[adhoc3]

I got confused with the following sequence and try to find out which is 'right' in common (not discussed).

1♦----dbl----pass----1♥
1♠----dbl----pass----?

I had: T86 964 865 T532. Both Vul.

Actually, pard has alternative as he had a 24hcp balanced hand. But that's not the point.

I wondered 2H could be the least right thing, just put it there in case anyone does has agreement for that. Pass...... never for me too.

[cinvent77]

First, I see the merits of your 1♥ response, although 2♣ is not wrong. Now partner has a reasonable take-out double. He's short in spades, so pass is not an option. 1NT shows some values, so that's out as well. Ergo: no bid is nice. Maybe 2♣ for the lead? Perhaps slightly better than 2♥, since you don't want to encourage partner to bid 4♥.

[mike777]

Pass

Why is partner short in spades? I would really get this one wrong.... I bid 1h already, what does partner want me to do? No cuebid.

[kenberg]

Weakest bid: 2C

I know that many folks play many doubles as take-out but I think pard has spades and values. (Hard to play him for 24 though). If he has hearts and values I would expect him to raise hearts to some level. If he has neither hearts nor long spades I would expect some number of NT (with suitable stops), a cue bid, or a club bid. Leaving the double in seems too much to ask, so a club bid seems right to me. But I think your partner has spades. At least I would not be making that second double unless I had spades.

[jtfanclub]

In the system I play, this is specifically defined as extras (19+) and balanced, but in general, I think 4 spades and about 20 hcp is a reasonable definition.

Should be down 1. That's 200. I don't think I can beat that by bidding.

I'll pass.

[BebopKid]

Since I've already bid showing a weak hand with 1♥ and partner already promised at least 3 spades, I'm taking his double as penalty and passing.

[Double !]

not sure about "correct" bid, but am taking into consideration 2 dogs that didn't bark (2 things that didn't occur).
1. partner didn't double and then cue bid, &
2. partner didn't double and then jump in NT

whatever

DHL

[mike777]

ya double,..i am...confused.....very....
i pass but.....

[Edmunte1]

Opponents bid one of the suits i doubled for take out, so my second double is penality oriented. So i'll pass in one of ours 7 card fits, at the lowest level

[helene_t]

For those who consider pass, it's cricial how many spades partner rates to have. There was a similar discussion in the Bridge World a couple of years ago. Partner first doubles one suit (showing support for all three unbid suits. Then he doubles a second suit. The auction in question was (I think)
(1♦)-X-(1♠)-pass
(2♠)-X
The interpreation of the seceond double ranged from t/o (say 2 spades) to penalty (say 4 spades), with optional (say 3 spades) being the most popular interpretation.

In Dutch magazine IMP, there was a discussion about
(1♥)-pass-(pass)-X
(2♦)-pass-(pass)-X
which nobody interpretted as penalty, yet some expected three diamonds by partner while others cosidered 4225 to be the typical shape.

In both discussions it was pointed out that the more likely opps are to have psyched, the stronger the case for playing the double as psyche-exposing.

Here, partner's failur to support hearts and his failure to bid clubs suggest that he has four spades, allthoguh he could have a 3334 or maybe even 2335 with a missing guard in either of the enemy suits. So penalty is not an unreasonable interpretation. I would bid 2♣, though, since we almost certainly have a fit there.

As for weaker bid: I think 2♣ and 2♥ can both be bid with zero HCP. Pass would require either some values or too many spades for not having bid spades first. If 1NT would show some values, I'm not sure. With a 2353 and zero HCPs you can hardly bid anything else.

[temp3600]

I play that partner's second double is not punitive, it shows extras, so I cannot leave the double in. It might work to pass but is a poor idea in my opinion. Note that RHO heard his partner bid diamonds and spades, and prefers spades.

I would pass with a hand that had good defense against one spade, so pass can't be that weak.

1NT shows some points, so again it can't be the weakest bid.

This leaves 2♣ and 2♥. I had this conception that bidding a second suit should show a little something in terms of high cards, but after thinking about it, I think it is playable to only have it show distribution. So let's say 2♣ and 2♥ can be made with 0 HCP. To me, 2♣ shows much more distribution than 2♥ though : 4 hearts and 5+ clubs at least, whereas 2♥ often is made on xxx xxxx xxx xxx, and sometimes xxx xxx xxxx xxx.

So to me 2♥ is the weakest of the lot. I would've bid 2♣ at my first bid with this hand.

[jtfanclub]

temp3600, on Feb 17 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

Note that RHO heard his partner bid diamonds and spades, and prefers spades.

If I had 4 diamonds, 2 spades, and no points to speak of (as RHO), I'd pass. Opponents are unlikely to leave in 1♠ X, while an X of 2♦ is clearly penalty, and LHO could easily have 5♦ .

[Winstonm]

With a weak responding hand I favor bidding a minor when possible over a 3-card major for the simple expedient that it is more difficult for doubler to get excited about the prospects for an 11-trick game opposite a non-jump minor bid; however, if I bid a 3-card major pard's next bid might be 3 of that major and I don't want to encourage that action.

As to the second double, we all suffer knee-jerk reactions, and when opener has the audacity to bid your suit when you hold AQ10x the tendency is to double - but unless truly prepared to play 1S X'd with hopes a weak partner can double the preference back to the orignal opened suit, there may be better uses of this double.

I like the idea of using the room saved by the double to show a hand strong enough to have raised a simple response - this allows partner to judge better what to do with his rather wide-range of possible responding hands.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

I like the idea of using the room saved by the double to show a hand strong enough to have raised a simple response - this allows partner to judge better what to do with his rather wide-range of possible responding hands.

This might well be a good idea but, absent discussion, you would not expect the call to have that meaning would you? Playing this way then X and 2H both show hearts, one of them being stronger than the other, is that it? Perhaps one of them saying "yes I really have four hearts but nothing extra to speak of", the other (the X as you play) showing definite extra strength? I can see how this might work. But w/o discussion it seems to me the second double shows spades.

I think that I do agree the first call should be 2C, not 1H, for the reasons you say. Further if opener is, say, 6-4 in the diamonds/spades I might really regret encouraging partner to trot out his three card heart support when opener rebids diamonds. A 6-4 sixteen count in opener's hand is consistent with the information so far. When forced by partner to bid it's hard to describe a hand when the main feature you want to describe is that you really would rather not be bidding, but bidding whatever you have four of is probably right. When opener bids again and partner consults his hand, he knows you are broke and he will raise your four card suit or not based on this knowledge.

[Double !]

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

With a weak responding hand I favor bidding a minor when possible over a 3-card major for the simple expedient that it is more difficult for doubler to get excited about the prospects for an 11-trick game opposite a non-jump minor bid; however, if I bid a 3-card major pard's next bid might be 3 of that major and I don't want to encourage that action.

I agree with the idea trying to make the bid that is least likely to turn partner on when holding such a yucky hand.
I see little merit in having initially bid 1♥ with this hand. (Telling partner that I have something when I don't really have it? Just to keep the bidding low?) Had the person holding these cards simply shown his/her longest suit (i.e. bid 2♣) to start with, then this person would have been in the position to pass any non-forcing rebid by the doubler, or to now bid a 3-card major in response to any forcing rebid by the doubler.

I guess I'm dumb, but I try to comply when partner asks me to bid my longest of the unbid suits. I'm fully capable of digging myself into deep holes in many other ways. I don't need to compound this by bidding values or length that I don't have. Is this hand another case of "expert" bidding getting into trouble that less expert players wouldn't have gotten into?

Supposed this hand had included 4 hearts and only 3 clubs, and had a legitimate 1 heart response. Then, I would suspect that partner's second double would show extra values (that it might still be our hand despite the fact that the the 1 heart bidder didn't promise anything more than 4 hearts), sort of like a support double that's not good enough to make a cue bid, rebid NT, or bid a new suit? If one plays it that way, then would not the simple rebid of the inferred 7+ card fit be the weakest action? Please, enlighten me.

DHL

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Feb 17 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

I like the idea of using the room saved by the double to show a hand strong enough to have raised a simple response - this allows partner to judge better what to do with his rather wide-range of possible responding hands.

This might well be a good idea but, absent discussion, you would not expect the call to have that meaning would you? Playing this way then X and 2H both show hearts, one of them being stronger than the other, is that it? Perhaps one of them saying "yes I really have four hearts but nothing extra to speak of", the other (the X as you play) showing definite extra strength? I can see how this might work. But w/o discussion it seems to me the second double shows spades.

I think that I do agree the first call should be 2C, not 1H, for the reasons you say. Further if opener is, say, 6-4 in the diamonds/spades I might really regret encouraging partner to trot out his three card heart support when opener rebids diamonds. A 6-4 sixteen count in opener's hand is consistent with the information so far. When forced by partner to bid it's hard to describe a hand when the main feature you want to describe is that you really would rather not be bidding, but bidding whatever you have four of is probably right. When opener bids again and partner consults his hand, he knows you are broke and he will raise your four card suit or not based on this knowledge.

You are quite right that I am only thinking out loud what the "theoretical best" might be, and would go on to say I'm sure I have been guilty myself of doubling in this situation with 4 good spades.

I really don't play "pickup" bridge anymore - long story but there is a reason - so I tend to post what I think should occur in a practiced partnership, and often fail to say so.

It only seems to me that in a practiced partnership, there is a better theoretical use for X and 2H/3H than for X to be penalty - what those differences are I haven't worked out.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Supposed this hand had included 4 hearts and only 3 clubs, and had a legitimate 1 heart response. Then, I would suspect that partner's second double would show extra values (that it might still be our hand despite the fact that the the 1 heart bidder didn't promise anything more than 4 hearts), sort of like a support double that's not good enough to make a cue bid, rebid NT, or bid a new suit? If one plays it that way, then would not the simple rebid of the inferred 7+ card fit be the weakest action? Please, enlighten me.

In many of these somewhat unclassified auctions, there is no strong general agreement of what a bid should mean - I would think in an ACBL tournament, the meaning of the double would be penalty and any other agreement would probably need to be alerted.

Determining the best theoretical usage is more complex and would be a partnership agreement, I would think. Your concept seems valid, as 2H/3H are still available in their normal sense, but a hand such as AKxx, KJx, x, AQxxx is somewhat stuck for a call. Perhaps the best theoretical usage is as you suggest, a support double showing extra values - it certainly fills a bidding void that is most likely more important than making a penalty double.

[cinvent77]

I read many good arguments. The standard agreement is probably penalty.

However I don't like trying to double opponents in a one-level contract. The frequency seems low. Unless partner has a real trump stack and a decently strong hand, it probably won't gain us much. And even if 1♠x is a party for us, perhaps the opponents can escape to say 2♦. Moreover with a decent hand (say, 15 points) and good spades I would overcall 1♠ over 1♦ and maybe double next round. So, the doubler doesn't have a hand like that. Leaves either a very strong hand with spades or at most four spades.

Maybe one should just agree whether the second double is penalty or not. I'm in favor of "not". But then: what would a nonpenalty double mean here?

[temp3600]

jtfanclub, on Feb 17 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

temp3600, on Feb 17 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

Note that RHO heard his partner bid diamonds and spades, and prefers spades.

If I had 4 diamonds, 2 spades, and no points to speak of (as RHO), I'd pass. Opponents are unlikely to leave in 1♠ X, while an X of 2♦ is clearly penalty, and LHO could easily have 5♦ .

Partner bid 1♠ voluntarily. He is showing exactly 4 spades (rarely 5, when he is 6-5), and at least 4 diamonds, quite often 5.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave him in the 4-2 fit because it's at the 1 level and not go back to the 4-4 or often 5-4 fit at the 2 level.

[the hog]

I bid 2C. Absolutely agree with 1H