[aguahombre]

RHM: Justin is starting from the assumption that the double typically showed both unbid suits, in which case bidding 2D with 5-card support for diamonds is more than fine. Now, doubler (knowing what partner normally expects) must remove 2D, since he only had 3 of them. It is removed to 2H because doubler has tolerance there; this leaves the absolute inference he has 5 spades. Why? Because the responsive double would not be made with 3 or more hearts, also not made with only four spades AND less than 4 diamonds.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-07, 10:17, said:

RHM: Justin is starting from the assumption that the double typically showed both unbid suits, in which case bidding 2D with 5-card support for diamonds is more than fine. Now, doubler (knowing what partner normally expects) must remove 2D, since he only had 3 of them. It is removed to 2H because doubler has tolerance there; this leaves the absolute inference he has 5 spades. Why? Because the responsive double would not be made with 3 or more hearts, also not made with only four spades AND less than 4 diamonds.

I understand all that. But this is assuming you will have the bidding for yourself after 2D. This seems naive to me.
Furthermore if the bidding continues say 2D-(Pass)-2H-(pass)-2S will the doubler play you for 3 strong spades or will you now bid 3S over 2H?
I simply do not expect opponents to keep quiet anyway.
My argument is simple 2S is better, particularly if you have to reckon with further club bids.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

edit: I changed my mind about posting

[aguahombre]

rhm, on 2012-April-07, 10:39, said:

I simply do not expect opponents to keep quiet anyway.
My argument is simple 2S is better, particularly if you have to reckon with further club bids.

Rainer Herrmann

And, on the OP auction, there was more competition. Had the doubler bid 2H/2D when he could, partner has an easy 3S competitive call. If you had bid 2S/2D this time, the result would likely be the same. But, with any hand containing 2 or fewer spades, partner would not have a clue you have heart tolerance and less than six spades.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-07, 11:25, said:

And, on the OP auction, there was more competition. Had the doubler bid 2H/2D when he could, partner has an easy 3S competitive call. If you had bid 2S/2D this time, the result would likely be the same. But, with any hand containing 2 or fewer spades, partner would not have a clue you have heart tolerance and less than six spades.

I do not defend the Pass over 2D. However, I believe the risk of losing the spades if you bid diamonds first is substantial if LHO raises clubs.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-07, 11:25, said:

And, on the OP auction, there was more competition. Had the doubler bid 2H/2D when he could, partner has an easy 3S competitive call. If you had bid 2S/2D this time, the result would likely be the same. But, with any hand containing 2 or fewer spades, partner would not have a clue you have heart tolerance and less than six spades.

But the competition was delayed and therefore ineffective. If the auction had gone, as it should have done,

1♣ 1♥ 2♣ dbl
3♣

nobody would have had any sort of 3♠ call. We can't always rely on our opponents to bid like muppets.

I think Rainer makes an excellent point. If you play that the double can be this sort of hand, the overcaller probably should bid spades while he can do so safely.

[gszes]

rhm, on 2012-April-07, 10:04, said:

Sorry I do not understand why 2D is obvious, nor why it is fine.
Would partner double with diamonds only? Hardly, he would bid 2D himself.
Am I likely to have more than 3 cards in spades when I overcalled 1 heart? You must be joking.
Do I expect more bidding with my club void? Of course I do.
Are we in danger of losing the diamonds? I have no intention selling out to further club bids.

I think South should have bid 2S with the intention of following up with a diamond bid later, showing more or less this distribution.
There must be a reason why we differentiate between majors and minors.
Overbidding (6 loser hand) slightly all white with a void in opponents fit is rarely detrimental.

It is true that North might or should have given preference.
However, my LHOs (West) have a habit of reraising clubs over 2D when they have a ten card fit and now I guess Pass from partner would not be that stupid and the spades are lost forever.

Rainer Herrmann

while there is merit in considering future bidding it is completely possible that bidding 2s immediately
will risk several poor things.

1. playing in a 43 spade fit vs a possible 9 or even 10 card dia fit
2. ever convincing p in later competition that we did not really have
spades when we bid them and risking further raises (or conversions to spades)
on a 43 fit when a possible 9 or even 10 card dia fit exists.
3. Giving P false hope that a spade game is in reach rather than the much more
difficult minor game. This might encourage too much enthusiasm.

It seems much more sensible overall to bid 2d and when p bids 2h (suggested several times)
we continue with 2s and now our hand picture is much more complete and p "KNOWS" its
only a 3 card raise. Losing the spade suit (if rho bids 2c over 2h) to play in the second
best spot in not the most horrible of fates. 3D should be a reasonable MP score
(that pass over 2d was scary). We are in a sensible spot be happy:))))))))))))))))))))))

[dake50]

Whether 2S is F1, nf, GF, North DOES have spades and 10 points.
Spades must strain to get in just to avoid "wrong strain"

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-April-07, 13:31, said:

But the competition was delayed and therefore ineffective. If the auction had gone, as it should have done,

1♣ 1♥ 2♣ dbl
3♣

nobody would have had any sort of 3♠ call. We can't always rely on our opponents to bid like muppets.

I think Rainer makes an excellent point. If you play that the double can be this sort of hand, the overcaller probably should bid spades while he can do so safely.

Justin already stated the downside of losing 5-3 ♠ sometimes and compared it to the other benefits. He clearly said that the goal here should not be hands that can make game when everyone is bidding, when game is not priority then finding a 5-3 ♠ (or losing a 5-3 ♠ fit) becomes less important. I think he mentioned that playing a 4-3 ♠ when you have a side 5-4 ♦ and ruffing from AKx ♠ is not attractive.

So he already mentioned what Rainer is saying. Obviously Rainer thinks the danger of losing ♠ fit is underestimated in Justin's reply. Do you also think that losing ♠sometimes is a "no no" thing ?


Not sure but i think Rainer said opener's pd (2♣ bidder) will reraise again.

In regards to the auction you gave, why cant overcaller double 3♣ as take out showing ♣ shortness ? And bid 3♠ with 4 ?

3541
3631
3550
3640

I assume you dont disagree that overcaller will want to compete to 3 level with those shapes, no ?

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-April-08, 01:34, said:

Justin already stated the downside of losing 5-3 ♠ sometimes and compared it to the other benefits. He clearly said that the goal here should not be hands that can make game when everyone is bidding, when game is not priority then finding a 5-3 ♠ (or losing a 5-3 ♠ fit) becomes less important. I think he mentioned that playing a 4-3 ♠ when you have a side 5-4 ♦ and ruffing from AKx ♠ is not attractive.

So he already mentioned what Rainer is saying. Obviously Rainer thinks the danger of losing ♠ fit is underestimated in Justin's reply.

I'm not going to participate in an argument about who said what or what order they said it in.

Quote

Do you also think that losing ♠sometimes is a "no no" thing ?

I think that losing a 5-3 spade fit on a partscore board at pairs is a bad idea. If the doubler often has five spades, the overcaller should cater for it.

I don't have five spades that often, because I'd usually have bid them, so opposite me it would be sensible to bid 2♦.

Quote

In regards to the auction you gave, why cant overcaller double 3♣ as take out showing ♣ shortness ? And bid 3♠ with 4 ?

3541
3631
3550
3640

I assume you dont disagree that overcaller will want to compete to 3 level with those shapes, no ?

The big danger with this (as I think someone has already said) is that partner may leave it in, expecting you to have a 3523 shape and more high-card strength. A takeout double would be fine if you could rely on partner to take it out.

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on 2012-April-07, 10:04, said:

Sorry I do not understand why 2D is obvious, nor why it is fine.

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

[y66]

I don't understand why the "2S by South is better than 2D because opps are not muppets" school do not have more to say about North X'ing when he could have bid 2S, esp. when he has only 3 diamonds, 2S is not forcing and this is match points.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-April-08, 03:00, said:

I think that losing a 5-3 spade fit on a partscore board at pairs is a bad idea. If the doubler often has five spades, the overcaller should cater for it.

I don't have five spades that often, because I'd usually have bid them, so opposite me it would be sensible to bid 2♦.


The big danger with this (as I think someone has already said) is that partner may leave it in, expecting you to have a 3523 shape and more high-card strength. A takeout double would be fine if you could rely on partner to take it out.

Fair enough answer, thanks Andy.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-08, 03:08, said:

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

y66, on 2012-April-08, 09:06, said:

I don't understand why the "2S by South is better than 2D because opps are not muppets" school do not have more to say about North X'ing when he could have bid 2S, esp. when he has only 3 diamonds, 2S is not forcing and this is match points.

Personally I like to play new suits at the two level in competition non forcing including negative free bids.
Nevertheless there is not much merit ending up playing in a weak 5-1 spade fit, particularly when you have tolerance for partner's heart suit.
Competitive double are preferable, when there are alternative strains to be taken into consideration.

But if partner will almost always hold the unbid major for his double and will almost always have to double with a weak 5 card spade suit, the major should come first, particularly so when there is a danger that the suit might get lost.
If you end up at matchpoints in a 4-3 major suit fit at the two level this is not a catastrophe. Unlikely that competent opponents would have allowed you to play 2D when that fit would have been far superior.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-08, 03:08, said:

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

In response to a double that shows spades and diamonds, it's obvious to bid diamonds. In response to a double that shows spades and doesn't say much about diamonds, it's at least reasonable to bid a three-card spade suit before a five-card diamond suit.

It's the equivalent of bidding spades before diamonds with 4153 after 1♣ dbl 2♣ - you bid what might be a 4-3 fit instead of what is probably a 5-3 fit, because the order of the suits makes it impossible to do it the other way around, and because you don't want to lose an eight-card fit in the higher suit.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2012-April-09, 02:52, said:

it's at least reasonable to bid a three-card spade suit before a five-card diamond suit.

Yes, I was making somewhat of joke, it would not occur to me to bid 2S rather than 2D hence I said "I thought..." but I see the argument.

Quote

It's the equivalent of bidding spades before diamonds with 4153 after 1♣ dbl 2♣ - you bid what might be a 4-3 fit instead of what is probably a 5-3 fit, because the order of the suits makes it impossible to do it the other way around, and because you don't want to lose an eight-card fit in the higher suit.

I think this is an overbid, you are much more likely to have a 4-4 spade fit after 1C X 2C with 4 spades than you are to have a 5-3 spade fit over a responsive X in this auction. Also, this is a hand type where it seems like a 4-3 spade fit will not play well. Still, the argument that they will often bid 3C is compelling with a club void and then 2S then 3D seems better if it shows this, it just literally would not have occurred to me.

One downside of bidding 2S is that partner might have a good hand and try bidding 3S or 4S with only 4 spades. I mean, I guess it's circular, but I would expect the 2S bidder to usually be 4-5 in the majors unless they are 3523 or 3514. One advantage of usually having 4 spades to bid 2S is that partner can try for game more aggressively (and if he is short in clubs, like 4252, be more aware that you might have 3 spades, but if he has 4234 or 4243 or 4153 he can be pretty confident that you have 4 spades).

Like I said, I have never considered bidding 2S with this hand type, I do not think it's a crazy concept, I did think it was funny that rainer said he did not see why I would have thought 2D was an obvious response, perhaps he gives me too much credit

This post has been edited by JLOGIC: 2012-April-09, 03:30

[JLOGIC]

Also another flaw in the argument that they will never let us play 2x when we have a club void is that they both have already declined to bid 3C. It's possible either hand will, but when they both haven't already when they had a chance there must be a non-negligible chance we are gonna buy it in 2D. And I still maintain our hand is quite bad for a 4-3 fit relative to most hands, not that it would necessarily be a disaster. But the idea is good food for thought, thanks.

[karlson]

I'm glad I posted this hand.

I think that whether to bid 2d or 2s by south is not obvious, and I tend to agree with the last few posts by gnasher and rhm about rebidding 2s with 3. I suspect that 2d is right on this hand simply because it rates not to play all that well in spades (JL said the same thing above -- you rate not to be able to set up either red suit).

Yes, north should surely correct to 2h. However, I do think the idea that partner could rebid 2d with 3532 is weird. Surely with that shape at least he can bid 2s. Then if you trust the opponents to have 8 clubs partner has 4+ diamonds, and passing 2d looks more reasonable (but still wrong I think).

Edit: written before I saw the last two JL posts

[JLOGIC]

Sorry for triple post but is it also 100 % partner has 4 spades? Could he double with 3244 and some number of points eg Axx Kx Qxxx Qxxx? Probably I'm just rationalizing and it's possible but too unlikely of a possibility to worry about, though it does become more likely when we have our actual hand and the auction has gone this way. But they may save us anyways and bid 3C. And maybe partner should bid 2H or something anyways.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Consistently. The nature of the double in your example is different; it should show 5 spades and 2+clubs. Hands with only 4 spades which can't support clubs would tend to pass 2D, which is forcing for one round unless alerted as a NFB.

I keep forgetting there are people out there who play 2D as forcing
In my country 2D as NFB is natural and non-alertable. Everybody plays that