1H-(2NT)-?

[nigel_k]

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt753hqjdk5ck653&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h2n]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs. Expert partner and opps. Agreements are unusual vs unusual and double is penalty, but feel free to comment if you prefer something else.

 

There may be a follow up question depending on answers.

[dake50]

Start X. Poor spades to show; short hearts to raise; only 1 stop in each.

See what partner does/can do. He may have an easy suggestion.

I may be in a nightmare. Let's see.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt753hqjdk5ck653&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h2n]133|200|

 

IMPs. Expert partner and opps. Agreements are unusual vs unusual and double is penalty, but feel free to comment if you prefer something else.[/hv]

IMO Double = 10, Pass = 9, 3♥ = 6. 3♠ = 5, 3♣ = 4.

It looks like nigel_K plays Crowhurst: Double = some defence, 3♣ = ♠ usually with ♥ tolerance, 3♦ = Sound+ ♥ raise (But this hand isn't strong enough for 3m). 3♥/3♠/4♥ = natural, non-forcing, 4♣/♦ = Splinter. Don't know what 3N should mean -- perhaps a serious slam try in ♥.

[JLOGIC]

I'd just pass. Good hand to play X is like a negative X.

[benlessard]

I think not doubling is criminal, all the pts look well placed for us. I play that double doesnt setup a forcing pass but even if it did I would still double, planning to bid 3H over 3D and double 3C as penalty oriented.

[gnasher]

I'd just pass. Good hand to play X is like a negative X.

 

If you pass and then double 3♦, does that show this type of hand?

[PhilKing]

If you pass and then double 3♦, does that show this type of hand?

 

It does for me.

[gszes]

PASS

 

I am close but the rather huge downside of x now is what

to do over 3c p p. I have nowhere to go and a theoretically

unlimited hand for whatever I decide to do. IMO it is much

better to pass now and if the bidding goes 3c p p I can now

safely bid 3d which should show dia stop at max for a pass

and nowhere good to go. P cannot get too carried away

because our upside potential is severly limited

 

I can see the desire to x but I do not see the upside anything we

do after x (if p cannot make a move) can easily promise much

more than we have. In fact, any action we would take should be

game forcing. That's the major advatage of pass we can limit our

hand and p will expect around a K leas from us than when we x.

 

 

[dake50]

PASS

 

I am close but the rather huge downside of x now is what

to do over 3c p p. I have nowhere to go and a theoretically

unlimited hand for whatever I decide to do. IMO it is much

better to pass now and if the bidding goes 3c p p I can now

safely bid 3d which should show dia stop at max for a pass

and nowhere good to go. P cannot get too carried away

because our upside potential is severly limited

 

I can see the desire to x but I do not see the upside anything we

do after x (if p cannot make a move) can easily promise much

more than we have. In fact, any action we would take should be

game forcing. That's the major advatage of pass we can limit our

hand and p will expect around a K leas from us than when we x. -- gszes

 

*** Won't 3H now be just about this hand? Rather than an immediate 3H,

this must be flawed, expect QJ,Qx,Kx.

Even 3D over 3C shouldn't promise the world.

Do you wait for a good 12+ to double?

That leaves partner guessing always instead of you guessing

WHEN partner can't take a clear action.

[nigel_k]

Part Two:

 

I won't say what I did, but let's assume that whatever you choose, East bids 4♣ which is passed back to you.

[aguahombre]

Part Two:

 

I won't say what I did, but let's assume that whatever you choose, East bids 4♣ which is passed back to you.

Let's back up to the posters who would pass 2NT, and then double 3D with this hand. Would those same people pass and then double 3C, hoping it meant something different?

 

Anyway, I would want to double 4C and I hope "whatever I chose" before didn't alter the meaning of this double.

[MrAce]

If you pass and then double 3♦, does that show this type of hand?

 

 

I am interested to hear the answer to this question too.

 

Because i always thought passing a 2 suiter 2NT overcall by opps and then doubling their prefered suit later is pure penalty, while doubling and then doubling is flexible. I would like to know if this is something Justin plays different than others or it was me who was off with what i thought.(more likely)

[Zelandakh]

Funilly enough, I thought the default was the opposite - doubling then doubling penalty; passing then doubling take-out. That always seemed logical to me by analogy with the traditional redouble of a takeout double.

[Valardent]

Different treatments exist. Pbbly the original one was dbl and dbl penalty.

 

Another important thing to discuss is wheter the dbl is forcing on a preference bid from advancer (n°4) followed by 2 pass.

 

My own preference is to pass if I can penalize both suits of intervenor (n°2) and then dbl, a direct dbl not being autoforcing.

 

If I hv no fit for opener and can penalize only 1 of the suit showed by n°2, I start with dbl. If opener dbls n°4's bid, it's take out meaning he's ok to play this if n°3 has the penalty stuff.

 

If opener pass, it shows:

 

1) a hand too weak and/or too short to wish to play that contract dbled

2) a hand that wants to penalize the suit bid by n°4 (waiting for a reopening dbl)

 

So that on a pass by opener, dbl by responder is also take out showing 2-3 cards and more than a minimum 8-9 hcp

(With 5+ cards and 8-9+ hcp in the 4th suit, one should tend to bid it in a f or nf way unless, like in this thread, the quality is way below par)

 

Not perfect of course cos opps can escape a penalty on a misfit when n°1 & n°3 are relatively both minimum and bcs a strong opener (1 or 2 suited) not wanting to risk playing n°4's bid dbled is obliged to bid to prevent the auction from dying.

 

If n°2 shows only 1 suit + another unknown, this treatment doesn't work or should be amended.

[PhilKing]

Different treatments exist. Pbbly the original one was dbl and dbl penalty.

 

Another important thing to discuss is wheter the dbl is forcing on a preference bid from advancer (n°4) followed by 2 pass.

 

My own preference is to pass if I can penalize both suits of intervenor (n°2) and then dbl, a direct dbl not being autoforcing.

 

If I hv no fit for opener and can penalize only 1 of the suit showed by n°2, I start with dbl. If opener dbls n°4's bid, it's take out meaning he's ok to play this if n°3 has the penalty stuff.

 

If opener pass, it shows:

 

1) a hand too weak and/or too short to wish to play that contract dbled

2) a hand that wants to penalize the suit bid by n°4 (waiting for a reopening dbl)

 

So that on a pass by opener, dbl by responder is also take out showing 2-3 cards and more than a minimum 8-9 hcp

(With 5+ cards and 8-9+ hcp in the 4th suit, one should tend to bid it in a f or nf way unless, like in this thread, the quality is way below par)

 

Not perfect of course cos opps can escape a penalty on a misfit when n°1 & n°3 are relatively both minimum and bcs a strong opener (1 or 2 suited) not wanting to risk playing n°4's bid dbled is obliged to bid to prevent the auction from dying.

 

If n°2 shows only 1 suit + another unknown, this treatment doesn't work or should be amended.

 

I'm thinking of switching to something along these lines. So double would show length in at most one of their suits (and so almost by definition four cards in the unbid major, or a weak five), and about 9+ points - maybe a good 8. The next double from either side would be for take-out, with no forcing passes.

 

Pass then double would be straight penalties, as you say.

[Winstonm]

I think it is important in these types of auctions to consider partner's situation and make the most helpful bid you can. What if the auction proceeds 1H-2N-P-4D? What is partner to do with KQ, Kxxxxx, xx, Axx? For that matter, what will you do if partner passes back to you?

 

I think when you have a hand to compete, you should compete. Passing and doubling should be reserved for a much stronger penalty oriented hand. Doubling initially should be more like a negative double, and that is what you have.

 

I have convinced myself that an initial double is the ticket. I think that bid makes it much easier for partner to rebid hearts with a weakish 6-bagger.

[gnasher]

I'm thinking of switching to something along these lines. So double would show length in at most one of their suits (and so almost by definition four cards in the unbid major, or a weak five), and about 9+ points - maybe a good 8. The next double from either side would be for take-out, with no forcing passes.

 

Pass then double would be straight penalties, as you say.

I switched to that a year or two ago, and it made life a lot simpler. Over an overcall that shows one minor, everyone plays negative doubles; I don't understand why it should be different when they've shown both minors.

[cherdano]

I switched to that a year or two ago, and it made life a lot simpler. Over an overcall that shows one minor, everyone plays negative doubles; I don't understand why it should be different when they've shown both minors.

 

There is much less incentive to look for 4-4 fits when one opponent has shown 5-5 and has forced his side to the 3-level. Your trump fit is likely breaking badly, and besides 3NT you also have the option to double them in 3m.

[nigel_k]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq82ha97632dqt4c&w=s96h4daj973cajt87&n=sjt753hqjdk5ck653&e=sa4hkt85d862cq942]399|300[/hv]

 

The full hand. We ended in 4♥ after some poor choices in the bidding and probably poor methods as well. Some good suggestions in this thread. Thanks for the feedback.