[mr1303]

---

3C was a Bergen style raise, showing 6-9 and 4 card support.

3 questions:

1) Do you agree with the first double?

2) What do you say now?

3) If you bid 2D first time round, the auction would proceed (1H) 2D (3H) P
(P) ?

Do you double this time round?

This post has been edited by mr1303: 2012-November-20, 11:54

[ahydra]

Agree with first X. This is too big for bid-then-X which would be about an ace less. If I had wimped out with 2D first time, I would bid 4C.

What is 3C? Assuming natural and strong, I'd probably shut up temporarily; if it's some kind of bergen raise type thing, I'll bid 4D. 3NT looks too flakey opposite a single stop from pard (and I've no room to find out about said stop), but 5m isn't too far away.

ahydra

[ahydra]

double post

[silvr bull]

No double from me. At this vulnerability, a double could encourage partner to overvalue his ♠Txxxxx and bounce in at 4♠ before I get to mention my ♦ suit. It is difficult enough to bid out a hand with 6-4 minors without exciting partner in ♠ to make the task more difficult. I vote for a wimpy 2♦ at my first call, followed by a stronger 4♦ at my next turn. If they compete to 4♥, then I bid 5♣ to give partner a good view of my pattern and strength.

[ArtK78]

By doubling the first time, I evaluated my hand as being too strong for an immediate overcall (which I don't agree with - I would have bid 2♦ the first time). The four level is not too high to change that opinion now, unless the 3♣ bid gives me information that introducing my diamond suit at the 4-level is too dangerous. Failure to act here may result in a missed game or slam.

What is the meaning of 3♣?

Had I bid 2♦ the first time I would bid 4♣ now.

[billw55]

Agree with the original double.

Now, it depends. There are a few possible meanings of west's 3♣ call. Some of them place partner with a yarboro, more or less, and some not.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2012-November-20, 09:43, said:

3) If you bid 2D first time round, the auction would proceed (1H) 2D (3H) P
(P) ?

This part of the OP confirms that the unalerted, unexplained 3♣ over the double was some kind of gadget for hearts; but we don't know what kind of gadget it was (and whether it says anything about the club suit). If we had doubled 1♥, we would be entitled to that information and it might affect our decision here.

Having overcalled 2♦ (my choice), we are blind about responder's alledged club holding and would have chosen the "delay-unusual" 3N showing the uneven nature of our minors and the strength of the hand.

[mr1303]

Sorry, 3C was a Bergen style raise. My apologies for not including that in the OP, now amended.

[ggwhiz]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-20, 11:01, said:

Had I bid 2♦ the first time I would bid 4♣ now.

I do choose 2♦ the first time and double next. Double first is all kinds of grief if pard has spades and this hand isn't that strong game wise with the minor suits and holes.

If pard can pass a double (unlikely) I'm playing them for short diamonds and (hopefully) a couple of ruffs. If they bid 3♠ I'll remove to 4♣ which would indicate 6-4 in my partership where I would have 5 clubs to bid them directly. Pard will pick the right trump suit with 2-3 in the minors but we may be too high anyway.

Reverse the vul and I would pass 3♥ in a flash and probably should do so here. Pard is marked for very little and if they can't support diamonds, likely the wrong shape too.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Deleted.... misread distribution .

[gszes]

I would have bid 2n right away---those 4 clubs sure look like 5
to me. If p bids

3c I can convert to 3d to show my extra values
3d I can bid 3s to show my extra values and spade stop for a possible 3n
3h I can bid 3n
3s I can at least be sure p has great spade intermediates and can hazard 4s
3n I will probably settle for 3n but have a soft spot for any 4n quant bidders.
4c Surely p has at least 4 clubs so I will pass
4d Surely p has 4d so I will try 5d

If the minors had been reversed I would have been forced to try a 2c bid but
here I have the flexibility of my longer stronger suit being the higher level one
so I take advantage of this situation.

The other advantage of 2n vs say x is I am not encouraging spade bids so if p
somehow throws spades in they have to be very nice spades (aside from KQ)

[Fluffy]

Bidding again wichever action I choose first is obvious, nothing is worse that doubling and then not showing your GOSH

[PhilKing]

This hand looks like an advert for the benefits of overcalling rather than doubling. It's not as if we are going to be scared we have missed game if 2♦ is passed out.

Having bid 2♦, I will try a Gnasheresque 3NT on the next round.

(Missed Aguahombres post, to which I have added more or less nothing.)

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-20, 18:22, said:

This hand looks like an advert for the benefits of overcalling rather than doubling. It's not as if we are going to be scared we have missed game if 2♦ is passed out.

Having bid 2♦, I will try a Gnasheresque 3NT on the next round.

(Missed Aguahombres post, to which I have added more or less nothing.)

You actually saved a couple characters by not saying Aguahombresque.

[the hog]

2D first looks clear to me. I double now.

[SteveMoe]

I'm with the 2♦ bidders. Have always had concern when my suit is lower ranking than theirs. Doubling postpones and compounds the problem at my 2nd turn as this post shows.

Have always considered o'call then double to be the equivalent power range as double then overcall, but not the same hand pattern. Overcalling then doubling implies 6 cards (with support/tolerance for the 2 side suits) while the double first (then new suit) implies 5 cards and implies nothing about the 2 side suits.

Not sure how the auction will proceed with the 2♦ overcall, but I am willing to rebid 4♣ if necessary to anticipate showing the strong hand 6=4 pattern in the minors.

[mikeh]

SteveMoe, on 2012-November-20, 19:11, said:

Have always considered o'call then double to be the equivalent power range as double then overcall, but not the same hand pattern. Overcalling then doubling implies 6 cards (with support/tolerance for the 2 side suits) while the double first (then new suit) implies 5 cards and implies nothing about the 2 side suits.

I agree with your views of the initial double, but I disagree with your quoted view of the strength shown by bid then double. While I accept that there is an overlap, bid then double can be done on far weaker hands.

Thus after [1♦] 1♥ [2♦] P [P] ?

I would double with AJx AQxxxx x KJx which is less than I need to double then bid hearts.

[SteveMoe]

mikeh, on 2012-November-20, 20:43, said:

I agree with your views of the initial double, but I disagree with your quoted view of the strength shown by bid then double. While I accept that there is an overlap, bid then double can be done on far weaker hands.

Thus after [1♦] 1♥ [2♦] P [P] ?

I would double with AJx AQxxxx x KJx which is less than I need to double then bid hearts.

IOU 1 Queen Point well taken Mike.

[Codo]

I would try 2 ♦ and 4 ♣ as well.

I would not try 3 NT- my partners do not read the BBF, so they will take it as natural. And I am not sure whether they should not...