[nigel_k]

---

IMPs

[jjbrr]

While it's not my preference, this hand is a good argument for the jump to 2♠ showing a 5-card suit.

[mike777]

dislike 2s hate 3h which shows a much bigger hand.


I guess 40% west for 3h
20% for 2s
\
40% rub of the green you do have 25 hcp, you are vul this imps so push.

I expect many good players to get to some game here vul at imps.

[cloa513]

Without aces, its better to just bid 2D, after the diamond raise, bid 3S as you can't have enough top tricks to make 3NT unless partner has a double cover in hearts and something in diamonds hopefully J10x so easy raise to 5D.

You have to think how game is makeable.

[whereagles]

I would say the auction is pretty normal. If something, perhaps doubler could have bid 3♦ instead of 3♥.

[Trinidad]

West's bidding was fine. I might have overcalled 2♦, rather than double, but double is fine too. The 2♠ response is perfect. The 3♥ bid is also the right bid (3♦ would show a strong hand with 5+ diamonds, which West doesn't have). But East should have realized that his ATx is not a good stop opposite the expected small singleton for West. If East would bid 4♦, they would reach 5♦.

I blame off-shape takeout doubles. Not that this particular take-out double is off-shape, but it seems like East was expecting something in hearts in the West hand (i.e. a lot less pure take-out double). After all, who would bid 3NT with ATx if you expect a singleton opposite?

Rik

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 03:20, said:

West's bidding was fine. I might have overcalled 2♦, rather than double, but double is fine too. The 2♠ response is perfect. The 3♥ bid is also the right bid (3♦ would show a strong hand with 5+ diamonds, which West doesn't have). But East should have realized that his ATx is not a good stop opposite the expected small singleton for West. If East would bid 4♦, they would reach 5♦.

I blame off-shape takeout doubles. Not that this particular take-out double is off-shape, but it seems like East was expecting something in hearts in the West hand (i.e. a lot less pure take-out double). After all, who would bid 3NT with ATx if you expect a singleton opposite?

Rik

I agree with everything in this post except for the comments about the 3NT bid. It is far from clear that the 3NT bid is not correct. Suppose West had Jx of hearts and one less diamond. 3NT would then be a perfectly normal contract which would make comfortably, while 5♦ would have little play on the expected heart lead.

The result is unlucky but fairly normal. It is very hard for EW to determine that the heart stop is not adequate.

[MickyB]

West should bid 3♦, not 3♥, which will usually be a balanced hand. The rest of the auction was fine.

[gnasher]

After East's 2♠ bid, I agree with the suggestion that West should bid 3♦. That's reasonably descriptive, and leaves more space, so that you can bid

dbl-2♠
3♦-3♥
3♠-3NT
4♣-5♦

When East doesn't bid 3NT directly over 3♦, West knows it's the wrong contract.

I dislike having to bid 2♠ on that sort of hand. I assume that East did that because 2♥ would have been game-forcing (or effectively game-forcing opposite a hand without spades). A better approach is to play 2♥ as a one-round force. In reply, the doubler bids 2♠ with four spades (forcing for one round), 2NT with a minimum and not four spades, and something at the three-level with four spades and a good hand.

[pooltuna]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-06, 22:00, said:

---

IMPs

Basically bad luck. Change the West hand to ♠KJ9♥4♦AQ872♣KQJ6 and you are almost certain to take 10 trix

[Phil]

I hate 3♥. It demonstrates the doubler lacks a fundamental understanding that other bids are forcing. Whats wrong with:


......
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♦
5♦?

[Free]

Doesn't Dbl followed by 3♦ show a completely different hand type? Looks like a pretty normal auction to me.

[Trinidad]

Phil, on 2011-October-07, 08:52, said:

I hate 3♥. It demonstrates the doubler lacks a fundamental understanding that other bids are forcing. Whats wrong with:


......
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♦
5♦?

Of course, 3♦ would have been forcing. It shows a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ (which is why 3♦ is obviously GF: ~18+ for the doubler + 8-11 for advancer = GF).

So the forcing character of 3♦ is not the problem. The fact that the West hand is not a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ is the problem.

Rik

[han]

I agree with most of the dislikes (2S, 3H) but not with the dislike of 3NT. That seems the really obvious bid in this auction, ATx not being good enough to bid 3NT is ridiculous in my humble opinion.

[bd71]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 09:33, said:

Of course, 3♦ would have been forcing. It shows a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ (which is why 3♦ is obviously GF: ~18+ for the doubler + 8-11 for advancer = GF).

So the forcing character of 3♦ is not the problem. The fact that the West hand is not a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ is the problem.

Rik

1. If using 18+ as your double-then-bid HCP theshold, seems fair to me to think of the West hand as equivalent, or at least close to equivalent. You almost certainly have a fit somewhere and you have a 5-loser hand. I would NOT think it accurate or fair to describe the West hand as a mere 15-pointer.

2. Would appreciate some discussion of what people feel is the best threshold to use for double-then-bid (using whatever metric you want...hcp, losers, etc.). I have seen people describe this as anywhere from 15+ to 18+. Is this just arbitrary and a matter for partner agreement? Or is there some threshold that people think is fundamentally more sound?

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 09:33, said:

Of course, 3♦ would have been forcing. It shows a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ (which is why 3♦ is obviously GF: ~18+ for the doubler + 8-11 for advancer = GF).

So the forcing character of 3♦ is not the problem. The fact that the West hand is not a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ is the problem.

I think it's a waste of the 3♦ bid to limit it to such a rare hand-type. That means that all of your normal takeout-double shapes have to choose betwen raising spades and bidding 3♥.

As far as I'm concerned, 3♦ just shows 5+ diamonds with enough for game opposite a 2♠ bid. That might be a hand too strong for a 2♦ overcall, or it might be a suit-oriented takeout-double shape that now wants to play in game.

[ArtK78]

Seems to me that the 3♦ bid should not show 18+ (or the equivalent in playing strength) once responder jumps in response to the TOx. It should merely be game forcing and natural.

Given that, I like the idea of bidding 3♦ on the West hand after the 2♠ call. Now East can inquire about help in hearts by bidding 3♥. The practical problem is that West may not be able to tell that Jx (and even a singleton J in most cases) is sufficient to stop the suit.

[gnasher]

bd71, on 2011-October-07, 10:00, said:

2. Would appreciate some discussion of what people feel is the best threshold to use for double-then-bid (using whatever metric you want...hcp, losers, etc.). I have seen people describe this as anywhere from 15+ to 18+. Is this just arbitrary and a matter for partner agreement? Or is there some threshold that people think is fundamentally more sound?

I think it's a matter of style and agreement.

It's also not just a matter of strength. For example, after a 1♥ opening the threshold would be higher with a 1363 shape than with a 3361 shape.

[Vampyr]

cloa513, on 2011-October-07, 00:09, said:

Without aces, its better to just bid 2D.

I agree with this, and I am surprised that this is such a minority view. 2♦ looks normal to me.

[han]

gnasher, on 2011-October-07, 10:55, said:

I think it's a waste of the 3♦ bid to limit it to such a rare hand-type. That means that all of your normal takeout-double shapes have to choose betwen raising spades and bidding 3♥.

As far as I'm concerned, 3♦ just shows 5+ diamonds with enough for game opposite a 2♠ bid. That might be a hand too strong for a 2♦ overcall, or it might be a suit-oriented takeout-double shape that now wants to play in game.

Exactly right imo.