Opponents intervene with a take-out double

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&w=st953h97d963cak83&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1hd]133|200[/hv]

 

I'm interested in understanding the bidding approach after opponents make a take-out double. Do you vary responses? Does a change of suit require a fifth card / additional strength? Do you pass marginal hands?

 

This hand started the discussion. But I am interested in your views more generally.

 

Thanks

[The_Badger]

In my opinion, this is an awkward hand to contemplate all vulnerable, and with partner bidding 3rd in hand. I'm inclined to pass and see where the auction is heading. If partner is strong he'll bid again I'll hope; if weak I don't fancy a contract by our side with the doubler over my partner's opening bid.

 

My responses after the double are Pass < 6HCPs; Redbl 10+HCPs; 1NT 6-9 HCPs ; 1♠(forcing) but I want to have that 5th card; and 2 level bids as non forcing.

 

While I could bid 1NT on this hand, especially with its 2 controls, I'm not too keen with two suits open, and I am just as happy to defend on this hand.

[ggwhiz]

We cater to the opener having a weak notrump kind of value and are aware that the opponents cards are behind them so your example hand has a lot of potential losing finesses.

 

New suits are 5+ cards long and forcing at the 1 level. Is your partner really not supposed to support with 3 when they bid over your 1♠ call here? Non forcing at the 2 level but of course nothing is forcing by a passed hand.

 

1nt is constructive 8-10 (or a pretty bad 11 like a 4 triple 3) probably not the most popular agreement but works for us as follows.

- partner can often compete with a bit of shape if the opponents bid over this even with modest values

- if they bid, passed back to you, you can double to show top of the range if you like. When partner can't stand it, especially with the kind of worm they may open in 3rd seat the opponents can almost never double their run out and usually take the push to 1 level higher.

-game tries by partner don't have to worry about a blech 6 count while missing out on a decent 9

 

Redouble is 10+ but the low end has to consider that a 1nt bid may serve opener better

 

On your example hand and many similar it will occasionally go 1♠ on our left, passed back to us for a 1nt bid now or if partner has a good opener you will hear about it and be better placed to bid accordingly.

[mcphee]

I ask why do you want to be involved, so passing is clear to me. I think there is a lot of value playing transfer responses after a t/o dble of a major.

[Tramticket]

Thanks to those who have commented, including Mr Ace, who responded on the duplicate thread. [As an aside, it is very easy to accidentally create duplicates on this site].

 

I agree with Mr Ace: "No double does not change the responses at 1 level. It shows 4+ suit and 6+ hcp. But you may decide to pass marginal hands [...] The hand in your OP is a very legit hand and I do not see any reason to pass. you may very well be belong to 4 ♠ and that double does not guarantee 4 card spades."

 

Unfortunately we found out, in the post-match discussion in the restaurant, that we have been on a different wave-length for years. Partner agrees with The Badger, ggwhiz and mcphee. We will now be getting our methods aligned. Fortunately, this board did not prove a disaster - I made +80 in 1♠ (a trump lead would have defeated me by one trick).

 

our eventual agreement may include transfer responses (we already play transfer responses to over-calls). If anyone has an links to good reference material to transfer responses after an intervening t/o double it would be welcome.

[Zelandakh]

If anyone has an links to good reference material to transfer responses after an intervening t/o double it would be welcome.

Here is a link to Ben's complete system for transfers in competition, called Equality. You can use this method versus a takeout double and expand it to other situations later on using the same logic if you decide that that would be beneficial.

[Tramticket]

Here is a link to Ben's complete system for transfers in competition, called Equality. You can use this method versus a takeout double and expand it to other situations later on using the same logic if you decide that that would be beneficial.

 

Thank you

[miamijd]

This is highly dependent on your system over 1M (x). Assuming you don't play any gadgets, 1S seems normal. 4+ spades and a hand worth bidding (more than some 5-6 HCP piece of junk). There is no guarantee that RHO has 4+ spades; he might have only 3.

 

A few observations:

 

First, I think you said you made 1S for +80. That shouldn't be. 1S is absolutely forcing. Otherwise, how do you show a decent hand with spades? Please don't tell me you have to XX first (that's straight out the 1950s).

 

Second, someone asked "Why wouldn't your partner raise you with three if LHO bid over 1s?" That's why Rodwell invented support Xs. After a support X, you bid 2H to show 42 in the majors.

 

Third, I would suggest implementing some methods after 1M (x). Transfer responses are very useful, principally because they allow you to make subminimum raises (they give you a way to distinguish a normal 3-card raise from a subminimum 3-card raise).

 

A lot of folks play that after 1H (x), XX shows spades, 1S is the 1NT response, 1NT shows clubs, etc., with 2d being the normal 3-card H raise. After 1S (x), xx is the 1NT hand, etc. If you want to X the opponents, you pass the X and then X later on.

 

Cheers,

mike

[Tramticket]

This is highly dependent on your system over 1M (x). Assuming you don't play any gadgets, 1S seems normal. 4+ spades and a hand worth bidding (more than some 5-6 HCP piece of junk). There is no guarantee that RHO has 4+ spades; he might have only 3.

 

A few observations:

 

First, I think you said you made 1S for +80. That shouldn't be. 1S is absolutely forcing. Otherwise, how do you show a decent hand with spades? Please don't tell me you have to XX first (that's straight out the 1950s).

 

Second, someone asked "Why wouldn't your partner raise you with three if LHO bid over 1s?" That's why Rodwell invented support Xs. After a support X, you bid 2H to show 42 in the majors.

 

Third, I would suggest implementing some methods after 1M (x). Transfer responses are very useful, principally because they allow you to make subminimum raises (they give you a way to distinguish a normal 3-card raise from a subminimum 3-card raise).

 

A lot of folks play that after 1H (x), XX shows spades, 1S is the 1NT response, 1NT shows clubs, etc., with 2d being the normal 3-card H raise. After 1S (x), xx is the 1NT hand, etc. If you want to X the opponents, you pass the X and then X later on.

 

Cheers,

mike

 

Thanks mike.

 

I think that you missed that I was a passed hand - so I think that you will agree that partner is entitled to pass? (we held a combined 18-count).

 

We also don't play support doubles / redoubles - mainly because we play a weak NT and we use a double to show our strong and balanced type.

 

But I will definitely discuss a transfer structure with partner.

[MrAce]

This is highly dependent on your system over 1M (x). Assuming you don't play any gadgets, 1S seems normal. 4+ spades and a hand worth bidding (more than some 5-6 HCP piece of junk). There is no guarantee that RHO has 4+ spades; he might have only 3.

 

A few observations:

 

First, I think you said you made 1S for +80. That shouldn't be. 1S is absolutely forcing. Otherwise, how do you show a decent hand with spades? Please don't tell me you have to XX first (that's straight out the 1950s).

 

Second, someone asked "Why wouldn't your partner raise you with three if LHO bid over 1s?" That's why Rodwell invented support Xs. After a support X, you bid 2H to show 42 in the majors.

 

Third, I would suggest implementing some methods after 1M (x). Transfer responses are very useful, principally because they allow you to make subminimum raises (they give you a way to distinguish a normal 3-card raise from a subminimum 3-card raise).

 

A lot of folks play that after 1H (x), XX shows spades, 1S is the 1NT response, 1NT shows clubs, etc., with 2d being the normal 3-card H raise. After 1S (x), xx is the 1NT hand, etc. If you want to X the opponents, you pass the X and then X later on.

 

Cheers,

mike

 

THIS! + 1000

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

"Why wouldn't your partner raise you with three if LHO bid over 1s?" That's why Rodwell invented support Xs.

 

Meckwell invented support doubles because they were getting to too many 3-3 fits. :blink:

 

Random response in their system included 1♠ over a 1♥ opener or overcall on a 3-1-4-5 as deemed appropriate, not afraid of playing a moyse and allergic to inappropriate 1nt bids. The new iteration of support doubles has little (if anything) to do with them.

[miamijd]

Thanks mike.

 

I think that you missed that I was a passed hand - so I think that you will agree that partner is entitled to pass? (we held a combined 18-count).

 

We also don't play support doubles / redoubles - mainly because we play a weak NT and we use a double to show our strong and balanced type.

 

But I will definitely discuss a transfer structure with partner.

 

Ah; my mistake. I did forget you were a passed hand :)

 

Cheers,

mike

[The_Badger]

Basically, to sum up Tramticket. Some will ignore the double and bid naturally even after a 3rd in hand opening bid at equal vulnerability - their choice - and some of us will exercise some caution, and maybe demand a fifth ♠ to bid here, especially with a naff suit. There is no right way or wrong way of bidding this: it's all down to agreements. (Including the transfer responses detailed by miamijd.)

 

In your original post you didn't say whether you are playing 4M or 5M, so I think we have to assume 5M given this is the most popular opening these days. (Even in England nowadays, methinks.)

 

Bidding 1♠ does have its advantages: it can stop the opponents finding their fit; partner will know that you have a bid (6+HCPs); it's easy to find a 5-2♥ 2 level fit if partner bids on - and even if ♥s split badly, you hopefully have two entries in ♣ that will help your partner to pick up the suit.

 

What no commentator has said up to now is that South as the doubler is in the most dangerous position. He is vulnerable with a passed partner, so even though he might not have 4♠s (as highlighted by MrAce), he's going to have some strength to compensate surely.

 

There's even a slight (let's be honest remote) chance that North will leave the double in and your partner is left to play in 1♥X, so actually bidding and potentially increasing the level of the contract may not to your advantage.

 

So, in conclusion, I'd personally rather put the pressure on the doubler's partner (and the doubler) by passing initially.

[msjennifer]

Pass.Partner has opened in the 3rd seat.

[miamijd]

Basically, to sum up Tramticket. Some will ignore the double and bid naturally even after a 3rd in hand opening bid at equal vulnerability - their choice - and some of us will exercise some caution, and maybe demand a fifth ♠ to bid here, especially with a naff suit. There is no right way or wrong way of bidding this: it's all down to agreements. (Including the transfer responses detailed by miamijd.)

 

In your original post you didn't say whether you are playing 4M or 5M, so I think we have to assume 5M given this is the most popular opening these days. (Even in England nowadays, methinks.)

 

Bidding 1♠ does have its advantages: it can stop the opponents finding their fit; partner will know that you have a bid (6+HCPs); it's easy to find a 5-2♥ 2 level fit if partner bids on - and even if ♥s split badly, you hopefully have two entries in ♣ that will help your partner to pick up the suit.

 

What no commentator has said up to now is that South as the doubler is in the most dangerous position. He is vulnerable with a passed partner, so even though he might not have 4♠s (as highlighted by MrAce), he's going to have some strength to compensate surely.

 

There's even a slight (let's be honest remote) chance that North will leave the double in and your partner is left to play in 1♥X, so actually bidding and potentially increasing the level of the contract may not to your advantage.

 

So, in conclusion, I'd personally rather put the pressure on the doubler's partner (and the doubler) by passing initially.

 

If one of your small H were a small diamond, there would be a better case for passing (you don't have a "safety value" of 2H available). Likewise if your clubs were KQxx and your spades were Jxxx (why bid some lousy 6-count). But as it is, do you really want to sell to 1NT or 2D the other way? I don't (unless my partner opens ridiculously light in 3d seat, which is a treatment some like but I don't care for). I think we have a lot of really good chances to compete here:

 

1. Partner might have 4 spades

2. Partner might have 4 clubs

3. Partner might have 6 hearts

4. We might do OK in a 5-2 H fit or a 4-3 spade fit

5. 1S might take away LHOs bid and we might settle in 1NT.

 

Lots of chances. If you pass and it goes 1NT or 2D by LHO then back to you, now what? You probably have about half the points in the deck and some playable spot, but how are you going to find it? Better to bid 1S immediately.

 

The main drawback of an immediate 1S isn't that we get too high; it's that partner gets off to the wrong lead against a NT or diamond contract.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[Cyberyeti]

I would pass, largely because of the spade suit. Too likely the auction goes say 1♥-(x)-1♠-(2♦) end and partner thanks me for my spade bid and leads a spade from something he wished he hadn't (or raises/support Xs with 3 and it plays like a dog).

[MrAce]

Thanks to those who have commented, including Mr Ace, who responded on the duplicate thread. [As an aside, it is very easy to accidentally create duplicates on this site].

 

I agree with Mr Ace: "No double does not change the responses at 1 level. It shows 4+ suit and 6+ hcp. But you may decide to pass marginal hands [...] The hand in your OP is a very legit hand and I do not see any reason to pass. you may very well be belong to 4 ♠ and that double does not guarantee 4 card spades."

 

Unfortunately we found out, in the post-match discussion in the restaurant, that we have been on a different wave-length for years. Partner agrees with The Badger, ggwhiz and mcphee. We will now be getting our methods aligned. Fortunately, this board did not prove a disaster - I made +80 in 1♠ (a trump lead would have defeated me by one trick).

 

our eventual agreement may include transfer responses (we already play transfer responses to over-calls). If anyone has an links to good reference material to transfer responses after an intervening t/o double it would be welcome.

 

 

 

http://bridgewinners...m-2-qpe3zvvreu/

[The_Badger]

http://bridgewinners...m-2-qpe3zvvreu/

 

I am glad that you have started a poll on Bridgewinners too. It'll be interesting to see their replies. It's a shame that we can't see in detail who has voted on BBO. At the time of writing it is neck and neck between pass and 1♠.

[MrAce]

I am glad that you have started a poll on Bridgewinners too. It'll be interesting to see their replies. It's a shame that we can't see in detail who has voted on BBO. At the time of writing it is neck and neck between pass and 1♠.

 

To me the number of votes mean nothing, but who voted for what.

[Winstonm]

I don't get all the "partner is third hand" reasons not to bid. It's OK to be aware that partner may be light but I don't think that should influence your bidding. I think 1S is pretty much a no brainer.

[Tramticket]

http://bridgewinners...m-2-qpe3zvvreu/

 

Thanks for setting this up. Interesting results.

[Zelandakh]

I have fairly a strong view that passing this hand is a mistake. First of all we have a partial fit for partner, so we should not be scared of the 2 level. We should certainly not be happy to pass it out if the bidding came back to us at 2♦ by them. It would be different with heart shortage where we would be fearing a misfit but with at worst a 5-2 fit and quite possibly a 6-2 or 4-4 or better?

 

Of course we could back in with a double but to me, quite aside from misleading partner about our strength, that whole approach is wrong. Without shape in competition we should describe our hand and shut up. In converse to some points made above about preferring 5 spades for bidding immediately, I would far rather have something like 5215 for the pass and double approach. The extra shape protects us to some extent from the risk of acting later and the chances of collecting a juicy penalty if it is a misfit are much higher.

 

In fact I think 1♠ is correct even if we are playing very light openers and frequent psyches in third seat. I would be disappointed as the 1♥ opener if partner gave them an easy ride after a well-timed psyche.

 

More generally, I already touched on what I consider some competitive fundamentals but my view on this auction, as indeed for most competitive situations, is to consider how the auction is likely to proceed and try to arrange it that we are in a good place to make decisions while making life as awkward as possible for the opps. Passing fails on both counts - we end up in a situation where we have not shown our values or shape whatsoever to help partner decide and eventually will be making the last guess in a situation where it might be dangerous to act, while at the same time the opps will have no difficulty in finding their best strain at a low level, or indeed investigating game if partner has chosen to psyche.

 

What would perhaps be interesting is if the poll split the passers into those that want to pass throughout regardless and those that would choose to double back in or bid 2♥ on the next round under the right circumstances. No doubt the pass-passers have some good logic as to why they could never miss a game - presumably Opener will for them always act with extras even without shape in such a way as to differentiate from normal competition. Similarly those taking the pass-act course will probably not see any serious risk in the delayed action. In the real world though, the downside of responding 1♠ is so much less than that of the alternatives that I am surprised the split is so close. I suspect the reason is the first few posts suggesting that Responder should have a 5th spade for 1♠ - it is remarkable how often posters are influenced by the initial responses in a thread unless a "big hitter" (Justin, Mike, Frances, etc) comes along and provides an alternative viewpoint.

[Cyberyeti]

What is partner supposed to do with some 35(32) 11-12 count if you bid 1♠ and next hand bids 2m ? if you have 5 spades, he wants to support, if you have 4, you can be going seriously minus on any action.

[fromageGB]

What is partner supposed to do with some 35(32) 11-12 count if you bid 1♠ and next hand bids 2m ? if you have 5 spades, he wants to support, if you have 4, you can be going seriously minus on any action.

Perhaps we could consider the hand if South passed in place of that double. If you reply 1♠ and next hand bids 2m, what is partner supposed to do with some 35(32) 11-12 count? If you have 5 spades, he wants to support, while if you have 4, you can be going seriously minus on any action.

 

I think this seems to be making a case for a Kaplan inversion ...

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps we could consider the hand if South passed in place of that double. If you reply 1♠ and next hand bids 2m, what is partner supposed to do with some 35(32) 11-12 count?

I imagine they would have opened 1NT given that the OP specified a weak NT system.

 

If it were a strong NT system then presumably Opener (support) doubles and Responder would complete the hand description with 2♥. We are certainly guessing less here than the corresponding auction starting with pass, even if this contract were to end up going down.