[CSGibson]

---

We use traditional take-out doubles (ie, not off-shape). If partner has 3 hearts, she will always have extra values and/or 4 spades.

NAOP, Matchpoints

This post has been edited by CSGibson: 2013-October-28, 03:31

[MrAce]

I would have started double the previous round, because it was almost obvious that 3 or 4 ♥ was coming by LHO, looking at stiff heart in my hand and pd doubled 1♥.

But you probably did not have this option due to your agreements or you make responsive doubles with stronger hands than this. Which i agree, but an A and a K usually provides as much defensive tricks as another 9-10 hcp.

Now double is more interesting. I assume this is still the NAOP mp, i would think that double now should be more of a punishment rather than T/O, even for aggressive t/o doublers, due to mp. If pd has 3 hearts he may get the message correctly but if he has 2 hearts it will not be as easy. Ironically, punishing them may still be the best spot for us despite the fact that they have too many trumps.

I don't even know why i write all these because i still have no idea which action is the best at this point. I will just follow and read what others say and probably learn something.

[rhm]

3♠

(I hope MrAce learned something)

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

I double, not happy about it, but pass and 3♠ look ridicoulous to me.

[CSGibson]

MrAce, on 2013-October-28, 02:47, said:

I would have started double the previous round, because it was almost obvious that 3 or 4 ♥ was coming by LHO, looking at stiff heart in my hand and pd doubled 1♥.

But you probably did not have this option due to your agreements or you make responsive doubles with stronger hands than this. Which i agree, but an A and a K usually provides as much defensive tricks as another 9-10 hcp.

We play responsive doubles as showing either majors or minors, it would have ostensibly denied 4 spades, but it's an interesting idea - I could have made a responsive double then bid 3♠, showing a 3-suiter possibly...

[TWO4BRIDGE]

MrAce, on 2013-October-28, 02:47, said:

I would have started double the previous round, .....

If Advancer ( West ) made a Responsive DBL ( instead of 2S ) , it would show the minors here and deny 4 cards ♠ .

[ewj]

Yeh I would double

[Hanoi5]

The vulnerability calls for double. And I don't want to seem ridiculous so I'll double.

[akhare]

X -- the hand is limited by the 2♠ bid and this should show a little extra defense and unwillingness to sell out under the conditions.

[GreenMan]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-28, 04:23, said:

We play responsive doubles as showing either majors or minors, it would have ostensibly denied 4 spades, but it's an interesting idea - I could have made a responsive double then bid 3♠, showing a 3-suiter possibly...

Probably worth discussing; under your existing agreements I'd expect X then 3♠ to indicate 3 spades in a 3244 or 31(54), offering 3NT if if pard has the hearts stopped, or 4♠ in a probable 4-3 fit, as alternatives to 5m (since it's matchpoints). This certainly seems workable and may be better than using it to show 4144, I don't know.

[MrAce]

GreenMan, on 2013-October-28, 10:12, said:

Probably worth discussing; under your existing agreements I'd expect X then 3♠ to indicate 3 spades in a 3244 or 31(54), offering 3NT if if pard has the hearts stopped, or 4♠ in a probable 4-3 fit, as alternatives to 5m (since it's matchpoints). This certainly seems workable and may be better than using it to show 4144, I don't know.

This is inconsistent with our previous 2♠ bid imo. Read what Akhare wrote, he has a point.

akhare, on 2013-October-28, 10:02, said:

X -- the hand is limited by the 2♠ bid and this should show a little extra defense and unwillingness to sell out under the conditions.

CSGibson, on 2013-October-28, 04:23, said:

We play responsive doubles as showing either majors or minors, it would have ostensibly denied 4 spades, but it's an interesting idea - I could have made a responsive double then bid 3♠, showing a 3-suiter possibly...

Chris, yes, i was expecting this. Most of us play it as the way you described and this is why i knew it was not available for you. This hand and the auction you posted is by far one of the best topics in expert forum imho. It may look like an everyday auction, nothing fancy but very useful. It raises questions for the popular method(s) . I played this also and still play it the way you explained with most people, but i found myself making less and less responsive doubles over the time. When one tries to make their bid more precise, they lose the ability of using this bid more often. When they use it more often they lose the ability to be more precise. So both style has some price to pay regardless of what they choose.

I think it is a very good topic because it also makes us think about what the free bid of 2♠ shows for people. Or what would 3♠ show ? We know it would be invitational but is it some sort of shape based invitation or 4342 type 10 hcp ish hand ? If we stop looking at this hand in a vacuum and think of other hands, those who gives more precise info to pd at this hand may find themselves on the other side in another hand, for example when it comes to invitation hands. Pd will not know the number of trumps you hold and imho this is very important factor when deciding.

Also what would 3♠ by pd over 3♥ be ? Does it show extras or just competitive with 4 card spades ? If it shows competitive, then 3♠ now by us is indeed ridiculous. If not then i can live with 3♠ i guess.

Overall i believe in use of responsive doubles more flexible as oppose to how i used to play in past. I mean lets play double of 2 ♥ as the way you described, but lets not play it as Greenman stated, like a signed contract which denies 4 spades forever.

FWIW, i asked this hand to Dano De Falco.s. Double now was the answer. For example Dano believed doubling previous round and then bidding spades now does not deny 4 card spades. They basically play it better hand with 4 card spades, mostly invitational. So they play 3 ♠ previous round as invitation with 5 card spades i think.

rhm, on 2013-October-28, 02:56, said:

3♠
(I hope MrAce learned something)

Rainer Herrmann

I always do. I am not comfortable with 3♠, but to be fair i do not think it is as ridiculous as other posters think it is. After all this may be our only 4-4 fit especially if pd is barred from supporting us due to extra strength requirements. And passing 3♥ at these colors and MP just does not sound right to me.. Those who doubles now have to do it in a reasonable time, otherwise it may cause some UI complaints.

[dake50]

As others have asked, what would resp-X last round have been?
Do I thus have a max with A+K now or a min since 2S suggested a 7??

[GreenMan]

MrAce, on 2013-October-28, 15:55, said:

This is inconsistent with our previous 2♠ bid imo. Read what Akhare wrote, he has a point.

We must be talking about different auctions. In the one I'm hypothesizing, no one has bid 2♠.

[CSGibson]

I want to add some thoughts to this problem/discussion. At the table I bid 3♠. The reason I did so was because I thought it was right with the law of total tricks - they have at least a 9 card heart fit, and if partner has 3 hearts, she is almost iron-clad guaranteed to have 4 spades. At a minimum, that has 17 total tricks, and partner might have 2 or fewer hearts. Someone is probably making a 3 level contract, and the colors are right just in case it isn't us.

Partner's lack of competition, and my decision not to double both may have more to do with the fact that we are still feeling each other out in these competitive situations a little more than a year into our partnership. I don't want to risk partner thinking that X is suggesting defending 3♥, especially since my firm belief is that it is likely to make - and partner would not automatically compete with 4 spades, especially if she was afraid of pushing them into game, a fear I do not share with my relatively defensive hand opposite partner's values.

Anyway, I really respect the law in these competitive situations, and I know that Timo has frequently cited that as a resource as well, so I was surprised it did not make an appearance in this discussion previously, though the responsive double tangent may have distracted from that aspect of the problem.

[MrAce]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-28, 23:10, said:

Anyway, I really respect the law in these competitive situations, and I know that Timo has frequently cited that as a resource as well, so I was surprised it did not make an appearance in this discussion previously, though the responsive double tangent may have distracted from that aspect of the problem.

So do i, particularly at 2-3 level.


" The Law " is a guide in the process of deciding whether to bid or not. And in order to apply the law, you need to be aware of your best fit. This is what i was trying to do (to find our best fit) The law ain't gonna work very good if you have a 5-4 minor fit and you end up playing your 4-3 fit. You and i both applied the law. As a result we both decided to bid. And as i said earlier, i do not find bidding 3♠ ridiculous as other posters do (check my previous post) I also admitted that i am not crystal clear sure what to do right now. So i did not even posted what i think is better, because as i said, i still don't know. But yes, i said i do not feel comfortable with bidding 3 ♠ as response to Rainer.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2013-October-28, 15:55, said:

I always do. I am not comfortable with 3♠, but to be fair i do not think it is as ridiculous as other posters think it is. After all this may be our only 4-4 fit especially if pd is barred from supporting us due to extra strength requirements. And passing 3♥ at these colors and MP just does not sound right to me.. Those who doubles now have to do it in a reasonable time, otherwise it may cause some UI complaints.

CSGibson, on 2013-October-28, 23:10, said:

I want to add some thoughts to this problem/discussion. At the table I bid 3♠. The reason I did so was because I thought it was right with the law of total tricks - they have at least a 9 card heart fit, and if partner has 3 hearts, she is almost iron-clad guaranteed to have 4 spades. At a minimum, that has 17 total tricks, and partner might have 2 or fewer hearts. Someone is probably making a 3 level contract, and the colors are right just in case it isn't us.

Partner's lack of competition, and my decision not to double both may have more to do with the fact that we are still feeling each other out in these competitive situations a little more than a year into our partnership. I don't want to risk partner thinking that X is suggesting defending 3♥, especially since my firm belief is that it is likely to make - and partner would not automatically compete with 4 spades, especially if she was afraid of pushing them into game, a fear I do not share with my relatively defensive hand opposite partner's values.

Anyway, I really respect the law in these competitive situations, and I know that Timo has frequently cited that as a resource as well, so I was surprised it did not make an appearance in this discussion previously, though the responsive double tangent may have distracted from that aspect of the problem.

This is essentially the reason why I voted for 3♠. I agree this is an important subject, because it is a high frequency situation.
The law is reinforced here by your singleton heart (SST in Lawrence terms), which makes me believe total tricks is more likely to lean towards 18 than 16.
All the doublers double out of frustration. They have nothing else to show and that is why they are uncomfortable with 3♠. Some call it ridiculous. They are wrong.
However, having nothing else to add is a very poor reason to double, even though it sometimes works.
Partner already gave an opinion by passing 3♥. Why should that be our hand?
The chance beating 3♥ when you do not hold a clear preponderance of the total strength and given the confident bidding of your opponents is certainly less than one time in three.
I rate pass ahead of double.

With regard to responsive double:
I play that a responsive double over a minor shows both majors and no major when done over opponents major. I consider this standard.
It is a principle of Bridge that clarifying your major suit holding has top priority and I can not see how takeout doubler can successfully compete if the responsive double does not clarify your major suit holding.
Being able to make tiny distinction in your hand strength does not compensate in my opinion.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

I do not believe Dano, Tokay and other Italians he asked, doubled out of frustration. Karen Mc Callum is also doubling.

In fact they find it pretty standard.


Otoh, Kit Woolsey replied 3♠ in a split second.

By the way, i also asked to all of them what would be double previous round and now bidding 3♠. Answers were all same " 4 card spade and invitation hand" So double of 2 ♥ denying 4 card spades is not as standard as people in BBF think it is.

[rogerclee]

I like double, if we don't have an 8 card spade fit I don't want to declare 3S while taking the tap in my hand. I would expect partner to remove my double to 3S the vast majority of the time with 4 spades.

If this is not the case, then I would bid 3S.

[P_Marlowe]

I wont bid 3S.
I would either pass or X, most likely I am going with pass, but have doubled before, ...

It is quite likely, that they have an 10 card fit, so 3H can easily make.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

I think x is the call now. Fwiw, I don't think 3S is ridiculous, I just think it i a poor bid made by a non thinking player. Yes, I know KW bid 3S, but even good players are allowed to make poor bids at times. The fact that Timo says he bid it in "a split second" shows he was not thinking!
I hope Timo learned something as well, and that is not to bid 3S!