Was 10hcp enough?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq983hjdkqt32c875&w=sjthkt72daj9864c4&n=s52ha9863d7ckqj93&e=sak764hq54d5cat62&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1sp2dd2sppxppp]399|300[/hv]

 

MP. 2♦ not gf

 

Do you have an agreement that the first double is takeout, a subsequent double is blood or optional?

 

(I don't consider this a very interesting hand, posted in the wrong forum.)

[Tramticket]

First double is take-out. I would want more high-card points for this. If 2NT is two-suited, then I would bid that instead. Or a simple 2H.

 

The second double is still takeout - but promises extra strength. Note that you still have the same hand for the second double as for the first double. Note also that partner had three opportunities to bid and passed each. It is likely that partner has a bust, or shortages in your suits or both.

[bluenikki]

As mentioned, the crucial background question is what the partnership agreement is about the difference between (1♠) - P - (2♦) - X and (1♠) - P - (2♦) - 2NT .

 

As it is, the only possible hand for the second double is 1=4=3=5 or 0=4=4=5 where the diamonds are strong enough to punish a 3♦ runout of a penalty pass.

 

No such hand _should_ be possible, but it is not a law of nature that the opponents must have their bids.

[DavidKok]

Even without seeing the hands, this is a terrifying auction. East has an opening, West has a positive response (10+ or so), North apparently has values but no good bid. That leaves nothing for South. Making them guess again is verging on the cruel, especially when North has two good suits to bid. Spades also outrank hearts and diamonds outrank clubs, so it is unclear what gains North is looking for if they aren't willing to brave the 3-level (by bidding 2NT the first round).

 

When the opponents have claimed the balance of strength and communicated somewhat about their degree of fit the time for aggressive interference has passed. They are in a much better position to find the winning actions compared to a first hand preempt. It is much more often right to pass on a 2/1 auction (even when not GF) than many expect - even if you get a killer bid in and partner has some support, it is likely you are outgunned and will have painted a picture for declarer on how to play the hand. Savvy bidders (like me) might even have special agreements about redouble, pass and direct bids.

 

I'm not sure either double exists, other than as a psyche expose. If it does, the first one shows approximately a x=4=y=5 or x=4=y=6 with all values in the long suits. I can't think of a meaning of the second one, again excepting the psyche story.

[Gilithin]

The general meta rule for doubles is 1st shape, second strength, 3rd blood. Since you were happy to play at the 3 level, an alternative to the first double would have been whichever of 2♠ or 2NT your partnership uses for this hand type.

[jillybean]

I'm south, my partner here is a new partner and a lot more experienced than I am, on paper (MP's) anyway.

I thought the first X was very marginal but having a tendency to bid on this type of hand myself, what can I say.

 

The second double was very concerning and I am worried that any discussions will not be helpful.

[mikeh]

I agree with the first double. While I play 2N as two suited, I don’t understand why I’d bid 2N here….one of my suits is hearts and the last time I checked partner could bid 2H over double but not over 2N. If we’re in trouble, as we may well be, I’m all for getting doubled in 2H rather than 3H!

 

As for the second double, I empathize given that we’re at favourable and we may well be able to compete in 3C or 3H, but I do think that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

 

Would I have succumbed to the temptation? Probably not but I’m widely regarded as too conservative by my peers. I’m pretty sure that at least one of my two regular partners would double again, or at the very least desperately want to

 

Not at imps….never at imps….but at mps, letting them play 2S on this kind of hand is more often losing bridge than it is winning bridge. And one disaster doesn’t mean much, if this style generates two good boards for very bad one, which t tends to do. At imps, however, the size of the disaster matters, and it could be large.

 

Btw,I think that this problem would garner somewhat more reliable answers if presented solely from north’s point of view…few posters would openly admit to taking an action that we can all see is doomed!

 

Finally, btw, passing the double is appalling. Partner asked us to bid either clubs or hearts. We have three clubs! Bid 3C.

[thepossum]

I was thinking the first double was ok but maybe not the second

Did it work?

Favourable vulnerability. Doubling 2D ok - maybe

[DavidKok]

Why not bid 2♥ rather than double first time? Double shows the unbid suits, but there's a world of difference between a so-so hand with 5-5 and a high HCP hand with 4-5 or even 4-6. If the opponents bid over our double will partner know to compete to the 3-level when it is right? And if you're not going to pass out 2♠, why not 2NT the first time?

[AL78]

Why not bid 2♥ rather than double first time? Double shows the unbid suits, but there's a world of difference between a so-so hand with 5-5 and a high HCP hand with 4-5 or even 4-6. If the opponents bid over our double will partner know to compete to the 3-level when it is right? And if you're not going to pass out 2♠, why not 2NT the first time?

 

IMO the suit is too poor to bid at the two level, especially when opps have advertised the majority of the HCP and not found a fit. I think double is ok first time but not the second time. I agree that if you are going to double a second time and force partner to choose a suit at the three level you might as well have bid 2NT and got the full shape across.

[DavidKok]

Why does "IMO the suit is too poor to bid at the two level, especially when opps have advertised the majority of the HCP and not found a fit." exclude 2♥ but not double pushing us to 2♥ or 3♣ at the least? The way I see it the first double already stuck out our neck but misrepresented the shape and strength along the way. Or does double promise 5-5 in your agreements?

[jillybean]

Finally, btw, passing the double is appalling. Partner asked us to bid either clubs or hearts. We have three clubs! Bid 3C.

Yes, pass worked out badly. I thought partner was showing more values and thought converting to penalty would be more profitable.

[mikeh]

Yes, pass worked out badly. I thought partner was showing more values and thought converting to penalty would be more profitable.

 

 

As on another thread (speaking to someone else) I think the problem stems from not listening properly to the auction.

 

RHO opened and rebid (so didn’t psyche, as if many people psyche these days) and LHO showed at least 10 hcp….likely no more due to passing 2S but still 10 hcp.

 

You hold 8 hcp. Placing the opps with minimal values they still have roughly 22 hcp, leaving at most 10 for partner. For partner to take two calls on a 10 count, he has to have shape, which (as you can infer from your own hand) won’t include significant spade values.

 

IOW, the auction tells you that you probably can’t beat 2S even if partner has the hoped-for Ace of hearts.

 

I’d bet good money that he is 5-5 with around 10 hcp, not because I’ve seen his hand but because the opps told me so much about theirs!

[AL78]

Why does "IMO the suit is too poor to bid at the two level, especially when opps have advertised the majority of the HCP and not found a fit." exclude 2♥ but not double pushing us to 2♥ or 3♣ at the least? The way I see it the first double already stuck out our neck but misrepresented the shape and strength along the way. Or does double promise 5-5 in your agreements?

 

Double gives partner a choice of places to play. Bidding 2♥ is showing a poor suit at the two level that partner might not have support for. At least if partner bids 2♥ after the double they will very likely have at least three of them. No double doesn't promise 5-5 in my agreements but if it is a choice between double and 2♥ I choose double.

[jillybean]

Ooof, I stand corrected. (again)

 

Here's another hand

 

[hv=pc=n&n=st753hq92dj654ck5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1sp2cd3c?]133|200[/hv]

 

What has partner got, what is your call?

[harikannan]

Since our chances of game are thin, 3d, suggesting a sacrifice in diamonds if need be.

[DavidKok]

Double gives partner a choice of places to play. Bidding 2♥ is showing a poor suit at the two level that partner might not have support for. At least if partner bids 2♥ after the double they will very likely have at least three of them. No double doesn't promise 5-5 in my agreements but if it is a choice between double and 2♥ I choose double.

I'm sorry but I think to a large extent double is a blame transfer here. Making partner choose feels safer than ripping the band-aid off, especially since the heart suit is weak and the hand is under strength. But are we really giving partner good options? With a clear discrepancy between hearts and clubs partner will choose correctly, and if the opponents are silent partner will choose 2♥ most of the time. Conversely, if the opponents bid again (which I think is really likely, after they have already claimed the balance of values) partner won't know to raise hearts with four or to play us for this much shape and this little values. Double really seems like a poor description to me, the kind of 'you decide, and if it turns out to be wrong it will have been your fault' style bid. In fact, why bid at all? Spades outrank hearts, diamonds outrank clubs, and the opponents hold the balance of strength. And if they don't have a fit we probably don't have one either, in which case making partner bid is really risky.

 

Ooof, I stand corrected. (again)

 

Here's another hand

 

[hv=pc=n&n=st753hq92dj654ck5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1sp2cd3c?]133|200[/hv]

 

What has partner got, what is your call?

4 hearts, 5 diamonds and just barely insufficient values to open. We should bid 3♦. I am not a fan of doubles like this, as expressed earlier. Partner got quite lucky that we have good diamond support and not that many wasted values - most of the time a double like this just gives the opponents cheap opportunities to score big. If you want to enter at the 2-level with a hand below opening strength it is generally better to do it on the first round with a preemptive bid.

[Gilithin]

I agree with the first double. While I play 2N as two suited, I don’t understand why I’d bid 2N here

You bid 2NT (or 2♠) to get the hand out quickly rather than forcing to the 3 level with a second double. And if not prepared to play in 3♥, passing the second time around rather than doubling again makes more sense. It is quite a common theme in chapters on competitive bidding for writers to note that this specific auction (1X - 2Y) a particularly dangerous one is to get involved with and you already made most of the points as to why that might be so. It does vary a little by system - in Acol a pair might only have 18 rather than the 22 S+5 pairs might expect - but the principle of getting in and out as fast as possible remains for all of them, which is the main reason I mentioned 2♠/2NT as an alternative to doubling twice. If you disagree with this general principle, rather than just dismissing it for this particular hand, that might make for an interesting discussion.

[jillybean]

 

4 hearts, 5 diamonds and just barely insufficient values to open. We should bid 3♦. I am not a fan of doubles like this, as expressed earlier. Partner got quite lucky that we have good diamond support and not that many wasted values - most of the time a double like this just gives the opponents cheap opportunities to score big. If you want to enter at the 2-level with a hand below opening strength it is generally better to do it on the first round with a preemptive bid.

Partner was let off the hook when the opps raised clubs. 3♦ is a free bid, did you ever consider pass?

[DavidKok]

Partner was let off the hook when the opps raised clubs. 3♦ is a free bid, did you ever consider pass?

No. We've got a 9-card fit, partner is marked with club shortage and the vulnerability is favourable. In fact, if you're not going to bid with this hand, just stop doubling on the auction in full. The double asks us to bid with a suitable hand, and we've got a great one in context.

[mikeh]

You bid 2NT (or 2♠) to get the hand out quickly rather than forcing to the 3 level with a second double. And if not prepared to play in 3♥, passing the second time around rather than doubling again makes more sense. It is quite a common theme in chapters on competitive bidding for writers to note that this specific auction (1X - 2Y) a particularly dangerous one is to get involved with and you already made most of the points as to why that might be so. It does vary a little by system - in Acol a pair might only have 18 rather than the 22 S+5 pairs might expect - but the principle of getting in and out as fast as possible remains for all of them, which is the main reason I mentioned 2♠/2NT as an alternative to doubling twice. If you disagree with this general principle, rather than just dismissing it for this particular hand, that might make for an interesting discussion.

I confess to having little experience with this sequence, since virtually nobody in my area plays 2C as not promising a rebid…virtually everyone plays it as gf.

 

Thus, for me, the double of 2D already suggested a takeout based on shape rather than values and the second double simply shows some extra strength….not much and based on shape rather than hcp…if we have any, it’s not by much on this hand, but at mps it seems timid to pass 2S, and I’d expect partner to understand that.

 

As for the initial double, I think 2N is not a good choice.

 

Why?

 

Because, as I said above, the double shows a two suited hand of about this shape….even if I had a stronger hand, all that means (in the absence of a psyche) is that advancer is that much weaker, so it balances out.

 

Meanwhile, it’s quite common for opener to pass the double. Sure, common is not the same as ‘always’ or ‘almost always’ but it’s definitely something we can hope to happen. In that case, advancer can bid 2H or with an unusual well-fitting hand, jump to 3H. 2N does tend to preempt opener a bit (although if he starts with double we probably won’t like the end result) but it also and more importantly preempts partner.

 

I simply don’t understand what gain there is from using 2N rather than double.

 

The usual discussion about 2N is after an auction such as (1S) P (2S) where having 2N for all two suiters, rather than just minors, has significant benefits over any alternative, but that’s not the least bit the same as the sequence under discussion.

 

Note that one will rarely get a chance to double again (or to bid 2N) since it’s very strange, to NA eyes, for opener to bid 2S on 5 and responder to pass. Maybe it’s common in Acol land, but (thankfully, since I think Acol is a theoretically flawed method…and, yes, I have played it and have read books on it) it’s definitely weird to see this auction over here.

 

Thus I think it foolish to expect that we need to take two takeout calls.

 

Our second one doesn’t show extras…but it is at least 5-5 while the first might arguably have been 4=5 (I doubt that anyone would espouse 2N on some 4=5 hand).

[mikeh]

Ooof, I stand corrected. (again)

 

Here's another hand

 

[hv=pc=n&n=st753hq92dj654ck5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1sp2cd3c?]133|200[/hv]

 

What has partner got, what is your call?

I don’t much care what partner has got, but I do care, and don’t like, that he’s gone out of his way to tell the opps about his hand. Why?

 

Now, if we’re playing the same opps as earlier, such that, absent the double, we might be on lead against 2S, I’d sympathize and maybe agree with his action.

 

However, after the 3C raise, I’m passing, while grinding my teeth at the usually inappropriate information leakage that partner’s committed.

 

It should, imo, be extremely rare for a passed hand to insert itself into a strong auction by the opps.