Responsive double

[Hanoi5]

MP's, you're red, they're not:

 

♠Jxxx

♥Qxx

♦A

♣KQxxx

 

(1♦)-X-(2♦)-X

(Pa)-?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

2S

[mike777]

3c

 

pard might be 3=3=3=4 with values

 

Axx,,Axx.xxx.AXXX?

[rhm]

3c

 

pard might be 3=3=3=4 with values

 

Axx,,Axx.xxx.AXXX?

In which case he will bid again over 2♠, probably 3♣, even though a slight underbid.

More likely partner is weaker with 4-4 (or longer) in the majors.

3♣ is terrible in my opinion.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

Seems like a routine 2♠ to me.

 

Rik

[Hanoi5]

Then I guess no responsive double should have been made but 3♣?

 

♠QT8

♥Jxx

♦J7x

♣AJxx

[RSClyde]

Having now correctly read the problem, I will withdraw my snide comments and return to the good graces of the 2S bid. 3C makes no sense. If the double shows 2 places to play (as I play), then I should bid my 4 card suits up the line from the current bid, if partner doesn't have 4 spades then he must have 4 clubs and should bid them. Otherwise, why is he doubling if his only 4 card suit is hearts? If, as I gather most play, X shows strictly the majors, then why are we even talking about this?

[Trinidad]

I would bid 3♣. Partner doubled and I'm looking at a stiff diamond?

You doubled first, partner made a responsive double. You are "supposed to" look at a stiff diamond.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

I would bid 3♣. If partner had 4 spades he would bid them. He should have something like 3334 with some values.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I don't understand all of the 3C bids after the Responsive DBL .

The 2nd DBL here says " pick a major " .

[RSClyde]

You doubled first, partner made a responsive double. You are "supposed to" look at a stiff diamond.

 

Rik

What am I supposed to do read the post correctly? Geez!

[aguahombre]

I would bid 3♣. If partner had 4 spades he would bid them. He should have something like 3334 with some values.

I don't understand all of the 3C bids after the Responsive DBL .

The 2nd DBL here says " pick a major " .

These are the two schools of thought on the Responsive Double in this particular situation. The nature of a "RD" does change, IMO, depending on what the opps' suit is and the level of the raise --- but like any tool, it requires more than mere agreement to use it. We need to discuss it in different contexts and agree on continuations.

 

Here we have one poster advocating his view and another telling us "the way it is".

 

We have decided that on (1D) X (2D) the Responsive double is as Art suggests, and with a competitive 4-4 in the majors we are willing to bid 2S...possibly ready to compete again with 3H if the auction continues. We think this agreement allows for Art's example hand type while frequently breaking even when we are 4-4M.

[ggwhiz]

Then I guess no responsive double should have been made but 3♣?

 

♠QT8

♥Jxx

♦J7x

♣AJxx

 

We don't always adhere to this, especially at mp's but the responsive double promises 2 places to play and this hand only has 1 so it's a 3♣ bid. Mind you we are allergic to takeout doubles with the wrong shape and overcall with chunky 4-card suits instead. Pass and balance more often than most too.

 

There is a significant downside of wandering into an ugly 4-3 fit and we strain to make a disciplined pass on quacky hands like this that are forced to the 3 level and get our fair share of them wrong. It's definitely a trouble hand for us that we're happy to break even on.

[Zelandakh]

I would think that the style of doubling is relevant here. If you play a traditional style then there is no problem with partner bidding clubs when they have a clear preference for them. On the other hand, if you double in a modern style showing the majors and perhaps clubs (4432, say) there is a lot to be said for the responsive double showing clubs plus tolerance for at least one major. That would save ending up in a 4-2 fit at the 3 level. So I bid 2♠ if our doubles are traditional (or largely undiscussed) and 3♣ if double did not promise club support.

[Fluffy]

over 2♠ partner knows that we have 3♥, 4♠ and less than 3 diamonds...

[Hanoi5]

over 2♠ partner knows that we have 3♥, 4♠ and less than 3 diamonds...

 

Interesting idea...

[Zelandakh]

Have you never doubled 1♦ with a 4=3=3=3 hand, Fluffy? Or with a weak 5 card spade suit?

[Winstonm]

This particular responsive double of 1D-2D should show exactly both majors. With only one 4-card suit, pard can bid it, but how else does pard show both majors at the same time?

 

Knowing that, the rest is easy.

[Zelandakh]

And if you hold a decent 3334 hand and do not want to pass what do you call? If you go with 3♣ and partner turns up with 4432 that is just bad luck right? Surely what a call should show is dependent upon what the previous bidding has shown. So doubling style is relevant.

[rmnka447]

I would bid 3 ♣. I believe partner would bid a 4 card major when holding one rather than make a responsive double.

 

If partner has only 3 ♠, then playing a 7 card fit would probably not be good. A forcing defense would cause you to take ruffs in the long trump hand.

 

So I'd opt to play in a likely 8 card ♣ fit.

[RSClyde]

You just need an agreement here:

If double says I have both majors specifically, then this is a clear 2S.

If double shows 2 places to play then you go up the line so a clear 2S.

If double says "I have no idea what to do but don't want to pass" then 3C is right.

But it's hard to believe that the 3rd is the right agreement.

[PhilKing]

Then I guess no responsive double should have been made but 3♣?

 

♠QT8

♥Jxx

♦J7x

♣AJxx

 

I have no idea why several posters agree this is a 3♣ bid. It's just a pass. Partner is still there.

[RSClyde]

I have no idea why several posters agree this is a 3♣ bid. It's just a pass. Partner is still there.

Depends on style. For us a second double shows a real hand: partner could have a minimum and not be able to reenter. But he doesn't make a takeout double without club support and he'd virtually never have a 5 card major (unless he's going to bid again). Letting them play 2♦ (likely if you pass) sounds like a poor choice. So given our TOD parameters, there's only one alternative, so what am I waiting for?

[rhm]

3c

 

pard might be 3=3=3=4 with values

 

Axx,,Axx.xxx.AXXX?

I would bid 3♣. If partner had 4 spades he would bid them. He should have something like 3334 with some values.

I would bid 3 ♣. I believe partner would bid a 4 card major when holding one rather than make a responsive double.

 

If partner has only 3 ♠, then playing a 7 card fit would probably not be good. A forcing defense would cause you to take ruffs in the long trump hand.

 

So I'd opt to play in a likely 8 card ♣ fit.

Obviously this discussion is rather confused and not for the first time. There seems to be different opinions what a responsive double means or shows.

 

So I will espouse what my logic is:

 

For me a responsive double means partner has enough values to compete at the level raised, but is uncertain as to strain.

 

From this I draw the following Bridge conclusions:

 

Over a major suit raise a responsive double tends to deny four cards in the unbid major, because partner would not be uncertain about strain. Partner may have equal length in the minors.

Over a minor suit raise partner often has both majors, but instead of guessing which major to bid he asks takeout doubler to choose the major where he has at least four cards. If he held only one major he would not be uncertain as to strain.

If he has no major he would usually bid the unbid minor since again he should not be uncertain about strain.

 

Partner may possibly have something else in mind with more than minimum values for a responsive double but then we will hear from him again.

I am not against making a responsive double over 2♦ with 3=3=3=4 and a weak four card club suit and just enough to compete, but this is just one specific distribution where I could possible end up in a major 4-3 fit one level lower than in a minor 5-4 fit one level higher.

In this particular case I would prefer playing the minor, but it is no big deal.

It is much more important to cater for the case where partner is 4-4 or longer in the majors and it is also much more frequent not least because there are many more distributions partner can have than just one specific one.

If partner is 3=3=3=4, it is possible but unlikely the bidding would go that way, because opponents have 7 cards in hearts and 6 cards in spades.

When partner has both majors opponents have less cards in the majors and much more reason to raise their minor aggressively.

I rather follow PhilKing's logic and pass with 3=3=3=4 and dubious values rather than giving up the responsive double when I hold both majors with no support for the unbid minor. He is right, the bidding is not over yet if you Pass with this distribution.

 

Feel free to explain what is wrong with this logic behind responsive doubles or why you think a different logic is superior.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Have you never doubled 1♦ with a 4=3=3=3 hand, Fluffy? Or with a weak 5 card spade suit?

Not with 5 spades, I overcall 10xxxx when my hand is good. It might be possible only with 5413 with weak spades.

 

4333 is possible with a bit extras.

 

Both options are possible but I wouldn't bet on them, they are more like exceptions.