear but if a pickup did this, I'd be likely looking to leave the table soon. I actually think mikeh is being too kind when he calls this style "crap".

 

Your pard needs to realize that you've allready passed and that he even if 1NT isn't forcing may get a chance to balance next turn.

 

Just what happens when you passed with 4♠ and compete to 2♠ when PD doesn't has only 2 of them? Does he think you always have an 8 card minor fit and can always find it and be OK at the 3 level?

 

When the opps just bid to their normal contract anyhow, mow they know where many of the HCP are as well.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[benlessard]

After (1H)--P--(1NT) spades are just much more important than minors. There will be more 2S & 3S contracts than 3C/3D/4C/4D despite being one suit vs two.

[han]

Completely agree with what mikeh wrote.

[phil_20686]

I agree with the others, but wish to pick up another point:

 

I do not generally prioritise the majors in low level doubles, particularly when partner is passed. I just like to play in the best fit and do not expect partner to bypass a 5 card minor to bid a 4 card major, unless he is making a game invitation.

 

Obviously there is some tendency to bid the major first when game is in the picture, but I would not ever expect partner to bypass a better minor fit, or even bid the major when 44 and can scramble with 2N, when he is not making an invitation.

[gnasher]

One of the problems Mike describes might be overcome by more using the available bids a bit differently from in standard methods. After

1H pass 1NT dbl

2H

you could play:

Double = exactly four spades. It's possible that this should also guarantee a minor.

2

♠

= five spades, or perhaps four spades without a minor

2NT = both minors

With 44xx or 4333, you could either agree to double, or agree to bid 2♠. It's fairly safe to bid with those shapes, because responder has denied four spades and LHO is unlikely to have them. That, together with partner's likely shortage in hearts, makes it likely that he has at least three spades.

[the hog]

My partner doubled yesterday with a 2-3-4-4 (12 hcp) after

 

1♥-p-1NT-?

 

I'm not here to get "poor gwnn, get a better partner" or something (part of the problem is I think also my poor defence against 1NT contracts). I know that conventional knowledge holds that unless you're inordinately strong, you should have at least 3 spades for the X and that advancer should always bid a 4-card major in preference to a 4-card minor.

 

But I'm curious on this alternative style. I'm convinced that my partner thinks it's a perfectly reasonable style to double on such hands and look for a 4-4 fit on the 2-level, like a scrambling bid. You accept the losses if partner is exactly 4-3-3-3 or something. I know from a past thread that responsive doubles such as

 

1♦-x-2♦-x

 

are played by some as promising two four-card suits, not necessarily both majors and also

 

2♥-x-3♥-x is played by some as two four-card suits, perhaps both minors, perhaps spades and a minor.

 

So what I'm asking is, what do you think of such a style where opponents have bid only one suit and you double for scrambling? What about if we are both passed hands so game is not an issue?

 

It is not a "style". It is a lack of knowledge and understanding about bidding.

[jdeegan]

:P 50+ years ago some Italian Blue Team pairs were known for their offshape TO doubles. How they did it I don't know.

[the hog]

:P 50+ years ago some Italian Blue Team pairs were known for their offshape TO doubles. How they did it I don't know.

 

Firstly they would not produce a double in this sort of situation, as they were not beginners.

Secondly they used to bid their short suits after a double.