[Hanoi5]

---

Who did worse?

How is 4♦ by East on the 2nd round?

Even if E/W don't have an agreement, is it better to double 3♣ (or bid 3♦ for take-out) or double 3♦ the second time?

[Free]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

Who did worse?

Hard to say, depends a lot on partnership style in such conditions. West has values but hardly a useful shape, RHO has both Majors but lacks values.

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

How is 4♦ by East on the 2nd round?

Very aweful imo. Recepy for getting to a <25% slam.

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

Even if E/W don't have an agreement, is it better to double 3♣ (or bid 3♦ for take-out) or double 3♦ the second time?

If you don't have an agreement, then what is Dbl in any of these situations? There's no universal standard, perhaps a regional standard, but not more than that. Over here I'd take the Dbl of 3♣ as ♣ (bidding 3♦ is takeout), and Dbl of 3♦ by West as penalty.

[jmcw]

Is this IMP's or MP's
I would have thought 3♦ to be forcing.

Both East and West have passed reasonably up until the pass out seat. In the balancing position I'm doubling for T/O.

[kayin801]

jmcw, on 2011-July-06, 17:52, said:

Is this IMP's or MP's
I would have thought 3♦ to be forcing.

Both East and West have passed reasonably up until the pass out seat. In the balancing position I'm doubling for T/O.

You didn't read the alerts on the auction.

I think W can safely double after having not bid 3♦ the first time (agree with Free's interpretation), but I don't think I'd get there and I'd probably X with the E hand on my second turn. We're the ones with ♦ shortness after all.

[MrAce]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

Who did worse?

I think this is a hand that all of us could end up where this EW ended. I dont see a clear error to be honest. They both have their excuses which led them defending 3♦. But if we wanna blame someone, i think West holding 3♦ can balance with DBL, knowing pd is likely to hold 1 or 2♦ and will have a major to bid, of course not guaranteed but we are bidding after a preempt, nothing is guaranteed. Not easy though after all he is facing a pd who is coming from pass and does it worth to take this risk when LHO can hold a giant with stiff ♦ ?

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

How is 4♦ by East on the 2nd round?

I hate it. I think this is resulting.

kayin801, on 2011-July-06, 18:56, said:

I think W can safely double after having not bid 3♦ the first time

Safely ? I could not disagree more. Nothing is safe here and benefits of bidding is limited due to passed pd.

[gnasher]

With the East hand, if the bidding went pass-3♦-pass-pass, I'd double. I don't think I need any more to act in the given auction, so I'd still double.

One playable defence to the 3♣ transfer preempts is to play a first-round double as balanced with opening values, using 3♦ to show a takeout double. That would work well here, because West could show his hand without committing to anything.

[Cyberyeti]

Need to comment on Free's assertion that 4♦ will lead to a bad slam, depends on style, I am a passed hand, give me Kxxxx, QJxxx, x, Ax or Kxxxx, KQxxx, x, Qx I'd have opened it 1, give me any 6 card major, I'd have opened it at the 2 level so most of the good slam hands are out of the window.

Not saying I would bid 4♦, but the slam argument is not necessarily right.

I would pass over 3♣ and then think about X when 3♦ comes back to me with the W hand, but I wouldn't get the chance because partner would X over 3♦ which in our style would have to be this sort of hand 5-5, 8 points ish, or possibly (54)13 9 count or 4414 10-11. Any which way, 4♦ seems reasonable from W finishing in 4M (and quite likely 5♦x-2).

If you play openers for weak 5/4 or 5/5 hands you know even more about the E hand when it subsequently doubles (that he didn't fancy his suits so prob has club honour(s) unless 4414).

[wank]

i would act with either hand.

[Free]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-07, 02:51, said:

Need to comment on Free's assertion that 4♦ will lead to a bad slam, depends on style, I am a passed hand, ~snip~

Right zzzz

[whereagles]

I think you should dbl 3♦. The playing strength is adequate for a passed hand and, given pard didn't dbl the transfer bid, he rates not to bid clubs over the dbl. And even if he does, you might still dig out a 5-3 fit.

[xxhong]

West can double 3C as a takeout, which is quite safe because they'll usually bid 3D anyway. IMO, this takeout doesn't have to guarantee 3 clubs.

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

---

Who did worse?

How is 4♦ by East on the 2nd round?

Even if E/W don't have an agreement, is it better to double 3♣ (or bid 3♦ for take-out) or double 3♦ the second time?

[mfa1010]

I would double 3♣ as takeout of diamonds. That's how we defend transfer preempts and Namyats. We can double 3♣ a little more liberally than a natural 3♦, since partner can pass LHO's 3♦ correction with nothing worth mentioning.

An alternative agreement (playable but inferior in my opinion) is to play X of 3♣ as unbiddable values. I would double then as well.

If one prefers to use the most valuable bid available (the immediate and safe double of 3♣) to show ... clubs, then be my guest.

I would also double as east after 3♣-p-3♦ for the same reasons as gnasher.

[Zelandakh]

The most common defences seem to be

X = clubs, 3D = strong take-outor
or
X = strong take-out, 3D = majors
or
X = general values, 3D = shapely take-out

For the reasons mfa gave I think the second of these is probably best here. However, if your meta-defence to transfers is the first or last then I am not sure transfer preempts are important enough to make an exception for. If you are playing an agreement to use transfer preempts then I think it is polite, even if not required, to note this to the opps at the start of a session so that they can prepare a suitable defence - thus the situation of E-W not having an agreement should never come up.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play a direct X after 3C as showing a bal. hand with 12-14 or +18,
a DIXON double, agreement, that is common after a 2D multi opening bid.

Of course the X is more risky after a 3C opening, ..., that may or may
not contain strong alternatives.

If I dont have this agreement, I am sure, I would have duplicated the
auction on the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rhm]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

---

Who did worse?

How is 4♦ by East on the 2nd round?

Even if E/W don't have an agreement, is it better to double 3♣ (or bid 3♦ for take-out) or double 3♦ the second time?

Transfer preempts are a stupid idea but work, because people have no agreements how to deal with bad conventions.
It is usually quite safe to enter the bidding with a direct DBL of the bid suit and this should therefor be the most frequent way to compete.
Double of the minor suit bid by the preemptor should not be used to show the suit, which is a waste of this useful bid.
It should either show a minimum takeout double short in preemptor's suit or an optional double, more or less a balanced opening hand (3NT is in the picture) with support for the unshown major(s).
This is more important than showing a minor suit below preemptor's suit. Only if the preemptor shows a ♠ preempt with 3♥ should DBL show a real ♥ suit.
Cuebidding preemptor's real suit should show a distributional strong takeout or a very strong hand.
Passing then doubling preemptor's real suit should also be optional, but the minimum strength is higher, more penalty oriented with less support for the majors. A typical hand would be a balanced strong hand with no stopper in preemptor's suit. Do not DBL with a hand where you have stack in preemptor's suit when 3NT is not in the picture.
Doubling first and then doubling again shows a strong balanced hand with support for the unshown major(s). Partner can choose to defend. This West hand would not be strong enough to DBL twice.
Over transfer preempts a 3NT overcall should be stronger, because a delayed double can show a minimum balanced 3NT overcall over standard preempts.
So West with support for the majors has in my opinion a clearcut DBL of 3♣. Even though West has only a doubleton in ♣, this is quite a safe way to enter the auction.
East should respond with a ♦ cuebid to end in the better major suit game.
That's why transfer preempts are a stupid idea. They are also more dangerous. I would have much more sympathy for West's inaction if South would have shown a ♦ preempt by bidding 3♦!

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

Both majors and prime cards. And partner can out at 3-level.
West doubles!
5-5 majors and a side A. Preempts intend to shut out majors.
East 4D!

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-08, 02:45, said:

The most common defences seem to be

X = clubs, 3D = strong take-outor
or
X = strong take-out, 3D = majors
or
X = general values, 3D = shapely take-out

For the reasons mfa gave I think the second of these is probably best here. However, if your meta-defence to transfers is the first or last then I am not sure transfer preempts are important enough to make an exception for. If you are playing an agreement to use transfer preempts then I think it is polite, even if not required, to note this to the opps at the start of a session so that they can prepare a suitable defence - thus the situation of E-W not having an agreement should never come up.

I don't play any of these... we play

x = take-out of diamonds, 3D = both majors (i.e. 5-5 or better)
x then x = stronger take-out
pass then x = optional/balanced values


So in this hand I would pass 3C then double 3D

[FrancesHinden]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-06, 06:39, said:

Even if E/W don't have an agreement, is it better to double 3♣ (or bid 3♦ for take-out) or double 3♦ the second time?

Unfortunately that's an unanswerable question, because if you don't have an agreement you don't know what the two different auctions show so you don't know which is better.
If you had to guess, it's probably better to pass then double because that sounds most like a take-out double of diamonds that isn't fantastically strong.

[Zelandakh]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-08, 12:36, said:

I don't play any of these... we play
...snip

Sorry, I seem to have let an extra "strong" slip into my post during editing. For option 2 I meant general take-out rather than strong take-out. I did not go into details about 4th and 6th seat actions since I thought that would be confusing.