[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

(P) P (P) 1♣
(2♦) P (P) ?

---

I vote

Spoiler

reverse

[redbird97]

Double is automatic on this hand. It simply says, I am short in diamonds and if you passed 2d with a hand you wanted to penalize 2d with, go ahead. If you bid a new suit over the double, you should have at least a 6-5 hand and no interest in defending. For example, pretend you were not playing negative doubles and you held AKxxx,x,x,AKxxxxx. You open 1c-2d-DOUBLE (penalty)-p: I dont know about you, but I have no interest in defending 2d doubled. My hand is great for offense but poor for defense.

The hand I have is an example of a hand id reopen with 2s.

On the hand in question, if partner has a penalty pass of 2d, I am pleased to defend. If partner just has a bad hand, I have support for all three suits. Occasionally you may play in a 4-3 fit when it is wrong, but then you pay off.

[SoTired]

i vote dbl because, if you bid 2S:
1 - It is NOT a "reverse", it is just a bid, usually denying 3♥
2 - If partner has 5 or 6 hearts, you will play in a black suit contract instead
3 - you want to hear from partner
4 - you are willing to sit for 2DX

[the hog]

2S, and yes, of course this is a reverse! Not X because I absolutely dislike doubling the opponents when I have a void. I am going to be on lead a few times here. How am I going to lead a trump through lho's holding when I don't have one?

"AKxxx,x,x,AKxxxxx
The hand I have is an example of a hand id reopen with 2s."

Really???? 4S more likely for me.

[helene_t]

I generally dislike reopening with a double after a WJO if I have a void. I'll do it this time because I have defensive values with an empty club suit and kings in the shorter suits and only one minor honor. Replace ♥K by ♣QJ and I'd consider some alternatives, probably 2♠.

I don't double because I want partner to pass but because I want him to bid hearts if he has five of them. Of course, 2♥ from partner does not promise five, but by cuing 3♦ I might be able to find out. Not sure how the followups are - will my next bid be 2♠, 3♣ or 3♦? I'll probably bid 3♦, assuming that his 3♥ now promises five of them.

2♠ would show good hand but not this good. I don't want partner to pass 2♠. I'm less concerned about him bidding 3♣ on a doubleton while he has five hearts. I can bid 3♥ then which should show this shape.

[SoTired]

helene_t: You are right! I did not notice how really strong this hand was. A 3D q-bid is superior to the re-opening dbl.

The reason I don't call 1C (2D) p (p) 2S a reverse, is because with a hand like: KJxxx x x AKxxxx or AQxx xx xx AQxxx, I would rebid 2S also and these hands are below reverse strength. You have bid your suits in cheapest order.

[the hog]

SoTired, on Apr 8 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

helene_t: You are right! I did not notice how really strong this hand was. A 3D q-bid is superior to the re-opening dbl.

The reason I don't call 1C (2D) p (p) 2S a reverse, is because with a hand like: KJxxx x x AKxxxx or AQxx xx xx AQxxx, I would rebid 2S also and these hands are below reverse strength. You have bid your suits in cheapest order.

You misread Helene's post. She is NOT cue bidding 3D. A 3D cue bid asks pd to bid 3NT with a D stopper and shows a much better C suit.

Secondly with the first hand you posted KJxxx x x AKxxxx , it is more sensible to open 1S because you are not good enough to show both suits if you open 1C and the opps overcall. With the second hand AQxx xx xx AQxxx , you are simply not good enough to bid. You might not call these reverses but that is what they are.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Apr 8 2007, 12:36 AM, said:

2♠ would show good hand but not this good. I don't want partner to pass 2♠. I'm less concerned about him bidding 3♣ on a doubleton while he has five hearts. I can bid 3♥ then which should show this shape.

Partner has passed twice, 2♠ shows a very good hand and asks partner to respond at the 3level with any sort of values. I don't think this hand is good enough to force to game or 3♠ if he would have passed 2♠.

[redbird97]

I guess I can bid with impunity as no one will ever penalize a bad 2 lvl overcall!

[mike777]

Larry Cohen is a big advocate of not, not reopening with a double with a void.

2S for me. My partner should get the idea I am void and got clubs and spades. I reopen with x much more than most forum posters(very often with junky 11) so when I do not that should get pards attention.

[mr1303]

Double. Absolutely clear-cut for me.

Taking penalties seems to have well and truly gone out of fashion these days.

[Edmunte1]

Double, time to collect

[whereagles]

Dbl or 2♠, depending on how LHO's overcalls usually look like

[jdonn]

2♠ is ridiculous, it's one thing to not want to double but then you have to bid 3♠ or something. Remove an ace and it would still be more than you need for 2♠ with this much shape. I am not actually recommending a 3♠ bid (to me double is clear though I can understand not wanting to), but merely making the point that 2♠ doesn't show nearly this much even if it does show extra strength.

[mike777]

I agree that this is a huge hand but if partner has a decent hand we should be fine. If partner has zero hcp and few spades or clubs we should be fine. Note partner is playing me for a d void on this hand very very often.

[pclayton]

Double is automatic.

I don't know who came up with the 'don't double with a void' nonsense (I think it was Bergen), but they probably defended a doubled partial a few years ago where one hand couldn't lead trump and get pard off the endplay, so they came up with this dictum.

Frankly, a void in diamonds gives pard one more, which is a good thing.

This hand is flush with quick tricks. If pard and LHO are both short in clubs, this will be a bloodbath.

[mike777]

Cohen has a whole chapter on it. Perhaps this is an exception to the general rule, but yes Bergen/Cohen say in general do not make takeout x with a void and esp in the balance seat as here.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Apr 9 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Cohen has a whole chapter on it. Perhaps this is an exception to the general rule, but yes Bergen/Cohen say in general do not make takeout x with a void and esp in the balance seat as here.

I know about their dislike of making takeout doubles with voids, but really it doesn't bother me. Like Phil said, if partner passes we will slaughter them with all these top tricks, and if he bids something instead then it's hard to see how doubling will have been bad. Just because we can't lead a trump through does not mean 2♦x will be fun for the opponents.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 9 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Cohen has a whole chapter on it. Perhaps this is an exception to the general rule, but yes Bergen/Cohen say in general do not make takeout x with a void and esp in the balance seat as here.

I know about their dislike of making takeout doubles with voids, but really it doesn't bother me. Like Phil said, if partner passes we will slaughter them with all these top tricks, and if he bids something instead then it's hard to see how doubling will have been bad. Just because we can't lead a trump through does not mean 2♦x will be fun for the opponents.

Absolutely agree. There's no danger at all doubling with such a hand as this. The "don't double with a void" guideline is sound on minimum or just above minimum hands with far fewer defensive tricks than you've got here.
If partner passes a double here, we'll murder them.

[cherdano]

mike777, on Apr 9 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

Cohen has a whole chapter on it. Perhaps this is an exception to the general rule, but yes Bergen/Cohen say in general do not make takeout x with a void and esp in the balance seat as here.

In general you maybe be right, but with three aces and two kings, I promise you Bergen/Cohen would double, too. As skaeran says, when you have a minimal unbalanced hand and a void it is dangeous to double.