[cnszsun]

I think the question discussed here is strongly related to another question: What kind of hands would you make a takeout double with?
1) typical take-out hand, support for 3 unbid suit. With strong hand, you can raise p's suit or double again to show extras.
2) Balanced hand, stronger than direct NT bid, bid NT next time or raise p's suit to some level.
3) ELC hand, like 4351 after RHO's 1♥, you will correct p's 2♣ to 2♦ and pass otherwise. Of course with extras, you may have to find another bid.
4) GOSH hand, one suited hand too good to ovecall, you will bid your suit next time no matter what your p's response is. But if your p bid 2♣, you have to rebid 3♦ rather than 2♦ to differentiate from ELC hand. (If you don't use ELC, it's a different story).
Unless you never double with strong one suited hand (GOSH), i can't understand why 3♦ here should not be forcing.

[HeartA]

cnszsun, on Nov 28 2006, 09:27 PM, said:

3) ELC hand, like 4351 after RHO's 1♥, you will correct p's 2♣ to 2♦ and pass otherwise. Of course with extras, you may have to find another bid.

Unless you have special agreement with pd, to "correct" pd's 2C to 2D would show a hand with extras, e.g, a hand too strong to have a direct 2D overcall.

[kenberg]

Clearly I am being strongly outvoted here but since I have often bid 3D in situations like this and never had any problem with partner mis-understanding, I don't want to surrender quite yet.

Give Patsy a flat 9 count, at the lower end of her range. Of course it could be that she is holding five hearts, but three or four is more likely. This means that the opponents are in an eight or nine card heart fit at the two level and we have the balance of power (23 hcps) . Should we sell to 2H? If not, who should act? Is Patsy, with a flat hand and one more point than the minimum for her first call supposed to make another call? Of course we can construct hands where no one can make anything, but we also can construct hands where we must bid on. Maybe her partner should double 2H rather than bid 3D (which might fetch 2S ), but expecting a flat 9 count to reopen, when the flat 9 count has already made a bid showing 8 in her agreements, is not right. So anyway, is it the general view that we just pass out 2H here?

[the hog]

Without a shadow of a doubt 3D shows extras. Bidding 3D with this hand is an option as it is forcing and not competitive. Sure you may have an agreement with partner to the contrary, but the normal agreement and certainly the situation in a pick up partnership, is that you are showing extra values - and considerable extra values at that. Whereagles has a point, but it is NOT the norm.

[helene_t]

cnszsun, on Nov 29 2006, 04:27 AM, said:

I think the question discussed here is strongly related to another question: What kind of hands would you make a takeout double with?
1) typical take-out hand, support for 3 unbid suit. With strong hand, you can raise p's suit or double again to show extras.[....]
3) ELC hand, like 4351 after RHO's 1♥, you will correct p's 2♣ to 2♦ and pass otherwise. Of course with extras, you may have to find another bid.
4) GOSH hand, one suited hand too good to ovecall, you will bid your suit next time no matter what your p's response is. [......]
Unless you never double with strong one suited hand (GOSH), i can't understand why 3♦ here should not be forcing.

This is basically what I learned at course one (except that we happened not to learn ELC). Now I have a general aversion against putting things into categories (watercooler topic?) and it also applies here. So the style that I have addopted from studying books and master solvers' club-like bidding fora suits me better:

I make take-out-doubles with a single continiuum of hand types. A take-out double always shows a flexible hand. It's just that the more strength I have the less flexible it has to be. With an unflexible hand I would bid game directly, make a jump cue asking for a heart stop or make a slightly off-shape Michaels, U2NT or 1NT.

This means that the logic "3♦ shows a hand too strong for an overcall so opposite a 1NT response to the take-out double you must have GF values" does not necesarily hold.

I would start with a double rather than 2♦ with (almost) any 4063-hand and 10-29 HCP. With any such hand I would like to compete against 2♥. Of course you can't show all possible hands with which you would like to compete without loosing accuracy. Some topics for discussion:
- Should 2NT be scramble or G/B? Or maybe even (arghhhh) natural?
- Should double be pure penalty (3 hearts), penalty-oriented (2 hearts) or just showing extras, cattering for 5+ hearts by p (one heart)?
- Maybe it's a good idea to reverse G/B to reduce the risk of wrong-siding 3♦. Or playing transfers.

But in any case, I don't bye the logic that you'll have to sell out to 2♥ unless you have a hand too strong for an overcall. I rarely have a hand too strong for an overcall and I rarely want to sell out to 2♥, Of course partner is still there but his 1NT is also quite descriptive so I don't have to leave the decision to him.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

This is basically what I learned at course one (except that we happened not to learn ELC). Now I have a general aversion against putting things into categories (watercooler topic?) and it also applies here. So the style that I have addopted from studying books and master solvers' club-like bidding fora suits me better:

I make take-out-doubles with a single continiuum of hand types. A take-out double always shows a flexible hand. It's just that the more strength I have the less flexible it has to be. With an unflexible hand I would bid game directly, make a jump cue asking for a heart stop or make a slightly off-shape Michaels, U2NT or 1NT.

This means that the logic "3♦ shows a hand too strong for an overcall so opposite a 1NT response to the take-out double you must have GF values" does not necesarily hold.

But in the MSC style, bidding a new suit after a double still shows a big hand, just that it promises a flexible hand, too.

About your other remarks:

- Of course 2N should be natural.
- Double of 2♥ is still takeout and shows extras (and IMHO a much much better bid than 3♦ with a "4153 hand that doesn't want to sell out to 2♥")
- I would much rather bid 2♦-then-double-the-heart raise, than double-bid-diamonds later with a 4063 hand and, say, 16 hcp.

Arend

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

But in any case, I don't bye the logic that you'll have to sell out to 2♥ unless you have a hand too strong for an overcall.

Interesting. Maybe you should read your first post again ...

I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing, you wrote. Do you consider 14 hcp "extras" when you already promised 12 with no upper limit?

As I have pointed out before, it will not come as a big schock to your partner that you have a 14 count with 4-1-5-3 shape when you pass. He did see your double one would assume. He is still at the table, and if he has 9 or 10 hcp, he can still act if thinks it's right.

When he has less, he will pass. Bid your own cards, not partner's. Once you double with that hand (excellent), you have nothing further to say unless forced to.

Roland

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Nov 29 2006, 12:06 PM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

But in any case, I don't bye the logic that you'll have to sell out to 2♥ unless you have a hand too strong for an overcall.

Interesting. Maybe you should read your first post again ...

I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing, you wrote. Do you consider 14 hcp "extras" when you already promised 12 with no upper limit?

Opposite 6-10, 14 is less than invitational. I think 3♦ should be invitational, 15-17 in principle. I don't think that is too much for an overcall.

So if I want to bid with 14 HCP it would have to be via G/B 2NT (if available).

As for the hand posted, I would probably pass anyway no matter what agreements I have.

And no, I'm not bidding partner's hand. But I might have something to tell myself. And I don't think I should pass just because I don't have too much for an overcall. Nor do I think that partner's next decision should depend primarily on whether he has 9-10 HCPs. Points, schmoints.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Nov 29 2006, 06:31 AM, said:

Whereagles has a point, but it is NOT the norm.

I'm not sure there actually exists a norm here.

You can, of course, say that "dbl + new suit = strong, ALWAYS". This certainly makes sense if pard is broke (e.g. makes a min response to the take-out dbl), but when pard is NOT broke you can do away with that requirement.

[Codo]

1. this is no poll, but I am with the majority, that 3 ♦ surely shows extras.

2. With the given hand, 3 ♦ is always wrong. Pd promises at least 1 and a half stop in Heart and you have the ace. So, if you want to compete, bid NT, that is where you belong.
3.There are many ways to bid with a GOSH hand, besides 2 or 3 NT you can bid 4 Diamond or 3 or 4 ♥, quite enough ways. But this is no reason to play 3 ♦ competetive. First, you may need 3 Diamond to show other hands then you could with 2 or 3 NT, f.e. 5 card suits, game forcing, but not sure whether NT or D is the best spot?
4. Where is the sense to introduce a 5 card suit at the 3. level? Hoping, that the 5-2 fit plays better then 2 NT? What shall pd do, who tried to bid to the best spot with f.e. xxx, KJxx, x, Kxxxx?

[MickyB]

cherdano, on Nov 29 2006, 01:56 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with whereagles and Helene. How can you bid a competitive 3♦ with a 5-card suit at the 3-level, AFTER your partner has said most of his values are opposite your singleton? Why play a 5-2 fit at the 3-level?

Precisely. If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Nov 29 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

Agree basically (unless we play ELC in which case I could have a 4162 with which I would also like to compete. Or if we play 2NT as scramble in which case I might wanty to compete with a 3154).

But how do you compete with a void hearts if all calls show 18+ points?

Anyway, as for Roland(Codo)'s example hand, it must also depend on what kind of hands partner responds 1NT. I would usually bid a 5-card minor when I have one, especially when it's clubs. So there is a suggestion that I have at least 3-3 in the minors if I bid 1NT. No guarantee, I could have a 3514.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

MickyB, on Nov 29 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

If you gave me a choice between passing and bidding a NF 3D on the hand that started this thread, I would choose to pass. The weaker hands may be more common, but I don't want to compete here unless I've got a void heart.

Agree basically (unless we play ELC in which case I could have a 4162 with which I would also like to compete. Or if we play 2NT as scramble in which case I might wanty to compete with a 3154).

But how do you compete with a void hearts if all calls show 18+ points?

You can't have a 4-1-6-2 hand unless you are strong (18+). If you are weaker, you would have made a simple 2♦ overcall on your first turn. If you are 4-0-5-4 for your double, you can double again to show extras, but you should not do it with a minimum hand, and you should not suggest your 5-card suit at the 3-level either.

I may have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you have got the concept of ELC (Equal Level Conversion) wrong. It works in a situation like the following:

1♥ dbl pass 2♣
p - 2♦

Originally, that would show an 18+ hand with long diamonds; in other words a hand too strong to overcall 2♦. In recent years, however, many have decided to play the concept of ELC so that a conversion at the same level as the response doesn't promise extras. As usual, this is a matter of partnership agreement.

In this thread we do not have an ELC situation because advancer didn't bid a suit; he bid NT. ELC only applies after a suit response for an obvious reason:

You can't have an equal level after a notrump response.

Roland

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Nov 29 2006, 11:19 PM, said:

You can't have an equal level after a notrump response.

You could have a hand with which your decision to dbl initially depends on whether you play ELC or not. As an extreme case, in Hardy's system
(1♥)-dbl-(pass)-1NT
(pass)-2♦
suggests 5♠+5♦ without extras. I know this is not called ELC but still it shows a hand which you could show via a double because you play ELC and otherwise you probably would not have doubled.

As for your criteria for dbl versus overcall we just disagree.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 11:29 PM, said:

As for your criteria for dbl versus overcall we just disagree.

Possibly. Let me ask you this. What do you bid with this hand when your RHO opens 1♠?

♠ J84
♥ K9
♦ AQ10864
♣ AQ

If your answer is "double", then yes, we do disagree. I am not sure what your rebid will be when you get the likely 2♥ response.

Roland

[whereagles]

Codo, on Nov 29 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

2. With the given hand, 3 ♦ is always wrong. Pd promises at least 1 and a half stop in Heart and you have the ace. So, if you want to compete, bid NT, that is where you belong.

4. Where is the sense to introduce a 5 card suit at the 3. level? Hoping, that the 5-2 fit plays better then 2 NT? What shall pd do, who tried to bid to the best spot with f.e. xxx, KJxx, x, Kxxxx?

2. Compete in NT? You mean that 2NT here (instead of 3♦) should be competitive rather than invitational? This can't be right. You don't compete in NT. When your side has 23-24 hcp and no fit, you don't compete, you DOUBLE opps.

4. Well... a 5-2 fit is possible but odds that pard has 3 diamonds are huge. Pard would have to be exactly 3-4-2-4 for the fit to be a 5-2er. All other likely shapes contain 3 diamonds, even 4 in many cases. By the way, you hand looks more like a 2♣ bid to me, rather than 1NT.

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Nov 29 2006, 11:40 PM, said:

What do you bid with this hand when your RHO opens 1♠?
♠ J84
♥ K9
♦ AQ10864
♣ AQ

2♦ of course, wtp. Or 1NT if partner insists that it's too strong for 2♦. Anyway, I thought this thread was about flexible hands. So I don't see the relevance of your example.

Look, I'm not stupid. I just prefer a different style than you do. It occurs to me that you apply the following logic: Helene disagrees with me, therefore she must be an ignorant who doesn't know what t/o doubles are and what ELC means.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Nov 30 2006, 10:03 AM, said:

Look, I'm not stupid. I just prefer a different style than you do. It occurs to me that you apply the following logic: Helene disagrees with me, therefore she must be an ignorant who doesn't know what t/o doubles are and what ELC means.

I don't know where I implied that you are stupid or ignorant. You (and whereagles for that matter) are obviously entitled to your view, but I am contesting your method where a double followed by 3♦ over your partner's 1NT is nothing more than competitive.

As I pointed out in a previous post, I am not even sure what you actually mean when you started by saying "I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing". You haven't told us where "extras" come into the picture with the actual hand:

♠ KQxx
♥ A
♦ A10xxx
♣ Jxx

The 1NT response didn't make the hand any better, to the contrary because some of the few high cards partner has are wasted in his heart suit.

However, let's assume that you treat the hand as better than minimum and that 3♦ is no more than competitive, I still think it's unsound to bid again. Why turn a likely plus into a likely minus? Let me give you an average hand for the 1NT response.

♠ Jxx
♥ Qxxx
♦ Jxx
♦ Axx

I even gave your partner a fit (you have no guarantee that he has) and yet 3♦ almost always goes down. So does 2♥. It's actually an excellent Law example. Do not compete to the 3-level unless you are certain that your side has 9 trumps between you.

You would be extremely lucky to find partner with four diamonds.

Roland

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Nov 30 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

As I pointed out in a previous post, I am not even sure what you actually mean when you started by saying "I think 3♦ shows extras but that it's non-forcing". You haven't told us where "extras" come into the picture with the actual hand.

I don't care about the actual hand since I consider a pass quite obvious: The hand is too weak for a game try and has no extra O/D ratio. I'm concerned about the general meaning of the 3♦ call.

[mcphee]

I'm a bit surprised many do not consider the 3D bid to show extras. Does it make sense to bid with a minimum hand at the 3 level with out knowledge of a fit? The idea that once you have made a t/o you have shown this type of hand is completely normal. The more you bid the more you have is also a simple concept.