Our turn to bid again

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj542ha85da43cj52&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp1s2hpp]133|200[/hv]

 

2/1 with support doubles, IMPS

[mikeh]

It's unfashionable to pass here: I suspect double would be more popular.

 

Part of this is method-dependent. As an example, I wouldn't double automatically as N with any hand containing 3 card support: I would pass with a piece of crap: Kxx Jxx KQxx Kxx: I'd see no reason to double here, since I'd expect partner to be able to reopen if the hand belonged to us.

 

Accordingly, I have to cater to partner bidding 2♠ on a small subset of possible hands, and one can readily see that playing 2♠ will often be less than optimal when vulnerable.

 

In addition, I like to play some form of good/bad or bad/good 2N here by opener, which refines the hand types for which I have to cater, since partner could show me a decent but not strong minor one or two suiter.

 

All of this increases the odds that we have no playable resting spot.

 

Of course, I am missing the occasional penalty and the even less frequent game (the latter partly because even if game makes, I don't know how to get there without gross overbidding).

 

The reality is, probably, that I'm just revealing my true conservative (at the table) nature :D

[Winstonm]

Double, wtp?

 

If partner pulls our reopening double to 2S, is that really all that bad? And if we play support doubles, how can we penalize opps when partner is 1444 or 2443 without a reopening double?

 

Basically, I think I am exposing my personal bias against what I view as a unilateral decision. :P I read many years ago that part of Aces' team structure and training (copying the Italians) was to have "no unilateral decisions", that it was better for team harmony and trust in the long run to suffer the occasional bad result without violating system than to "oowboy it up", violate system, and get a good result. :blink:

[mfa1010]

Pass.

 

As I play it, partner is not expected to pass a double with a random 3-card holding in hearts. So if I double 2♥ we would often get to play some silly contract opposite a 12-14NT where we would much prefer to defend.

[chasetb]

I would double, because I really don't like to sell out here (Yes, even at IMPS). We have some defense, the points are balanced if not in our favor, and if partner pulls I expect it will be a good decision. I will admit to having little experience here, but in my experience people overcall 2♥ on many hands they shouldn't, and we should make them pay.

 

On a side note, when I first learned Support Doubles, I downloaded this document. It also talks about Action Doubles, which is what this hand qualifies under.

[wank]

where do i want to play this hand? 2♥

 

is there a way to get there? er....yes

[mike777]

Interesting hand, as a nonexpert I would pass as I don't expect pard to have 3spades or 6d or 5c and just might have 3h.

[HeartA]

I would double.

What distribution partner has? at most 2 ♠. He didn't bid 2♦, he has at most (not so good) 5♦. If he has 4 ♥, ♦ forcing could be good. Id he does not have 4♥, it's likely we have 8-card ♦ fit (unless partner has 2-3-4-4).

[mikeh]

I would double.

What distribution partner has? at most 2 ♠. He didn't bid 2♦, he has at most (not so good) 5♦. If he has 4 ♥, ♦ forcing could be good. Id he does not have 4♥, it's likely we have 8-card ♦ fit (unless partner has 2-3-4-4).

 

I don't think your inferences from the auction are valid: most wouldn't have an insufficient call of 2♦ available and those that do probably wouldn't risk it, since the opps might call the director, creating havoc.

[wank]

I would double.

What distribution partner has? at most 2 ♠. He didn't bid 2♦, he has at most (not so good) 5♦. If he has 4 ♥, ♦ forcing could be good. Id he does not have 4♥, it's likely we have 8-card ♦ fit (unless partner has 2-3-4-4).

 

aside from the obvious problem with your post, the real problem is that when partner holds 4 hearts he normally won't be in a position to pass - he doesn't know we're making a takeout double on axx.

[CSGibson]

At teams I am happy to pass. At MP's, I'd double (cooperative take-out in most of my partnerships)

[JLOGIC]

Getting old, pass seems obvious to me at any form of scoring. My most likely plus is beating them in 2H. It is possible partner has 6 diamonds but its more likely hes 2344, and even 2353 or something like that is bad for bidding probably.

[mikeh]

Getting old, pass seems obvious to me at any form of scoring. My most likely plus is beating them in 2H. It is possible partner has 6 diamonds but its more likely hes 2344, and even 2353 or something like that is bad for bidding probably.

hehe

 

You know you're getting old when you agree with me on passing in a competitive bidding situation!

 

It won't be long before you start posting about how bridge was played back in your day :D

 

Just kidding...I only hope the game still exists by the time you get to my age.

[ggwhiz]

In one of the first bridge books I read (regrettably long after starting to play) Mike Lawrence described 3-card length in the opponents suit as the death holding in competitive auctions as far as offence goes.

[aguahombre]

From Bambi: If you don't have anything to say...

[Fluffy]

Pull the pass and look at partner's face.

 

 

 

if it looks like this, change your bid for double

 

http://www.mobi-galery.ru/preview/176x220/cartoon/www.mobi-galery.ru_176x220_9200.jpg

 

 

 

Note for SBs around, there is no need to point out this is unethical and against rules, everybody knows that.

[IVAN CY LO]

double, let partners choose to let go or play. According to the LoTT, our fit obvious in minor but not in spade, or an extreme case that either any pairs do not have fit.

 

If partner holds short in H and 5-6 cards of D, he will bid 3D.

If partner holds 2344, he will glad to penalty, opp spade losers will be 2/3 and partner can ruff 2 times of spade. (LoTT is 14, probably can set 2)

If partner holds something off shape, says 1-2-5-5, he will bid 2NT as asking to transfer to the best minor. (This 2NT obvious doesn't mean has H guard because he can choose to penalty.

 

If support double is on, I will regard this pass is a forcing pass, ask partner please do something.

[Zelandakh]

And how does your partner with 2344 know that they are in a 7 card fit? What would you have chosen with a 4144 hand? Doubling is asking for trouble when Opener has this hand and it is really quite likely that they do. Making Opener's pass forcing just sounds crazy to me.

[IVAN CY LO]

And how does your partner with 2344 know that they are in a 7 card fit? What would you have chosen with a 4144 hand? Doubling is asking for trouble when Opener has this hand and it is really quite likely that they do. Making Opener's pass forcing just sounds crazy to me.

 

If your partner plays 5 cards major, quite obvious that he has 4 cards of D. (If support double is on, 2S,4H(in Max), 4D(Probably), 3C). If 3-3 minor he should open 1C, it is just basic understanding.

 

With 4144 on hand and partner pass the 2H overcall, bid 3D in this position, usually is true because your fit quite obvious will be diamond. (Partner holds less than 3 card of spade and open a 1D, quite obvious he holds 4 cards of D and more).

 

If opener holds 4144, don't be crazy, he has to bid 2S and won't left this question to you.

[gnasher]

The problem is

Opener: 2344

Responder: 4234

 

If you would double with 4234, it's dangerous for opener to leave it in with 2344.

[PhilKing]

Can't responder be 5134?

[benlessard]

Obvious pass, but here its another case that action double (or semi-penalty doubles) are probably better than standard takeout doubles. 10-11 fairly balanced hands are going to be a lot more frequent than 5134 hands. With 4234 you can bid 2NT as takeout in the minors. I believe that many time where there is no unbid M at the 2 level pure takeout doubles are not optimal.

[mfa1010]

Obvious pass, but here its another case that action double (or semi-penalty doubles) are probably better than standard takeout doubles. 10-11 fairly balanced hands are going to be a lot more frequent than 5134 hands. With 4234 you can bid 2NT as takeout in the minors. I believe that many time where there is no unbid M at the 2 level pure takeout doubles are not optimal.

I wouldn't want to sacrifice my natural 2N for playing it as takeout for minors.

[Winstonm]

The problem is

Opener: 2344

Responder: 4234

 

If you would double with 4234, it's dangerous for opener to leave it in with 2344.

 

The hand you gave as a problem is an 8-card fit for the opps - selling out to their fit at the 2-level is not going to be winning bridge. The worst case scenario is where opps have an 8-card fit and we have a 7-card fit and bid at the 3-level. Too bad. The opps are unlikely to double us when they have a fit, we might make on a 4/3 fit, and they could take the push to 3H.

 

I understand this is not the world's finest hand - shape and jacks are bad - but it does have two undervalued aces to make up for the two jacks, so it is worth its 10 points - it's just not a real good 10.

 

I don't see why playing support doubles changes this problem - wouldn't we protect partner's opening hand passed back to us if we weren't playing support doubles? Or maybe I just have a hard on for this hand because I cut my teeth playing matchpoints, and I resist selling out cheaply. :P

[benlessard]

I wouldn't want to sacrifice my natural 2N for playing it as takeout for minors.

You just double with those hands now (with or without a stopper). Switching 2Nt and double is a common theme of semi-penalty doubles. Sometimes its not perfect especially when you have AQ doubleton in opps suit and NT from your side is better than 3m from partner side but in the long run im almost sure its superior to standard take-out X