[TWO4BRIDGE]

I reopened this hand the other night:

---

1HX-2 for 8.6 IMPs

[aguahombre]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-January-30, 08:23, said:

I reopened this hand the other night:

---

1HX-2 for 8.6 IMPs

I don't see a void (subject of this thread), and would have expected a reopening double to be nearly unanimous

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-30, 09:13, said:

I don't see a void (subject of this thread), and would have expected a reopening double to be nearly unanimous

See posts # 5 and # 9 .... ( mikeh and Trinidad ) who seem to "poo poo" the reopening DBL .

[mikeh]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-January-30, 11:04, said:

See posts # 5 and # 9 .... ( mikeh and Trinidad ) who seem to "poo poo" the reopening DBL .

I don't understand. I wouldn't dream of pulling a penalty double with the hand you gave. Yes, I'd like an Ace or two...who wouldn't? But I have solid sequences, with relatively short suits and I hold the stiff trump J. Why would I pull and where would I pull it to? As I said in my post at #5, I tend to reopen with something other than double if I would be at least strongly leaning towards a pull of a penalty double.

Of course, I will sometimes pass rather than reopen, but I can't imagine doing that with a genuine, tho minimum, opening hand with a stiff in their suit.

IOW, if dealt shortness in their suit, I will reopen. Having chosen to reopen, I then look to see whether I have a good reason to not double. Possessing a reopening hand, and lacking a good reason not to double, I double. Where did I suggest otherwise?

[mike777]

I found this a very interesting expert thread thank you for posting it MickeyB.

Wanted to share an email conversation regarding this hand from 3 people I sent this around to, everyone started with double after the pass by partner but they thought partner's pass was very wrong:


"I don't understand partner's actions at all. Was partner really going to sit for 2CX? I think partner should make a negative double of 2c, which would get us to 4S quickly. That may go down, but playing 3CX making is not very good."
--------

"I understand partner's actions as both P and double are reasonable (and would be winning actions on a different day).



However, I agree with (Axxx) that DBl of 2C is better (planning to bid 2N over 2H, a slight overbid justified by D fit and good club stoppers) as otherwise can't show moderate values later"
----------

"(Cxxx's) response actually raises one of my pet topics/”peeves”.



I think after making a negative double, responder should be able to bid 2S over 2H with this hand. Otherwise when opener is 4-4 in the majors you are likely to miss your spade fit. I understand a lot of people, probably most, would say that 2S after making a negative double shows a spade one-suiter that was too weak to bid 2S immediately, but in today’s world that is a very narrow range of hands as 2S can be bid immediately on, say, Q109xxx AQx xxx x. If you have less than this you can’t really afford to commit the partnership to 2S anyway. Yes, 2S immediately is forcing, but in practice the opponents will compete often enough so that if your side does not have a good fit you will not come to any harm. You might get to a shaky 2NT, that no one is going to double. And the chances of negative double, then 2S by responder, followed by three passes, which is what you are presumably hoping for, is pretty remote anyway. Making a negative double with a one-suiter is very dangerous (admittedly less so with spades) because you may never get to show your suit. More dangerous IMO than bidding 2S directly on marginal values."

[aguahombre]

Mike777: you are talking about negative freebids. Most people don't play NFB, which you are certainly welcome to alert and use. But for those who do use NFB, and Neg Double followed by 2S/2H is still more than 4 Spades and forcing as a corollary.

[mike777]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-30, 16:34, said:

Mike777: you are talking about negative freebids. Most people don't play NFB, which you are certainly welcome to alert and use. But for those who do use NFB, and Neg Double followed by 2S/2H is still more than 4 Spades and forcing as a corollary.

No they are not in fact talking at all about NFB. You miss the entire point of the last quote. You may disagree with his pet peeve and his suggestion but this has nothing to do with NFB. But yes as he states he is suggesting something that is not standard. He is suggesting bidding a direct 2s on a bit less than standard but it would still be forcing.

The other 2 quotes would rebid a slightly overbid of 2nt over 2h rather than the suggested 2s in the third.

In any case all three people thought that responder should start with a negative x not pass. I just wanted to throw that out here as a different take on the hand in this thread so far.

[jogs]

 wanoff, on 2014-January-27, 16:30, said:

Bad luck or possibly a minus for the system.
It's bit easier for those of us playing Acol where north has an easy 2D to start, and later a raise of south's 2S.

Don't need to play Acol. The 2♦ is best playing 2/1. North has 4 clubs.
His RHO overcalled 2♣. How many clubs can South have? South surely has
four diamonds and is a favorite to hold five diamonds.

[MickyB]

 jogs, on 2014-January-30, 19:01, said:

Don't need to play Acol. The 2♦ is best playing 2/1. North has 4 clubs.
His RHO overcalled 2♣. How many clubs can South have? South surely has
four diamonds and is a favorite to hold five diamonds.

Eh? The auction so far, combined with the knowledge of our hand, makes it more likely partner is 4-4-3-2. We have a moderate hand and oppo are playing in our best suit, why rock the boat?

[mike777]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-30, 19:10, said:

Eh? The auction so far, combined with the knowledge of our hand, makes it more likely partner is 4-4-3-2. We have a moderate hand and oppo are playing in our best suit, why rock the boat?

yet they do not make a negative x. In other words I think the north hand is the hand to debate/discuss....not the south hand.

every one I give the south doubles and then passes but clearly you have doubts what should be bid.

everyone I give the north hand doubles..negative x. but a few say pass is a second option.

In any event clearly a deal worth discussing in full, thank you.

[MickyB]

 mike777, on 2014-January-30, 23:30, said:

yet they do not make a negative x. In other words I think the north hand is the hand to debate/discuss....not the south hand.

every one I give the south doubles and then passes but clearly you have doubts what should be bid.

everyone I give the north hand doubles..negative x. but a few say pass is a second option.

In any event clearly a deal worth discussing in full, thank you.

Double then 2N is a huge overbid. I quite like what your correspondent says about the meaning for X then 2S, but it doesn't fit in with our system; as mentioned, we play NFB here. In the partnerships where I play transfers, X then 2S as 4S NF - possibly showing 4-4 in spades and diamonds - sounds excellent.

[rhm]

♠

 mike777, on 2014-January-30, 14:11, said:

I found this a very interesting expert thread thank you for posting it MickeyB.

Wanted to share an email conversation regarding this hand from 3 people I sent this around to, everyone started with double after the pass by partner but they thought partner's pass was very wrong:


"I don't understand partner's actions at all. Was partner really going to sit for 2CX? I think partner should make a negative double of 2c, which would get us to 4S quickly. That may go down, but playing 3CX making is not very good."
--------

"I understand partner's actions as both P and double are reasonable (and would be winning actions on a different day).



However, I agree with (Axxx) that DBl of 2C is better (planning to bid 2N over 2H, a slight overbid justified by D fit and good club stoppers) as otherwise can't show moderate values later"
----------

"(Cxxx's) response actually raises one of my pet topics/”peeves”.



I think after making a negative double, responder should be able to bid 2S over 2H with this hand. Otherwise when opener is 4-4 in the majors you are likely to miss your spade fit. I understand a lot of people, probably most, would say that 2S after making a negative double shows a spade one-suiter that was too weak to bid 2S immediately, but in today’s world that is a very narrow range of hands as 2S can be bid immediately on, say, Q109xxx AQx xxx x. If you have less than this you can’t really afford to commit the partnership to 2S anyway. Yes, 2S immediately is forcing, but in practice the opponents will compete often enough so that if your side does not have a good fit you will not come to any harm. You might get to a shaky 2NT, that no one is going to double. And the chances of negative double, then 2S by responder, followed by three passes, which is what you are presumably hoping for, is pretty remote anyway. Making a negative double with a one-suiter is very dangerous (admittedly less so with spades) because you may never get to show your suit. More dangerous IMO than bidding 2S directly on marginal values."

Your correspondents either were not aware that North was playing NFB or they do not know the implications of NFB.
North pass is quite reasonable given the fact that North was playing NFB, which is important in this context.
If you make a negative double it is not clear what you want to do over a likely 2♥ response from opener.
Remember that most, who play NFB, play a new suit bid after a negative double as a real suit with game forcing values, not a moderate hand.(A hand too strong for a NFB).
So 2♠ is out and any other bid you now make is a substantial overbid or a misbid or both.

Over a reopening double North can bid 2♠ (my preference) or sit for the double. 2♠ is unlikely to be a long suit, because North made no NFB before.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2014-January-31, 02:58, said:

Over a reopening double North can bid 2♠ (my preference) or sit for the double. 2♠ is unlikely to be a long suit, because North made no NFB before.

Rainer Herrmann

This.

[jogs]

North holds ♣ AJ92. This makes it likely that West
holds 6+ clubs. Therefore while 4=4=3=2 is possible
for South, it is hardly likely.
After the 2♦ raise, South would know to compete to 3♦.
South would not pass 3♣X.

[wanoff]

 jogs, on 2014-January-30, 19:01, said:

Don't need to play Acol. The 2♦ is best playing 2/1. North has 4 clubs.
His RHO overcalled 2♣. How many clubs can South have? South surely has
four diamonds and is a favorite to hold five diamonds.

The system wasn't given in the original post so I suggested 2♦ by north playing Acol weak nt.
In Acol, 1♦ shows 5 (or specifically 4441) or 15+ balanced(majors before minors). 15+ with only 4 was vanishingly small odds after 2♣ so 1♦ was a not quite a guaranteed 5cd.

This isn't a problem about doubling with a void, because if you swap a club for a diamond between the opener and overcaller, and north remains trap passing, the result is 2CX making.
Aren't you supposed to limit your hand asap which is why I would have bid 2♦.
Negative doubles at 2 level used to be on 9pts but maybe that's a bit old fashioned now so maybe I should start doubling on 8. With this non-Acol system I suppose you have to double.
Pass limits the hand to 0+.