Tough T/o double response situation.

[Francine50]

IMPs

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sjhaj6dakjt94ckq8&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d3hdp]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid?i f my p and I play gerber I bid 4c if not i bid 4nt to end up in 6d

[jallerton]

4♦ should be forcing and we should bid it. Now if we don't hae nice agreements I would try 4♥+5♦ for sure. This problam is tougher playing MPs. For me 4NT must be 6-4 minors when 4♣ is not forcing.

 

Why should 4♦ be forcing?

 

If you play it as forcing then presumably:

 

(i) partner has to keep his doubles up to strength, as he seems to be forcing to game opposite a misfit; and

(ii) your 4♦ bid has a huge range. How do you sort out the difference between a minimum opening bid with 6 diamonds, the actual hand in this thread, and everything in between?

 

If 4♦ is non-forcing then partner will know that you have a minimum (or close to) opening bid and can plan accordingly. If he makes a slam try over that then we know he's making a slam try opposite a minimum.

[MrAce]

I don't like the 4♦ forcing idea at all.

[mikeh]

4♦ should be forcing and we should bid it. Now if we don't hae nice agreements I would try 4♥+5♦ for sure. This problam is tougher playing MPs. For me 4NT must be 6-4 minors when 4♣ is not forcing.

If 4♦ is forcing, then you must play the negative double as game force, since 4♦ is what partner must bid with, say, Ax xx AQJxxx xxx, isn't it?

 

I don't think this style is playable.

[gnasher]

How about switching 4♣ and 4♦, or playing transfers from 4♣ upwards?

[whereagles]

hmmm.. I think that, in retrospective, 6♦ is probably a good practical bid.

[Fluffy]

Yes double is game forcing, I read that from Martens many years ago, since opener is going to bid 3NT with a minimum with stopper you might just as well play double as game forcing. 3♠ is also forcing so you might still find your 3NT (although wrongsided) after you double.

[cherdano]

Matters got worse when I thought about the hand-types on which I would negative double (thinking that if I do this, then probably a lot of other players do as well). One of them is the long spades, too much to pass, since opener may not feel able to reopen, and not enough to bid 3♠...sort of a good 2♠ opening bid. KQ10xxx xx xx Axx

 

If you'd stretch to bid 3 gf ♠ make it slightly weaker in playing strength to the point where, assuming the line exists, it crosses beneath the 3♠ line and into a double.

For me, this hand-type does not exist within a negative double at the 3-level, and certainly not at 3♥.

The point of making a negative double of 2♣ with KQTxxx xx xx Kxx is that we can stop in 2♠. But the only time you can stop in 3♠ after (3♥) X is when partner has four-card support - I am pretty sure that's not the target you are aiming for.

 

You are forcing just as high with X and 3♠, so I'd rather show my spade length to help us reach the most likely game when that's right.

[WesleyC]

Fluffy's (Martens?) idea of making 1D-(3H)-X strictly G/F feels like it gives up a lot for relatively small gains. Being able to act aggressively on weaker hands with appropriate shape feels much more valuable (even if it comes at the cost of some failed 3NT contracts). If responder holds 4135 shape, stretching to double could easily win the part-score or even allow partner to save against their making game. Even if responder has a full strength double, 12 opposite 12 with flat hands and no heart stopper will struggle to make even 10 tricks in a minor. Finally if opener does have extra values and a long suit, an old-fashioned jump to 5m gets the message across just fine.

 

I agree with Cherdano that weak hands with a long spades should only double at low levels where there is a reasonable chance of patterning out your hand shape. Over 3H, holding a 6c spade suit you should either stretch to bid 3S with short hearts or pass and hope that partner can reopen.

[Fluffy]

I don't think the point on playing it GF is to restrict double, just to avoid aiming at a small target. What I mean is that you don't need to stop making agressive doubles, just that youw ill be playing game anyway. I don't know the full story as I gathered this info from third party, when Martens was training spannish team somewhere in between 1998 and 2002. A lot of time has passed so even changing his mind is possible.

[mcphee]

Basically partners dble has comittted our side to 4S (unlikely they are passing 3) or 4 of a minor in terms of values. Facing 2 aces it sure looks like slam has a shot when they have a stiff H,which is not a sure thing. KQxx xx Qxx Axxx, and maybe (on a bad day) Kxxxx xx x AJxxx are a couple of examples. I believe at these colors the pre-emptr hold KQ to 7 and short D increasing the chances of a trump loser,or holding a black ace. Granted KQ to 7 and a side ace is rather good but possible. So in the end I pass and take the cash 800 is not out of the ballpark.