How bad is this reopening double?

[helene_t]

[hv=pc=n&n=sak8ha4dk964ct732&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d2hpp]133|200[/hv]

Assume normal 2/1 style, apparently this hand isn't good enough for 1NT for this partnership.

 

Matchpoints, bbo free tournament (IAC).

[smerriman]

Can't answer the poll since I don't know what others would do. But seems like an easy double to me.

 

Edit - yay, I made another insane bid :) Oh well.

[mikeh]

I suppose it depends on the calibre of the player but I think it’s insane

 

There are two reasons to reopen with a double after 1D (2H) P P

 

1. We have realistic hope that it’s our hand, despite partner passing (rather than, say, doubling)

 

2. We have a realistic hope that partner is hoping for a reopening double which he intends to pass….and our hand can at least tolerate foreseeable calls if he can’t pass the double

 

On the first point, we have no long suit. If partner has his ‘normal’ hand, we probably have nowhere to go. Wtf is he supposed to do with something like Qxx xxxx Qxx Kxx?

 

On the second point, we are looking at the heart ace and a red v white opp just bid 2H. Unless that opp is playing silly buggers, he has a chunky suit, which means that partner rates NOT to have a pass of our double

 

I’m going to guess that there was an allegation of a slow pass by responder. If so, then this is either a teaching moment or a severe talking to moment…the latter if the player should know better.

 

Edit. I didn’t answer the poll. The list of questions didn’t afford me an option that I would consider reflects my thinking. Change the vulnerability to unfavourable for N-S and tell me that east is a known lunatic, and I’d double.

[shyams]

Can't answer the poll since I don't know what others would do. But seems like an easy double to me.

 

Edit - yay, I made another insane bid :) Oh well.

 

Sort of agree with smerriman. I too would double although I don't see it as an easy or automatic action.

 

At this vul, I think I will double. It gets harder at both white; I might still do it. I will pass if our side was red.

 

I probably got this wrong but I am merely posting what I would do having given it some thought.

[AL78]

I think it is borderline. I would lean towards doubling if it was one of the hyper-agressive bidders at my club bidding 2♥ but even then, if partner cannot dredge up a response, are we getting rich by trying to compete the partscore with no guarentee of a fit or are we about to dig a big hole for ourselves?

[helene_t]

Thanks all.

 

Mike's remark "unless opps are silly buggers" was applicable, I chickened out and we got 43% for collecting 4 undoubled downtricks.

 

I thought that double was too risky with this poor o/d. I was afraid of partner having just not enough defense to sit for the double, so that double would convert a plus to a minus.

 

I don't know if dbl is really a winning action in silly bugger fields - some opps are not silly buggers, and even silly buggers are sometimes dealt good suits, or find a doubleton support in dummy.

 

My partner thought I should have doubled. She is an otherwise non-insane player, but maybe a bit biased by the result. Or maybe she is right.

[nullve]

X

[akwoo]

I suppose it depends on the calibre of the player but I think it’s insane

 

There are two reasons to reopen with a double after 1D (2H) P P

 

1. We have realistic hope that it’s our hand, despite partner passing (rather than, say, doubling)

 

2. We have a realistic hope that partner is hoping for a reopening double which he intends to pass….and our hand can at least tolerate foreseeable calls if he can’t pass the double

 

On the first point, we have no long suit. If partner has his ‘normal’ hand, we probably have nowhere to go. Wtf is he supposed to do with something like Qxx xxxx Qxx Kxx?

 

On the second point, we are looking at the heart ace and a red v white opp just bid 2H. Unless that opp is playing silly buggers, he has a chunky suit, which means that partner rates NOT to have a pass of our double

 

I think it's a fairly normal double. You clearly haven't played enough club bridge. :)

 

On your first point, we end up play 2S, undoubled of course, and somehow manage to scramble 6 tricks for -100 which is still better than -110.

 

Also, your partner's normal hand is something like Qxxx xx Qxx Kxxx - that's right, your RHO did not make what you think is an automatic raise. (That's not a double for you (assuming you're playing 15-17 1N openings) is it?)

 

On your second point, your opp is probably not playing silly buggers, but there is enough of a chance of it to add to your probabilities.

[mikeh]

I think it's a fairly normal double. You clearly haven't played enough club bridge. :)

 

On your first point, we end up play 2S, undoubled of course, and somehow manage to scramble 6 tricks for -100 which is still better than -110.

 

Also, your partner's normal hand is something like Qxxx xx Qxx Kxxx - that's right, your RHO did not make what you think is an automatic raise. (That's not a double for you (assuming you're playing 15-17 1N openings) is it?)

 

On your second point, your opp is probably not playing silly buggers, but there is enough of a chance of it to add to your probabilities.

Fwiw, I’m playing club bridge again. Over my last five games (in the past two weeks after maybe five in ten years) in fields of 15-19 tables, I’m averaging 64% (including one 54%) so I think I know how to play club bridge😀

 

To my mind, winning in club games is not about making bad bids. It’s about being steady…doing the little things correctly and collecting the huge number of gifts that most players generously donate. In my last game, 68%, the opps did something silly, we could have punished them but we stayed in the boat and the result was a zero for us on the first round.

 

So what? The next few times the opps did something no more silly, by merely taking our tricks we earned 4 15s (on a 16 top) and one 12.5.

 

Btw, it’s ok to assert that club bridge is bad bridge, but most of these players attend our local tournaments.

 

Maybe you’re better at this than I am, but I find that trying to vary my attitude towards my bidding based on club game or top bracket Regional KO, etc, just gets me sloppy and inconsistent. At the club, I don’t go hunting for tops. Absent an unlucky day, we’ll get our share. I prefer to avoid giving them😀

 

To me, double is playing for the opps not merely to be weak (my attitude, arrogant though it is, is that if I don’t know them, I assume they’re weak) but also, on hands like these, that partner either misbid or had a close decision and erred on the conservative side. My partners tend to be more aggressive than me, and I never play a good partner to have misbid (although everyone makes mistakes once in a while), so the percentage action is, for me, to pass

 

I am bemused by everyone doubling. Sometimes, when I’m in a small minority, I rethink…maybe I am incorrect. Not this time.

[DavidKok]

I'd pass, and chose that before reading the thread. If partner has a classic penalty double (not likely at these colours) we pay up. In exchange we get to play takeout doubles and more wonderful agreements on the auction. When playing a strong notrump sometimes they get you when you hold the weak one. Partner was allowed to think too, and could have bid 3NT last round to spare us this decision. Some fraction of the time partner would have done that with a penalty pass, taking the money.

[helene_t]

Partner was allowed to think too, and could have bid 3NT last round to spare us this decision. Some fraction of the time partner would have done that with a penalty pass, taking the money.

Yeah that's a good point. Partner held a balanced 15-counts with KJ9xx of hearts, obviously she thought I must be short enough in hearts to double. But a more likely hand with something like KTxx of hearts could have taken the money as you said.

[Stephen Tu]

Even if overcaller is a solid citizen and partner never has a penalty pass, I'd think there's a lot of hands where partner has a moderate 3325 type of hand with no call over 2H, plus some hands with spades but not quite enough for double depending on how aggressive they are. Quite a few making 2S/3c or down 1, vs 2H making, and even when you are down 2 the opps will often be unable to saw you off. In any case I think characterizing double as "insane" is rather strong.

[mikeh]

Even if overcaller is a solid citizen and partner never has a penalty pass, I'd think there's a lot of hands where partner has a moderate 3325 type of hand with no call over 2H, plus some hands with spades but not quite enough for double depending on how aggressive they are. Quite a few making 2S/3c or down 1, vs 2H making, and even when you are down 2 the opps will often be unable to saw you off. In any case I think characterizing double as "insane" is rather strong.

I have a tendency towards hyperbole. I suspect some have seen that in my posts before😀

[the hog]

I would not double. My Ax of H is a red flag, my shape is poor and I do not have 4S. All of these contra indicate a X. It is not insane in my opinion, just a poor call.

[the hog]

"Yeah that's a good point. Partner held a balanced 15-counts with KJ9xx of hearts"

I have to ask, were you playing some complete beginner? They bid on 5 or 6 headed by the queen?

 

[thepossum]

When in doubt I don't double 2M :)

- the options in the poll put me in serious doubt

[pilowsky]

It's great to see the usual amount of agreement and certainty around bidding choices.

For me as an 'intermediate' I try to apply the "partner at my elbow" test.

 

After considering all the pro's and con's - to the extent of my ability, I ask myself "If my partner was watching me would I still make a risky marginal bid?"

The answer used to be "yes" far too frequently.

Now I try and let the fish come to the rod.

 

If I was a lot better and could confidently squeeze tricks out of stone I might have a different answer.

[jillybean]

To my mind, winning in club games is not about making bad bids. It’s about being steady…doing the little things correctly and collecting the huge number of gifts that most players generously donate. In my last game, 68%, the opps did something silly, we could have punished them but we stayed in the boat and the result was a zero for us on the first round.

I found that I was playing better in tournaments than I did at clubs and this is exactly why. In club games I's size up my opposition and play outside my normal style/agreements, thinking I could get a good board off weaker opponents, bidding more because I could play the contract better than some of my opponents, or so I thought.

When I can settle in and play disciplined bridge with a similarly disciplined partner, as I do in tournaments, my results in clubs have improved greatly.

It's so tempting and easy to slip into varying your game and approach when playing with weaker or less reliable partners & opponents, all it has done for me is mess up my game. Disciplined weak2's have worked very well for me, I have to extend that thinking to the rest of my game.

 

edit: I've just completed a 4 week series at the club, playing disciplined, steady bridge, finished top with an average of 61%. Now if I could just improve my declarer play to match my partners skill at playing the hands. :)

[pescetom]

It's so tempting and easy to slip into varying your game and approach when playing with weaker or less reliable partners & opponents, all it has done for me is mess up my game. Disciplined weak2's have worked very well for me, I have to extend that thinking to the rest of my game.

'Disciplined xxx' is a tautonomy IMO, discipline is not an attribute of the precision of your agreement but a measure of how you trust your companion to respect it.

I open 2M on a wide range of crap stuff which my partner well understands.

I pass here as he expects.

[jillybean]

'Disciplined xxx' is a tautonomy IMO,

huh? :blink:

[pilowsky]

huh? :blink:

 

It's a cross between a tautology and a tautonym.

E.g. The rotten rat's a rattus rattus.

[jillybean]

It's a cross between a tautology and a tautonym.

E.g. The rotten rat's a rattus rattus.

:lol:

[pescetom]

'Disciplined xxx' is a tautonomy IMO

 

huh? :blink:

 

Let me give you an example.

You can have a agreement that at a certain situation of vulnerability and seat, a 2♠ opening promises 5-10 HCP and 5+ cards in suit, nothing more.

Or that it promises exactly 6 cards and at least 2 of top 3 honours in spades, denying 4 hearts.

Or something inbetween.

 

Those are just descriptions of an agreement, discipline is about how closely you follow them and how closely your partner assumes you do so.

The laws have things to say about explanations of agreements and implicit agreements.

[jillybean]

So when we preempt in first or second seat and the oops ask , what does 2S mean?

We tell them, it's preemptive, 6-10 points, partner will have 2 of the top 3 honors.

If the same question is asked about a bid in 3rd seat we say

It's preemptive, but because it is in 3rd seat in could be very weak, could be on a 5 card suit.

Is not a tautonyn?

[mycroft]

Interesting. I probably would have thought a bit, and probably would have doubled, and I probably would have been wrong (but not on this hand).

 

But because of where I play, the reason I wouldn't double isn't that partner may not have anywhere to go, but that East's overcall is 16-ish, and West passed Txxx and a 6-count, and it's now going to go 3m by partner, 3♥ by East, and 4♥ by West, and it will be absolutely cold.

 

The more I can trust my opponents, the more that sure, I might be taking +100 or -110 into -150 (or -300), but the more I'm certain I'm not converting -170 into -620.