[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

Strong hand indeed, but the level is uncomfortably high before it's your turn to bid.

1♠ - pass - 3♦* - ?

* Explained as a 'mixed raise' (usually 4-card support). For those of you who are not familiar with the term it means that responder has a hand with both pre-emptive and constructive elements.

Now a three-part question:

- 1. What is your call?
- 2. Let's assume that you don't pass. What would double mean in your methods?
- 3. What is your call if RHO had responded 3♠ (limit)?

Roland

[rogerclee]

1) Double.
2) Takeout of ♠. If this were diamonds, I would bid 4♣.
3) Double.

Partner has spade shortness; my hand is huge.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

I think passing sucks since partner has short spades so we almost for sure have some game. I used to play X of artificial limit+ bids as lead directing and of constructive+ as t/o but I think it's best to just always have a t/o X available now.

As far as whether or not to bid 4C or X, I would probably double because if partner is one suited I want to play in his suit most likely, and if he's 2 suited he will bid 4N if they bid 4S (and if they pass I'll just have to hope we land on our feet!).

I have a feeling that Justin knows the hand. At this point, just to tease you, I am only going to reveal that it created a 17 IMP swing.

Provided that you haven't seen it before, feel free to speculate on how and why

Roland

[nickf]

The auction I saw for this hand was 1S-3C mixed making the problem even harder for the hand with all the clubs.

nickf
sydney

[rogerclee]

nickf, on Jun 4 2008, 02:59 AM, said:

The auction I saw for this hand was 1S-3C mixed making the problem even harder for the hand with all the clubs.

nickf
sydney

Why is this harder?

[nickf]

because it makes X more ambiguous, imo - if that's the call chosen of course.

nickf
sydney

[han]

I play that double is lead directing and would pass.

[FrancesHinden]

1. Double
2. Take-out of spades
3. Double (this one is much much harder)

As Justin says, we are gambling that the opponents actually have what they say they have, and doubling based on our points and partner's shape.

I don't know the hand.

[Walddk]

han, on Jun 4 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

I play that double is lead directing and would pass.

So you pass. Now, what do you when the tray comes back to you with 4♠ pass pass? Do you invite yourself to the party?

Roland

[brianshark]

Double for me would probably just be lead-directing. I'm going to pass and double 3♠ if it comes round to me. If 4♠ comes round to me, I'm not sure what I'll do. Probably pass.

Edit: After a 3♠ limit raise, I'll probably double.

[paulg]

• Double
  
• Double of a bid showing a limit raise or better is lead-directing. Doubles of weaker raises, like this one, are take-out.
  
• Double, take-out.

[Edmunte1]

1. I would have doubled as long it's a good chance that partner has singleton in spades.
2. I play double over Bergen Raises as take-out.
3. Double
4. Yes, i kibbitzed the board

[ArtK78]

Double of the mixed raise is a takeout double of the major suit.

Double of the limit raise is lead directing.

Hence, there is no distinction whether 3♣ or 3♦ is used as the mixed raise. In either case, I double.

[andy_h]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 4 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

1. Double
2. Take-out of spades
3. Double (this one is much much harder)

Agree

[pclayton]

I commentated on an early match in the USBF, and playing a double as a lead director worked a lot better. The circumstances were different, since the opponents were bidding hearts, not spades. If the opponents have hearts, its easier to have (1♥) - pass - (3m) - 3♥ available as a takeout. With spades, having a cue as a TO is more problematic, since you are forced to play at the 4 level in the unbid major.

I generally play dbl as TO of the major, but I'm thinking that I like double as lead direction over hearts, and takeout over spades better. Thoughts?

1. Double.
2. See above
3. I still double.

[ArtK78]

pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

I commentated on an early match in the USBF, and playing a double as a lead director worked a lot better. The circumstances were different, since the opponents were bidding hearts, not spades. If the opponents have hearts, its easier to have (1♥) - pass - (3m) - 3♥ available as a takeout. With spades, having a cue as a TO is more problematic, since you are forced to play at the 4 level in the unbid major.

I generally play dbl as TO of the major, but I'm thinking that I like double as lead direction over hearts, and takeout over spades better. Thoughts?

1. Double.
2. See above
3. I still double.

Makes sense to me. The only thing you lose by using 3♥ as the takeout double is the ability of the partner of the doubler to pass the double of the artificial bid. Therefore, your side is not committed to bid beyond 3♥.

A small loss.

[Apollo81]

1. X
2. takeout
3. X

Given 2 IMO it's pretty obvious to double on 1 (and therefore also on 3)

[mikeh]

1. 4♣. I am not passing, and I do not want to have this hand as dummy in a 4-3 heart fit. Plus, if LHO takes the push, 4♣ will get partner to do the right thing more often than would double... even tho the 'right thing' might be to bid 5♣ thinking that it is a sacrifice.

2. Double of a semi-preemptive raise by an unpassed hand is takeout. This qualifies. It would be lead-directing in other circumstances

3. I would still bid 4♣, altho I would like it less.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jun 4 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

I generally play dbl as TO of the major, but I'm thinking that I like double as lead direction over hearts, and takeout over spades better. Thoughts?
[snip]

Makes sense to me. The only thing you lose by using 3♥ as the takeout double is the ability of the partner of the doubler to pass the double of the artificial bid. Therefore, your side is not committed to bid beyond 3♥.

A small loss.

If you double the artificial raise for takeout, in practice you're not committed at all - they'll hardly ever be able to play in the suit of the artificial raise.

Being compelled, instead, to play in 3♠ or higher is a large loss, in my opinion.