[dboxley]

---

IMPs

What is your call?

You may or may not agree with opening 1C but you are stuck with it.

[MrAce]

DBL

If this is penalty for you then 2 NT.

[SteveMoe]

MrAce, on 2015-August-06, 10:44, said:

DBL

If this is penalty for you then 2 NT.

Close. But I want a 3rd ♠ for a double here.
3N for me... 2N can be passed and we are at the verge of game...

[MrAce]

SteveMoe, on 2015-August-06, 16:17, said:

Close. But I want a 3rd ♠ for a double here.
3N for me... 2N can be passed and we are at the verge of game...

Oh you can not play it both ways. I don't even think mandatory 3rd spade is playable. Why would anyone want a 3rd ♠ for double? What are you supposed to bid with ?

x AKJ AJxx KJxxx

Disregard if you play the double for business.

I do not mind 2 NT (in fact it is probably the best bid) but why would you bid 3 NT? You have one of the ugliest 18 counts and 2 NT shows that range. Do you always respond 1♥ with 7+ hcp ? You are not even vulnerable Steve.

[neilkaz]

MrAce, on 2015-August-06, 16:58, said:

Oh you can not play it both ways. I don't even think mandatory 3rd spade is playable. Why would anyone want a 3rd ♠ for double? What are you supposed to bid with ?

x AKJ AJxx KJxxx

Disregard if you play the double for business.

I do not mind 2 NT (in fact it is probably the best bid) but why would you bid 3 NT? You have one of the ugliest 18 counts and 2 NT shows that range. Do you always respond 1♥ with 7+ hcp ? You are not even vulnerable.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I agree completely and would've said the same.

[SteveMoe]

MrAce, on 2015-August-06, 16:58, said:

Oh you can not play it both ways. I don't even think mandatory 3rd spade is playable. Why would anyone want a 3rd ♠ for double? What are you supposed to bid with ?

x AKJ AJxx KJxxx

Disregard if you play the double for business.

I do not mind 2 NT (in fact it is probably the best bid) but why would you bid 3 NT? You have one of the ugliest 18 counts and 2 NT shows that range. Do you always respond 1♥ with 7+ hcp ? You are not even vulnerable Steve.

Hi Timo,
Problem is I want to be in 3NT opposite 7, not just 8-9. Partner is is 5-9 and might not raise to 3 on some 7's. Do you upgrade balanced 17's? Assume with 5-6, 2♣ was possible unless partner is x=4=y=2 and 1NT on 4=4=3=2. 7-9 is more likely than 5-6. Your point about what 2NT says is well taken. Maybe I'm a bit too aggressive here.

3♠ cards is simply a balance of power cooperative penalty double spec. I don't play takeout once we have a fit.

With the hand you suggest I'd bid 4♥ expecting partner to make as their few honors must be working. Besides playing a Moysian is always good practice.

[WesleyC]

Double. Showing extra values, takeout orientation and encouraging partner to do something sensible!

[jallerton]

2NT. Natural. Assuming that a 1NT opening would have been 15-17, partner should be expecting us to hold 18-19 balanced with 3-card heat support and a spade stop. Holding ♠AJ, there's no particular need to make partner declarer, so why not describe our hand type?

A question to the doublers: what do you intend to do next if partner bids 3 of a minor?

[aguahombre]

dboxley, on 2015-August-06, 10:33, said:

you may or may not agree with opening 1C but you are stuck with it.

Exactly...stuck with it. If you were referring to 1♣ vs 1♦, that is a good idea with balanced 4-4 hands. The evaluation to treat this pile as 18-19 when it actually seems about 16 was not wise, IMO. I know it is blasphemy to downgrade into a lower nt range, but even K&R hates this one.

The problem we have now is real, and it is a byproduct of our first choice.

[dboxley]

aguahombre, on 2015-August-07, 01:11, said:

Exactly...stuck with it. If you were referring to 1♣ vs 1♦, that is a good idea with balanced 4-4 hands. The evaluation to treat this pile as 18-19 when it actually seems about 16 was not wise, IMO. I know it is blasphemy to downgrade into a lower nt range, but even K&R hates this one.

The problem we have now is real, and it is a byproduct of our first choice.

I upgrade a lot but very seldom downgrade because i hate losing game swings. This is not a great 18 but it's still 18 and I refuse to mastermind. The problem here is not how good my hand is but whether pd has Txx of spades or has 5+ hearts or not. Had I known how the bidding would proceed I might have opened 1NT but then I would have been prepared to apologize when it went wrong. Had the opps kept quiet you would not have had a problem with opening 1m instead of 1NT.

[aguahombre]

dboxley, on 2015-August-07, 09:58, said:

I upgrade a lot but very seldom downgrade because i hate losing game swings. This is not a great 18 but it's still 18 and I refuse to mastermind. The problem here is not how good my hand is but whether pd has Txx of spades or has 5+ hearts or not. Had I known how the bidding would proceed I might have opened 1NT but then I would have been prepared to apologize when it went wrong. Had the opps kept quiet you would not have had a problem with opening 1m instead of 1NT.

Yes, I understand. It is merely an accidental effect that you would have not had to worry in this case about whether partner had 5 hearts, or anything else because partner would be in charge --- and I respect the majority who never downgrade even though this one is roughly a bad 17.

[mikeh]

I don't like 1♣. I mean, the usual rationale for 1♣ is that we can find diamonds, but who in their right mind would raise diamonds here if partner responded 1♦?

As for the current position, I am not doubling. To me such a double strongly implies that we want partner to sit for it unless he has some reason not to do so, such as a weak hand with 6+ hearts and short spades. I appreciate that I may be in the minority of BBF posters to whom all low-level doubles are primarily takeout, but imo this is quite a different sequence than most....this is a third round action on a sequence where we had no previous ability to penalize.

To me 2N shows this hand perfectly. Were I the same high cards with 3=3=3=4, I would double. BTW, what do we think RHO has, given his initial pass and the fact that, despite now bidding 2♠, he originally overcalled 1♠?

[etha]

could pard have bid 1nt with a min balanced hand without a spade stop and only 4 hearts?
if he could then it seems we pretty much never want to play in NT now.

[phil_20686]

jallerton, on 2015-August-07, 00:44, said:

2NT. Natural. Assuming that a 1NT opening would have been 15-17, partner should be expecting us to hold 18-19 balanced with 3-card heat support and a spade stop. Holding ♠AJ, there's no particular need to make partner declarer, so why not describe our hand type?

A question to the doublers: what do you intend to do next if partner bids 3 of a minor?

This is what I would do if I played double for penalty.


However, I play double as "cards" and if partner bid 3m I would expect him to be 4h and longer minor, so I would just pass, judging him to have some poor 3442 type hand. Unlike some others I do not think partner has promised anything like 7 points. I would expect him to play me for 18-19 with poorish spades if I double. If he judges 3m to the final contract why wouldn't I pass, might just hit xxx xxxx Kjxx xx or something?

[Phil]

I've defined this in my partnerships as a "quasi-fit" auction.

If this were a fit auction, double would clearly penalty because we don't need it for anything else.

If this were a no-fit auction (ie we rebid 2m) double would be essentially takeout.

In a quasi-fit auction we've decided x is mostly cooperative. Partner is expected to sit with a balanced hand and pull with extra offense. I should have a 3rd spade but AJ seems ok

[gszes]

This is a non fit auction in the sense that both partners are not aware of a heart fit (if there is one). My understanding is 2n = normal balanced 18-19 with at least 1.5 spade stops
and x < 1.5 spade stops but generally fairly balanced to no minor suit rebid. There is a rather huge difference btn AJx and AJ under these conditions and I would opt for x as card showing. If p were to choose a minor at the 3 level I see no reason to move over that.