Maximal double when partner raises second suit?

[barmar]

We had the following auction. Scoring is matchpoints and I was West.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1d1h1s2h2s3hd]133|100[/hv]

 

I intended this as penalty, since if we can make game we can probably set them at least 2, and -1 vulnerable would be better than our partscore. But partner took it as maximal. He tried to sign off in 3♠, but I raised to game because I didn't think a part score would be worth much. I also assumed he had a good hand since we normally bypass ♦ with minimum hands (he actually had ♦KQJ984 and ♠9854, he chose to show his diamonds because they were so much better than the spades). I got doubled and went down 2 for a near bottom, and to make things worse it pushed us from 1st to 2nd place in the speedball.

 

I've been searching bridge convention websites and most of the examples of maximal doubles are when partner raises our opening bid in a competitive auction. One of them also mentioned that the overcalling side can use it as well. But I don't think any showed an auction like this, where we agreed on opener's second suit. Should it still be a maximal double?

[AL78]

In an auction like this it is possible you could hold a game invitational hand (e.g. a good 16-17 HCP) but without agreements, it is not clear whether bidding 3♠ is invitational or competing the part score. Some partnerships have the agreement that X is invitational to game and 3♠ is competing the partscore. The theory is it is rare to extract a profitable penalty double at a low level when the opponents have found a fit, and it is useful to distinguish between two different hands that want to go on but the bidding space no longer exists. I don't see it makes a difference whether you have bid and raised a suit immediately or opened in another suit first, the situation is the same as 1♠ - (2♥) - 2♠ - (3♥) - ?.

[sfi]

Should it still be a maximal double?

IMO yes. The idea behind maximal doubles is that you always have a way to invite, and there's no reason that should not apply here as well. Conventions always give up something, and maxi doubles give up the chance to double them for penalties. Unfortunately you tripped across the downside on this hand.

[DavidKok]

If you normally bypass diamonds 2♠ should have woken you up. Partner had a number of stronger spade raises and chose the garbage one.

That being said I would play this double as penalties. Within your system East has finished the description of their hand - a minimum response with 6(+) good diamonds and exactly 4 spades. I think there is no need for invitational sequences opposite this hand type. On other auctions you may want to have maximal doubles, though.

[johnu]

In FTF bridge it's no problem. Double is Maximal, I Double You is penalty.

[mikeh]

I think we need better definition of the agreement on when one bids 1D when holding a four card major. All we’re told is that they bypass diamonds with ‘minimum’ hands

 

For example, I play ‘strong Walsh’, wherein we bypass unless we have gf values. That would mean that 2S was gf! Far from being David’s minimum raise, it is in fact the strongest possible raise. A cuebid would also be gf but would deny spades.

 

Another common version has one bypassing unless invitational or better. Now, 2S shows invitational or better values. One ought, playing this style, to know (by agreement) whether responder limits his hand to invitational values by 2S, using either a cuebid then spades to force or a jump in spades to force.

 

Finally, although I’ve not seen this, I suppose one could play that one shows ‘constructive’ (ie not ‘minimum, whatever that means) by bidding diamonds first. Now 2S shows merely constructive values.

 

If 1D then spades showed gf values, double is a strong suggestion to defend. There’s no need for a game try double because 2S was gf

 

If 1D then spades showed invitational or better values, then they need an agreement about double. Bear in mind that in this case 2S showed either purely invitational values or invitational or better.

 

In either case, the partnership is forced to 3S…opener can pass 3H.

 

If opener passes, responder bids 3S with only invitational values or bids game (or makes some other forcing bid) with gf values. So opener doesn’t need to double to invite game. Thus double should logically suggest defending…suggest, not dictate.

 

Only if the agreement is that diamonds then spades promises merely constructive or better does it make any sense to play the double as a game try.

 

So, while the sequence is interesting from a bridge theory pov, it’s impossible to know what double ‘should’ mean absent knowing the agreement on when one bypasses diamonds.

 

In my partnerships, we’d be in a gf at 2S and now double suggests defending. Opener will have something like 4=3=1=5 with good hearts. AJxx AJx x Kxxxx would be a reasonable hand for such a double.

[akwoo]

Finally, although I’ve not seen this, I suppose one could play that one shows ‘constructive’ (ie not ‘minimum, whatever that means) by bidding diamonds first. Now 2S shows merely constructive values.

 

I usually play this!

 

In a weak NT context, I play that bidding 1♦ when holding a 4 card major requires a hand that is at least invitational opposite a 1N (15-17) rebid.

[apollo1201]

Slightly off topic, but worth mentioning about game tries more generally in a competitive context, like in your sentence where you want to invite S:

- bidding 3 of your suit is just competitive but doesn’t ask partner’s advice, they should not raise to 4

- if opps bidding leaves no room to investigate (e.g. they have the suit under yours), X tends to be the maximal (game try)

- if opps bidding leaves space (eg they compete with D while you play S), X is penalty while the suit(s) in the middle show the game try (not necessarily related to the suit mentionned as there might only be one bid available, eg 3H in the example I gave)

 

Here, as others mentioned, the non-bypassing of D might mean sth, although you were unlucky to get the lopsided weak hand KQJxxx vs xxxx.

[barmar]

I think we need better definition of the agreement on when one bids 1D when holding a four card major. All we’re told is that they bypass diamonds with ‘minimum’ hands

I think in all my partnerships we play that non-bypassing is invitational or better, I've never played game-forcing variant. And I thought that's what we played with this partner, but he deviated and confused me.