An interesting bidding sequence creating some discussion. First in hand your LHO opens, playing 2/1, opens 1♣. Your partner bids 2♣, (Michaels). Your RHO bids 3♣.
What does Double from you mean in this sequence?
Page 1 of 1
Competitive Bidding
#2
Posted 2021-February-11, 10:09
This depends on agreement. If partner has shown 5-5 in the majors you typically don't want to sit and defend 3♣. Without prior discussion I don't think any particular meaning stands out, probably an invitational raise in one of the two major suits (ambiguous). For me it would show an invitational raise of hearts.
#3
Posted 2021-February-11, 11:04
So with ♠5, ♥A32, ♦8543, ♣KQ865, non-vul against vul what are you going to do? Pass?
I believe my partner has told me what he has. If I want to go to game and am happy in either ♠ or ♥ I bid 4♣. If I want to play in 3 of a major I bid it. Why cannot I make a penalty double of 3♣?
I believe my partner has told me what he has. If I want to go to game and am happy in either ♠ or ♥ I bid 4♣. If I want to play in 3 of a major I bid it. Why cannot I make a penalty double of 3♣?
#4
Posted 2021-February-11, 11:17
Constructive values. Double is one of the view ways you have of showing strength in a sequence like this. Almost every other available call can be made purely on shape so you need one way of shifting to a constructive auction. Double is typically the call used for this purpose.
(-: Zel :-)
#5
Posted 2021-February-11, 12:34
relpar, on 2021-February-11, 11:04, said:
So with ♠5, ♥A32, ♦8543, ♣KQ865, non-vul against vul what are you going to do? Pass?
I believe my partner has told me what he has. If I want to go to game and am happy in either ♠ or ♥ I bid 4♣. If I want to play in 3 of a major I bid it. Why cannot I make a penalty double of 3♣?
I believe my partner has told me what he has. If I want to go to game and am happy in either ♠ or ♥ I bid 4♣. If I want to play in 3 of a major I bid it. Why cannot I make a penalty double of 3♣?
Hands that are not certain about 3 or 4 are more common than penalty doubles in clubs. But if you prefer penalty then you can make that agreement.
Zelandakh, on 2021-February-11, 11:17, said:
Constructive values. Double is one of the view ways you have of showing strength in a sequence like this. Almost every other available call can be made purely on shape so you need one way of shifting to a constructive auction. Double is typically the call used for this purpose.
If uninterrupted all of 2♦, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ would show values for me, so I would like to treat a double as a 'stolen bid' double of 3♣ and 3♦ the same as when not disturbed. But without these agreements a double needs to be more ambiguous (in particular, not tied to one of the two suits).
#6
Posted 2021-February-11, 15:48
DavidKok, on 2021-February-11, 12:34, said:
Hands that are not certain about 3 or 4 are more common than penalty doubles in clubs. But if you prefer penalty then you can make that agreement.
If uninterrupted all of 2♦, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ would show values for me, so I would like to treat a double as a 'stolen bid' double of 3♣ and 3♦ the same as when not disturbed. But without these agreements a double needs to be more ambiguous (in particular, not tied to one of the two suits).
If uninterrupted all of 2♦, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ would show values for me, so I would like to treat a double as a 'stolen bid' double of 3♣ and 3♦ the same as when not disturbed. But without these agreements a double needs to be more ambiguous (in particular, not tied to one of the two suits).
If you play X as penalty then 3♦ probably becomes the cheap value call; problem then comes if they open ♦.
By default in an uninterrupted auction I would see 2♦ as asking the overcaller to bid their better major but obviously you can play it differently if you want. All of the other calls you mention force the auction to the 3 level. Yes, some of those calls will also be constructive, for example 2NT = ask; 3♣ = good raise ♥; 3♦ good raise ♠. But here there is a great deal of flexibility as to how to organise hands so the precise structure is less important than actually having some useful agreement.
(-: Zel :-)
#7
Posted 2021-February-11, 16:23
Penalty.
- Partner has described his shape accurately. We don't need double to elicit his shape, and we can't expect him to reopen with a double in case we have a trap pass because he told his story already.
- If we have a game try, we can bid 3♦. So maybe (1♦)-2♦-(3♦)-x should be a game try. But I don't really believe in game try doubles. If you have a game try, just bid game. Besides, if we play split-range Michaels, partner will pass 3M with a minimum and raise with a maximum so in that style we arguably don't even need a game try.
Opps bid 3♣ voluntarily and they have fit, so it may seem unlikely that we have a hand for penalty double. Penalty doubles are more for situations in which opps are under pressure to bid at an uncomfortable level and could be in a 6-0 fit or so. But here, although they do have a fit, clubs could easily break 5-0. Besides, we don't have to worry that our penalty double gives the layout away since partner's 2♣ bid already told them most of what they need to know.
If partner had shown six cards with a weak jump overcall, everyone would agree that it is penalty. Now, partner has shown ten cards, and the more accurate partner has described his hand, the stronger the case for a penalty double.
I am frankly surprised that this isn't unanimous. But OK, there's no such thing as a unanimous opinion in bridge
- Partner has described his shape accurately. We don't need double to elicit his shape, and we can't expect him to reopen with a double in case we have a trap pass because he told his story already.
- If we have a game try, we can bid 3♦. So maybe (1♦)-2♦-(3♦)-x should be a game try. But I don't really believe in game try doubles. If you have a game try, just bid game. Besides, if we play split-range Michaels, partner will pass 3M with a minimum and raise with a maximum so in that style we arguably don't even need a game try.
Opps bid 3♣ voluntarily and they have fit, so it may seem unlikely that we have a hand for penalty double. Penalty doubles are more for situations in which opps are under pressure to bid at an uncomfortable level and could be in a 6-0 fit or so. But here, although they do have a fit, clubs could easily break 5-0. Besides, we don't have to worry that our penalty double gives the layout away since partner's 2♣ bid already told them most of what they need to know.
If partner had shown six cards with a weak jump overcall, everyone would agree that it is penalty. Now, partner has shown ten cards, and the more accurate partner has described his hand, the stronger the case for a penalty double.
I am frankly surprised that this isn't unanimous. But OK, there's no such thing as a unanimous opinion in bridge
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
Page 1 of 1