[A2003]

Scoring: IMP


1♠ pass 1NT* 2♥
pass pass pass
*= Forcing

---

Playing South,
What should be my bid?

[kenrexford]

3♥?

Maybe double is more correct, but 3♥ seems about right.

[helene_t]

3♥ is a little too much. Maybe 2NT shows this hand?

[rbforster]

I like a regular old takeout double. If parter wants to sit for it, I've got 4 quick tricks outside of my suit which should help us count to 6. If he wants to bid 2♠ or 3m that's fine too. Here's it's nice we can still play in our major at the 2 level, so I'm less concerned about getting pushed too high opposite a hand with 4 hearts but too weak to pass my double.

[rogerclee]

I double (for takeout) and do not think there is a serious alternative. Double here should definitely not be penalty. 2NT here is good old fashioned 18-19 balanced.

West should definitely raise hearts.

[RichMor]

I would be glad to make a takeout double as long as the opps let me describe it to pard as takeout.

But I fear pard would likely take a double as penalty - or extra values with defense.

At the table I would probably pass. If pard can't reopen we aren't missing much.

[andy_h]

X for takeout. Without any agreements I would not know how to interpret 2NT. I also don't want to bid 3H because that may take us to a level in which we don't even belong (and with the responses getting lighter and lighter these days). Actually, to me 3H sounds like a self suited spades hand.

X here just seems so perfect because I'm not even afraid if partner sits it, actually I hope he does! If he doesn't (like here) I'm also happy because I have 4card support for him. Dbl-ing for takeout is the general trend (as opposed to penalties) because you're more likely to be short in their suit and want to compete. Or putting it another way, if you do have a penalty double, playing takeout doubles you can pass and be pretty sure that partner will most likely come back into the auction by protecting with a X in which you can happily pass.

[eagle_one]

double seems obvious. If p wants to convert then AK AK in the minors should be a bonus.

[kenrexford]

The one problem with a double (clearly takeout, clearly OK) is that I expect a fair chance that the opponents actually have a heart fit, and I would rather push this immediately and descriptively to the maximum level that I think is right, rather than allowing information exchange and good decisions to be made by them. UI am still torn tho.

[Double !]

another vote for double. Sure there might be more bidding by the opps. 1st double = takeout, 2nd dbl = takeout, 3rd dbl = business. I have a problem with 3H in that P might interpret it as asking for a heart stopper. If I dbl first, Partner should have a relatively good idea of my hand, and will now be able to be part of the decision-making process should the opps compete.

Don't ask me where I've been, because I don't know!!!!

DHL

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

The one problem with a double (clearly takeout, clearly OK) is that I expect a fair chance that the opponents actually have a heart fit, and I would rather push this immediately and descriptively to the maximum level that I think is right, rather than allowing information exchange and good decisions to be made by them. UI am still torn tho.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying a takeout double is not descriptive, or are you saying that since the opponents have located a fit you want to help them by preempting yourself?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

The one problem with a double (clearly takeout, clearly OK) is that I expect a fair chance that the opponents actually have a heart fit, and I would rather push this immediately and descriptively to the maximum level that I think is right, rather than allowing information exchange and good decisions to be made by them.  UI am still torn tho.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying a takeout double is not descriptive, or are you saying that since the opponents have located a fit you want to help them by preempting yourself?

What I am saying is that, if I have two ways to describe the same hand, one strong, one weaker, I'll opt for the one-bid solution that most approximately my hand.

The problem with a double is that I could easily imagine 4♥ coming back at me. As it turns out, on this actual hand, that is a real possibility. As it also turns out, this is a very close call. As it further turns out, partner has a fairly good equyity bid of 5♣, as it happens to make. The actual deal is a good example of what might happen. Granted, situation-specific arguments suck, but it is illustrative.

I understand 3♥ here to be classically a very strong takeout, typically with first-round heart control in the form of a void. My only missing element is that my spades are really lousy. The obvious risk is that partner actually has a heart stack, in which case I am pushing us into that bad result you suggest. This is why I remain undecided.

This seems like a very close call between double and 3♥. If my spades were better, like QJ1098, this would be a no-brainer. Strangely, though, it is the paucity of my spade secondaries that makes 4♥ almost come home. As it is, we will get 4♥ three tricks on a spade lead.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 19 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

The one problem with a double (clearly takeout, clearly OK) is that I expect a fair chance that the opponents actually have a heart fit, and I would rather push this immediately and descriptively to the maximum level that I think is right, rather than allowing information exchange and good decisions to be made by them.  UI am still torn tho.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying a takeout double is not descriptive, or are you saying that since the opponents have located a fit you want to help them by preempting yourself?

What I am saying is that, if I have two ways to describe the same hand, one strong, one weaker, I'll opt for the one-bid solution that most approximately my hand.

The problem with a double is that I could easily imagine 4♥ coming back at me. As it turns out, on this actual hand, that is a real possibility. As it also turns out, this is a very close call. As it further turns out, partner has a fairly good equyity bid of 5♣, as it happens to make. The actual deal is a good example of what might happen. Granted, situation-specific arguments suck, but it is illustrative.

I understand 3♥ here to be classically a very strong takeout, typically with first-round heart control in the form of a void. My only missing element is that my spades are really lousy. The obvious risk is that partner actually has a heart stack, in which case I am pushing us into that bad result you suggest. This is why I remain undecided.

This seems like a very close call between double and 3♥. If my spades were better, like QJ1098, this would be a no-brainer. Strangely, though, it is the paucity of my spade secondaries that makes 4♥ almost come home. As it is, we will get 4♥ three tricks on a spade lead.

Count me out of this discussion, I can't win an argument with someone who would lead a spade as south.

I do agree with you that when two bids show my shape and show two different ranges, I choose the one that matches the range of my hand. I'm glad we could reach that breakthrough.

[mikeh]

late to the thread, but double is clear, imo, if we have this agreement.. that it is takeout. Very old-fashioned bidders used this double as penalty, but I think the standard treatment, for at least 20 years, has been takeout, since that is the more frequently occuring need.

This kind of taekeout is left in quite often, and I am worried about being void, rather than the more common 5431, with shortness in hearts. But, as against that, I have AK AK..

I would need a better hand for 3♥. Double shows a decent hand... 1N lost its forcing effect after 2♥ and the possibility of a penalty conversion means I have to have good values to double.... meaning that one needs truly significant extras to consider 3♥.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 19 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

one needs truly significant extras to consider 3♥.

What addition to the spade suit would classify as a minimum for 3♥?