Double and Bid -- the I/A version

[wyman]

So in N/B, there was discussion of this auction:

 

1C (2H) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

 

and I didn't think that xx/xxx/KQxxxxx/x really needed to act here, so I thought 3D was forcing. It seems in the thread, people think that we're showing a constructive/competitive 6-4. [i think we're showing a forcing 6-4 or so]

 

On the other hand, the auction

1D (1S) X (P)

2C (P) 2H

 

I think is showing basically a WJS in hearts.

 

The difference, so I thought, was that we don't need to bid weak hands over preempts.

 

So, let's talk dbl and bid by responder. Thoughts?

[wank]

the difference is the first double implies spades so if you have a weak hand with diamonds you will be disappointed when your next call is over partner's 4♠ bid.

 

in the second case you're implying hearts. if you have a weak hand with hearts you will not be upset if partner jumps to 4♥, 3NT or the like.

[jillybean]

in the second case you're implying hearts. if you have a weak hand with hearts you will not be upset if partner jumps to 4♥, 3NT or the like.

Something isn't right, partner has made a nf 2♣ bid and now finds game over my weak ♥ bid?

[wyman]

So with a forcing 6-4, are we supposed to bid 3D? And if so, should opener rebid spades or NT with 4=AJx=1=5? 4=AJx=2=4? If NT, this could lead to some very silly 3N contracts, missing 4S. If spades, this could lead to missing some great 3N contracts.

[wyman]

Something isn't right, partner has made a nf 2♣ bid and now finds game over my weak ♥ bid?

 

His point is that with a weak bid in H, you wouldnt be so upset to hear

 

1D (1S) X (P)

4H

 

but with a weak bid in D, you'd be upset to hear

1C (2H) X (P)

4S

[BunnyGo]

So with a forcing 6-4, are we supposed to bid 3D? And if so, should opener rebid spades or NT with 4=AJx=1=5? 4=AJx=2=4? If NT, this could lead to some very silly 3N contracts, missing 4S. If spades, this could lead to missing some great 3N contracts.

 

Do you think it's different if it's:

 

1♣-(1♥)-X-(P)

2♣-(P)-2♦?

 

I agree with the idea that X has to promise spades here, but I don't see why it has to promise strength on a ♦ rebid.

[wyman]

Do you think it's different if it's:

 

1♣-(1♥)-X-(P)

2♣-(P)-2♦?

 

I agree with the idea that X has to promise spades here, but I don't see why it has to promise strength on a ♦ rebid.

 

Yesterday I would have said "2D is weak; with a strong hand, you can bid 2-forcing-diamonds, with room to discover a 4-4 spade fit and still sort out whether you can play 3N."

 

Today, I'll say "2D is non-forcing constructive, since we had 2-forcing-diamonds available with room to discover a 4-4 spade fit and still sort out whether we can play 3N, and we should have been able to tolerate a 3- or 4-spade bid by partner."

 

But I think after 1C (2H), things are different, and we don't have the luxury of distinguishing between all these hand types. Better to allow us to more easily decide on strain with game forcing hands than to compete to the right partscore.

[bluecalm]

I think you always have to double with 4 in OM. Maybe some exceptions could be made with spades on some specific auctions but that would require a lot of work. Usually if it goes:

 

1C - 1S - ? and you hold some 5m-4H hand you need to double now regardless of strength as preempt will make your position very uncomfortable after natural 2m bid.

 

From that follows that double contains weak hand with 4M-6+minor. Unless you are content with passing those which I am not the cheap bid in a minor should show such hand.

 

Now in auctions when our choices are either to leave partner in his suit or bid it might be debatable but in auctions where our choice is to leave them playing their contract or bid it's 100% non-forcing. For example:

 

1m - 1S - d - 2S

p - p - 3om = competitive, probably 6om-4H and weak hand.

 

On the other hand, the auction

1D (1S) X (P)

2C (P) 2H

 

Sadly my experience here is 0 as everybody in Poland (and I mean everybody...) play direct 2H as negative free bid so this sequence shows 11+ and is one round force.

That obviously doesn't apply to standard but I guess standard players don't pass with say xxx KQTxx Kx xx so this sequence should show this hand.

[jillybean]

I'm confused.

 

1C (2H) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

 

We will never miss a 4-4 spade fit, if opener has 4S she will bid them after the X.

[wyman]

I'm confused.

 

1C (2H) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

 

We will never miss a 4-4 spade fit, if opener has 4S she will bid them after the X.

 

If 3D in the quoted auction is nonforcing, then I need to bid 3D over (2H) with a hand like KQxx / xx / AKxxxx / x [H1]

But I also need to bid 3D (over (2H)) with Kxx / xx / AQJxxx(x) / Q(x) [H2]

 

So is opener, holding, say, Axxx / AJx / x(x) / KJxx(x) supposed to rebid 3S or 3N over a direct 3D? If opener is supposed to bid 3S, we have a hard time sorting out whether or not there's a heart stopper; certainly responder with H2 can't bid it. If opener is supposed to bid 3N over (a direct) 3D by responder, then when responder has H1, we're missing our spade game for a likely tenuous 3N.

 

That's why I think that X+3D should be forcing.

[gnasher]

For the sequences where we open a minor, they overcall in a major, responder doubles, opener bids something, and responder bids the other minor, I think that:

- If it's a jump, it's game-forcing

- If it's at the four level, it's game-forcing

- If opener showed extras, it's game-forcing

- If opener rebid 1NT or 2NT (without jumping), it's to play (unless it's Checkback).

- If opener bid 1C then 2C, 2D is constructive-to-invitational. 3D, being a jump, is game-forcing.

 

That leaves

  1D (1M) dbl; 2D-3C   and   1C (2M) dbl; 3C-3D

These sound game-forcing to me.

 

The ones where you double and then bid your major are easier, because you just have to think about what it would have meant if you'd bid the suit directly, then pick the most obvious hand-type that wouldn't do that:

- If you double a 1♠ or 2♠ overcall and then bid hearts, it's non-forcing and usually shows six.

- If you double a 2♥ overcall and then bid 3♠, that's non-forcing with six.

- If you double a 1♥ overcall and then bid 2♠, it means something clever.

- If you double a 3M overcall and then bid four of the other major, that's a flexible hand.

Edited March 27, 2012 by gnasher

[jillybean]

So is opener, holding, say, Axxx / AJx / x(x) / KJxx(x) supposed to rebid 3S or 3N over a direct 3D? If opener is supposed to bid 3S, we have a hard time sorting out whether or not there's a heart stopper; certainly responder with H2 can't bid it.

I would bid 3N for exactly that reason.

 

If opener is supposed to bid 3N over (a direct) 3D by responder, then when responder has H1, we're missing our spade game for a likely tenuous 3N.

Responder may be able to bid 4♠/3N to show choice of game, with a more balanced 4x5x hand we would play 3N which may not be the best spot but but nothing is perfect.

[wyman]

I would bid 3N for exactly that reason.

 

 

Responder may be able to bid 4♠/3N to show choice of game, with a more balanced 4x5x hand we would play 3N but nothing

is perfect.

 

4S/3N definitely shows > 4 spades.

 

And nothing is perfect, true, but I fail to see why catering to the constructive hand after righty preempts is better than catering to a flexible game force.

[jillybean]

That leaves

  1D (1M) dbl; 2D-3C   and   1C (2M) dbl; 3C-3D

These sound game-forcing to me.

 

Is this

1D (1M) X (P)

2D (P) 3C

 

and

 

1C (2M) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

 

and if so, what is

 

1D (1M) 2C and

 

1C (2M) 3D?

[jillybean]

4S/3N definitely shows > 4 spades.

 

And nothing is perfect, true, but I fail to see why catering to the constructive hand after righty preempts is better than catering to a flexible game force.

Because I hate to sell out to 2x when I can make a competitive bid. :)

[wyman]

Because I hate to sell out to 2x when I can make a competitive bid. :)

 

That's what partner's for! :)

 

And if partner has too many hearts to reopen, my constructive hand will be useful on defense.

[gnasher]

Is this

1D (1M) X (P)

2D (P) 3C

 

and

 

1C (2M) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

yes, that's what I meant.

 

and if so, what is

 

1D (1M) 2C and

 

1C (2M) 3D?

They're natural and forcing. If you play as I suggest, they will usually deny tend not to have four of the other major (Edit: though I'd usually still respond in my minor with a 6-4). That makes life easier when it goes, for example:

1

♦

(1

♠

) 2

♣

(3

♠

)

or

1

♦

(2

♥

) 3

♣

(4

♥

)

Edited March 28, 2012 by gnasher

[Zelandakh]

So in N/B, there was discussion of this auction:

 

1C (2H) X (P)

3C (P) 3D

 

and I didn't think that xx/xxx/KQxxxxx/x really needed to act here, so I thought 3D was forcing. It seems in the thread, people think that we're showing a constructive/competitive 6-4. [i think we're showing a forcing 6-4 or so]

I think you missed a third option, that this sequence is non-forcing but invitational (and able to handle partner jumping in spades). That this would be rare suggests that we might consider using 1♣ - (2♥) - 3♦ as an invitatiional hand and passing the game-forcing hand with diamonds through double. For that matter it seems that transfers would help here too.

 

 

On the other hand, the auction

1D (1S) X (P)

2C (P) 2H

 

I think is showing basically a WJS in hearts.

This one is absolutely clear and a part of the negative double convention. If you play NFBs then this is the forcing heart sequence instead.

 

 

The difference, so I thought, was that we don't need to bid weak hands over preempts.

 

So, let's talk dbl and bid by responder. Thoughts?

The difference is less about them preempting and more that there is a lack of space in the first auction. In the second auction we can afford 2♥ to cover invitational as well as GF hands. In the first we are too high for this and a 3 bid has to be game-forcing. That leaves a big range of other hands unaccounted for. I agree that we can (to some extent at least) ignore the weak ones but there are still alot of other hands where we would like to act but cannot promise game. It would be good to use some of the "duplicated" sequences to handle these hands. The main question for me is then the theoretical one of how to achieve that end without it impacting on our normal constructive bidding.

[jillybean]

yes, that's what I meant.

 

 

They're natural and forcing. If you play as I suggest, they will usually deny tend not to have four of the other major (Edit: though I'd usually still respond in my minor with a 6-4). That makes life easier when it goes, for example:

1

♦

(1

♠

) 2

♣

(3

♠

)

or

1

♦

(2

♥

) 3

♣

(4

♥

)

 

Thanks. I need to do some more thinking on this, I am not understanding the difference between starting with a negative

vs. bidding your minor with a 6-4 minor gf hand.

[mattias]

If 3D in the quoted auction is nonforcing, then I need to bid 3D over (2H) with a hand like KQxx / xx / AKxxxx / x [H1]

But I also need to bid 3D (over (2H)) with Kxx / xx / AQJxxx(x) / Q(x) [H2]

 

So is opener, holding, say, Axxx / AJx / x(x) / KJxx(x) supposed to rebid 3S or 3N over a direct 3D? If opener is supposed to bid 3S, we have a hard time sorting out whether or not there's a heart stopper; certainly responder with H2 can't bid it. If opener is supposed to bid 3N over (a direct) 3D by responder, then when responder has H1, we're missing our spade game for a likely tenuous 3N.

 

That's why I think that X+3D should be forcing.

 

This is easy to get around. Ask for stoppers and show majors up the line. Opener bids 3S which shows a heart stopper and four spades. Without a heart stopper she would bid 3H which denies a heart stopper and might hold four spades. Responder can now bid 3S with four spades to check for a spade suit, over which opener bids 3NT without four spades. Sometimes the hand gets played from the wrong side, but you can always bid 3N with a positional heart stopper.