No good bid?

[helene_t]

Is a responsive double "forcing"? Yes I know doubler would pass with a 3334 19-count, but what about a 3343 15-count? I just wonder if we would sometimes bid 3♣ instead of making the responsive double out of fear that a double would be passed. In that case, we can't show our diamonds by bidding 3♣.

 

Anyway, with this hand I would like to play something artificial like lebensohl or w/e but absent such agreement I double and bid 3♦ next.

[ahydra]

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguys.com/doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html

 

If playing 3C as general force, what do you do over 3M from partner with this hand? Not saying it's wrong to bid 3C in that style, but it seems we could easily "end-bid" ourselves. 4D is a big misdescription, 3NT could be off 5 cashing clubs.

 

ahydra

 

ps. I find WesleyC's description of 10xx as a "marginal club stopper" somewhat dubious. :o

[WellSpyder]

I can post the full hand in due course if people are interested, but I thought it was more interesting as a general problem than in the context of a particular deal. I was actually the 2♣ bidder, so didn't have to face this problem. But I was sure that the 2♦ bid chosen at the table wasn't the answer! Not entirely surprisingly, it led to a missed game. I wasn't entirely sure what to suggest instead, though, since I also felt strongly that the hand was too good for 3♦ (though I see that isn't quite such a universal view as not bidding 2♦). I can see that using 2N as some sort of Lebensohl (or reverse Lebensohl) could be quite helpful here, but I must admit that I've never really thought about doing that over a minor, even though I do play 2N in this way with some partners when oppo have bid and raised a major over partner's TOx.

 

But it feels like the mainstream choice is between X and 3C. I suspect neither will leave you feel entirely comfortable about the continuing auction, but you have to choose something. As I read the responses here I was quite taken with wank's preference for X, simply to keep the auction low and to give you more chance of sorting out where you are going, but mikeh also seems to have good arguments for preferring 3C.....

[Trump Echo]

I will try 3♦, showing extra strength and preference of strain.

 

I'm going with Bill.

[mikeh]

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguys.com/doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html

 

If playing 3C as general force, what do you do over 3M from partner with this hand? Not saying it's wrong to bid 3C in that style, but it seems we could easily "end-bid" ourselves. 4D is a big misdescription, 3NT could be off 5 cashing clubs.

 

ahydra

 

ps. I find WesleyC's description of 10xx as a "marginal club stopper" somewhat dubious. :o

Why is 3C then 4D a big misdescription? It shows an opening hand with 5+ diamonds, no 4 card support for partner, and no club stopper. Please explain how that isn't what we hold?

 

Compare that to double then 3D. That shows what? I know a lot of those opting for that sequence claim that it shows the same thing, but that is IMO a view based on what they'd like it to show rather than on what it does show. I would expert near-universal agreement amongst experts about 3C then diamonds and uncertainty about double then diamonds.

 

More to the point, 3C is clearly a big hand while double could and often would be made with a modest hand. Partner will bid up the line over 3C but will bid a major over double...definitely will and should bid 2H with 4441. Note that partner might be able to bid no trump over the strength showing 3C but is very unlikely to bid 2N over the double. He won't, after all, hold Helene's 19 count here unless the vul opps are psyching.

[gnasher]

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguy...siveDouble.html

I think that the "standard" meaning of a responsive double varies by location. In North America it shows 4-4 in the majors, but in the UK it is common to double with any two four-card suits.

 

One sequence that I think hasn't been mentioned is dbl-2M-3♣. I suppose the meaning of that depends on what the original responsive double promised, but if you're playing a flexible style of responsive double that seems better than a direct 3♣.

[Taiwan_up]

They have 25+pts with 12+pts of W and 13pts of E. W has 3+D for his dbl so E must try to find possible 4D. E can bid 3D to show good pts and 5+D so that W can decide his bids at 3D/4D/5D.

[Cyberyeti]

Why is 3C then 4D a big misdescription? It shows an opening hand with 5+ diamonds, no 4 card support for partner, and no club stopper. Please explain how that isn't what we hold?

 

 

It's not a misdecription, you just can have missed the last making game too often, partner doesn't even need a full club stop, Jxx/Qx will do when opener has ♣AK/AQ/KQ/AJ/KJ (and his partner Hxxxx(x) and out which surely can't be an unlikely holding).

[mikeh]

It's not a misdecription, you just can have missed the last making game too often, partner doesn't even need a full club stop, Jxx/Qx will do when opener has ♣AK/AQ/KQ/AJ/KJ (and his partner Hxxxx(x) and out which surely can't be an unlikely holding).

As someone who has long played that one opens 1C on doubletons, I can tell you what virtually every bridge player knows: opener will hold 3+ clubs FAR more often than he holds a doubleton. Add to that the fact that partner made a TAKEOUT double of 1C and it becomes simply idiotic to plan east's auction on the basis that it is 'likely' that opener has HH in clubs!

 

This kind of argument is what happens when you get someone who has made a poor choice, has been met with criticism, and can't admit to having been wrong. As it happens, it is exactly what one would expect here since afaik cyber has never, ever admitted that his posts are ever less than perfect.

[mikeh]

I think that the "standard" meaning of a responsive double varies by location. In North America it shows 4-4 in the majors, but in the UK it is common to double with any two four-card suits.

 

One sequence that I think hasn't been mentioned is dbl-2M-3♣. I suppose the meaning of that depends on what the original responsive double promised, but if you're playing a flexible style of responsive double that seems better than a direct 3♣.

I don't disagree with the notion that the responsive double need not promise both majors. It should, IMO, be taken as showing two (or 3) suits. Of course, that means at least one major, so if doubler has 4441, he should still bid 2h as pass or correct, since when advancer is invitational he is far more likely to invite (or bid) game in a major than in diamonds, plus if we are to play a 4-4 partial, surely we prefer the major most of the time?

[Zelandakh]

Is a responsive double "forcing"? Yes I know doubler would pass with a 3334 19-count, but what about a 3343 15-count? I just wonder if we would sometimes bid 3♣ instead of making the responsive double out of fear that a double would be passed.

It seems to me that following this argument through to its logical conclusion might drive us towards taking the major 2-suiter out of X and moving it into 3♣. The general force without extreme club shortage can stay low with a double and gather information. The main argument against X seems to be a promise of both majors that is also a bit cyclic when the agreement also allows for GF hands without this shape.

 

On the main issue, I was actually a bit confused by Mike's first post on the subject and still am to be honest. It sounds like he suspects Doubler is minimum but will continue 3♦ or 3M after (1♣) - X - (2♣) - X; (P), which just seems weird to me. Most likely I am misreading it.

 

I would expect to be able to continue with 3 of minor opposite a minimum partner pretty much any time the opps do not preempt it. This is the whole advantage of doubling so making that auction start at the 3 level is obviously going to favour 3♣. Letting the double auction start at the 2 level instead seems to be more favourable, although I would expect it to be a wash much of the time.

[mikeh]

 

 

On the main issue, I was actually a bit confused by Mike's first post on the subject and still am to be honest. It sounds like he suspects Doubler is minimum but will continue 3♦ or 3M after (1♣) - X - (2♣) - X; (P), which just seems weird to me. Most likely I am misreading it.

 

 

I suspect you are misreading it.

 

I expect partner to be minimum because in my experience few players psyche in 1st seat when vulnerable, and even fewer psyche a short minor. We hold a good 13 count, with controls. RHO might be fooling around more than the other two players, but he rates to have a few hcp, so that doesn't leave a heck of a lot for partner. That slightly, imo, decreases the chance that partner is dangerously off shape. There may be players who routinely make a t.o. double opposite an unpassed hand with some 4333/4423 11, but they don't play with me, and I don't think that style is winning bridge.

 

It is against that backdrop that I chose and still choose to bid 3♣ over 2♣....I do not double intending to bid 3♣ next, since to me, and I think this is standard, if partner were to respond to my responsive double with 2M, then 3♣ is a gf raise of that suit.

 

I think that there is some interesting discussion to be had about what, in theory, a responsive double followed by 3♦ over 2M should mean. Maybe it should show this hand. However, one drawback that nobody has mentioned so far is the admittedly unlikely event of opener, with a shapely minimum, bidding 3♣ over the double. That is extremely unlikely on this hand, since we have 3 clubs, but when discussing theory, we need to cater to other hands of the same nature....if we held 3=3=5=2 or 3=3=6=1, then the odds of opener being able to bid 3♣ go up.....and now is P P 3♦ by us forcing? I don't think so...I'd think it was a 5 card diamonds suit and a 4 card major, good hand but not forcing.

 

This sort of issue complicates discussion of bidding when the discussion arises in the context of a single hand.

 

I think that some, tho not all, of the responsive doublers are staring too much at this precise hand and not thinking about what our bidding will mean to partner, while also, to some degree, making up hands for the opps that justify their thinking, rather than thinking about what the probabilities are. It is a very human failing and I have definitely done it myself, and I suppose I may even be doing it here without realizing it :P However, the fact that I am aware of this propensity leads me to believe that I haven't fallen victim to it this time.

[WellSpyder]

one drawback that nobody has mentioned so far is the admittedly unlikely event of opener, with a shapely minimum, bidding 3♣ over the double. That is extremely unlikely on this hand, since we have 3 clubs, but when discussing theory, we need to cater to other hands of the same nature....if we held 3=3=5=2 or 3=3=6=1, then the odds of opener being able to bid 3♣ go up.....and now is P P 3♦ by us forcing? I don't think so...I'd think it was a 5 card diamonds suit and a 4 card major, good hand but not forcing.

 

This sort of issue complicates discussion of bidding when the discussion arises in the context of a single hand.

Good point! And maybe a 3♣ bid isn't all that unlikely - it is what happened at the table when the hand under discussion chose the gross underbid of 2♦.

[Cyberyeti]

As someone who has long played that one opens 1C on doubletons, I can tell you what virtually every bridge player knows: opener will hold 3+ clubs FAR more often than he holds a doubleton. Add to that the fact that partner made a TAKEOUT double of 1C and it becomes simply idiotic to plan east's auction on the basis that it is 'likely' that opener has HH in clubs!

 

This kind of argument is what happens when you get someone who has made a poor choice, has been met with criticism, and can't admit to having been wrong. As it happens, it is exactly what one would expect here since afaik cyber has never, ever admitted that his posts are ever less than perfect.

 

It's true that opener will hold 3+ most of the time, but I'm in the school that if I'm 4-4 in the majors with a minimum opening hand, I will make a ToX of a short club and I'm sure I'm not alone, so 3 clubs for partner is very possible, also N has raised 1♣ to 2, does he have a 4 card major ? very often not, I only have 5 in the majors so I would suggest it's not unlikely both opener and doubler are 4-4 in the majors which makes a 2 card club a lot more likely than normal.

 

I haven't made a poor choice in this case, I had no choice to make, I was able to bid my hand because my methods allow me to do so easily a level lower than yours, I don't have to decide whether X followed by 3♦ is forcing with diamonds or inv or to play with 5♦/4OM or what 1♣-X-2♣-X-P-2♥-P-2♠ means.

 

For me, 3♣-3♥-4♦ would be more consistent with Axxx, KQxx, A, xxxx

 

Edit: I would say that my methods in this auction are how they are for the sake of consistency with other auctions where they're a lot less unusual, we tend to work by a lot of blanket agreements not distinguishing between which suit is opened for a lot of them, this saves a lot of brainpower even if it means you have some slightly odd meanings like in this case.

[mike777]

Reading Lawrence's book on doubles it seems you start with a responsive x with 4-4 in the majors.(p.116)

 

A cuebid at the 3 level shows other hand types and is game forcing.(p.129)

If you play responsive doubles your cuebid denies having both majors. p130

 

After a 3c cuebid partner should think about bidding 3nt . p.131

[lbellicaud]

in standard 3♦ is an underbid

You are supposed to be game forcing with this hand.

and 3♦ is not forcing at all.

 

I bid 3♣

[brettnj]

If partner has his 2nd chair dbl., we belong in a game. Therefore, I agree that the only reasonable call is 3c.

[dave_beer]

Any number of ♦ is wrong, so the choice is between responsive X, assuming it doesn't guarantee both majors, and 3♣.

 

3♣ is forcing to agreement and yes, I may miss 3NT, but at least I will have come close to describing my hand.

 

X followed by 3♦ is at best ambiguous. I think I could have 4 cards in the unbid major (even if it is ♠) and longer ♦ with only invitational or competitive values. If I had equal lengths, I could bid 2♠ over 2♥. That means I may have to follow X with 3♣ which is still ambiguous. Maybe I am saving my ♦ suit for the post-mortem.

[mike777]

disagree

 

3c cuebid=gf

 

If you have one major and less than gf, bid the major.

[dave_beer]

disagree

 

3c cuebid=gf

 

If you have one major and less than gf, bid the major.

When a minor suit is agreed you can play that auctions that would normally be game-forcing are only forcing to 3NT or 4 of the agreed minor. That is a matter of agreement.

 

If I have a hand with 4 cards in one major and a longer unbid minor then there are situations when I want to take the responsive X route because neither 2M nor 3M is right. If I have an a hand that is GF if we have a major suit fit but might not be if we have a minor suit fit and I don't know if 3NT is playable then why should I have to bid 5m when we might be able to figure that it is a favorite to go down?

[mike777]

You raise an important point. Reading the WC books over the years it seems top level bridge just bid the darn game even if they cannot be sure it is a favorite to make. OTOH it is clear many here on the forums prefer to be able to stop on a dime in 4minor. It is an interesting discussion.

 

IF as in your example we have one major and long minor. You say we have game if major fit. Well we have a major fit. Start with 3c and then decide whether you prefer to sit in 3nt or pull to major.

 

On this auction if pard makes a takeout double and we have one major in your example we will always have a gf hand in the major. Granted it may be a 4-3 fit and tht is ok.

[mike777]

Looking again at the OP it seems we need to decide if we have a gf hand or not.

 

My notes tell me a double of 1c can be as few as 11 hcp if 4-4 in the majors, stronger if we only have a 3 card major.

 

 

I could understand a 3d response but still prefer a 3c gf response.

[KurtGodel]

Will bid 3♣, I think all sequences beginning with double are likely to get us into trouble. I feel like the only downside is that we might miss 4♥ when it's right, but I think that will be difficult to find, partner will need so pretty chunky hearts.

[rhm]

I think that the "standard" meaning of a responsive double varies by location. In North America it shows 4-4 in the majors, but in the UK it is common to double with any two four-card suits.

 

One sequence that I think hasn't been mentioned is dbl-2M-3♣. I suppose the meaning of that depends on what the original responsive double promised, but if you're playing a flexible style of responsive double that seems better than a direct 3♣.

What about dbl-2M-3♦?

 

I believe most experts would treat this sequence as stronger (in HCP) than an immediate 3♦.

I am not sure I want to force to an 11 trick game. Certainly not via a direct 3♣ bid.

 

Anyway I would be surprised if the vast majority of an expert panel like MSC of the Bridge World would not start with a responsive DBL nowadays.

A modern responsive DBL over a minor guarantees both majors only if the hand is modest. Otherwise it tends to shows a strong hand with no clear direction.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Finch]

What about dbl-2M-3♦?

 

I believe most experts would treat this sequence as stronger (in HCP) than an immediate 3♦.

I am not sure I want to force to an 11 trick game. Certainly not via a direct 3♣ bid.

 

Anyway I would be surprised if the vast majority of an expert panel like MSC of the Bridge World would not start with a responsive DBL nowadays.

A modern responsive DBL over a minor guarantees both majors only if the hand is modest. Otherwise it tends to shows a strong hand with no clear direction.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

For me, dbl - 2S - 3D shows hearts and diamonds, NF. How else would you show a 2=4=5=2 decent (but not game forcing) hand.

 

By the way, why do you think that saying you believe the 'vast majority of an expert panel would dbl' is any more or less convincing than simply saying you think double is correct?