Help
You hold xx - AQ9xx - Qx - K98x, Red vs Red at IMPs, and the bidding goes :
1D - (p) - 1H - (1S)
2C - (2S) - ?
What do you bid ?
You are not playing support doubles, but opener could've bid 2H with only three-card support and a shape-suitable minimum.
Michael
Page 1 of 1
Responder's second bid after mild interference Happy new year
#2 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-01, 17:21
X to show values. 3C red at imps is not quite enough as its range is about good constructive to bad invite. I'd like to see what partner's third bid is.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2006-January-01, 18:04
My action doubles don't show this shape; 3=5=2=3 is more typical.
Much easier if playing good/bad 2N. This is a 'good' 3♣ call. Still, I'm not convinced about this hand's potential once pard has denied 3 hearts. 3♣ for now and I'll hit 3♠.
Much easier if playing good/bad 2N. This is a 'good' 3♣ call. Still, I'm not convinced about this hand's potential once pard has denied 3 hearts. 3♣ for now and I'll hit 3♠.
"Phil" on BBO
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,953
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-01, 18:19
pclayton, on Jan 1 2006, 07:04 PM, said:
My action doubles don't show this shape; 3=5=2=3 is more typical.
Much easier if playing good/bad 2N. This is a 'good' 3♣ call. Still, I'm not convinced about this hand's potential once pard has denied 3 hearts. 3♣ for now and I'll hit 3♠.
Much easier if playing good/bad 2N. This is a 'good' 3♣ call. Still, I'm not convinced about this hand's potential once pard has denied 3 hearts. 3♣ for now and I'll hit 3♠.
ditto
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-January-01, 18:22
is 3♠ that bad?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 839
- Joined: 2005-October-20
Posted 2006-January-01, 23:04
2N good/bad would be a great help. Lacking that 3♣. Double is attractive, but I am afraid that pard would rebid 3♦, and now I'd have to go to 4♣
#7
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2006-January-02, 03:43
Seems a clear double to me.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,384
- Joined: 2004-February-16
- Location:Belgium
Posted 2006-January-02, 03:57
Dbl
Shows values and is flexible
Alain
Shows values and is flexible
Alain
Alain
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2006-January-02, 05:59
3♠. Since pard won't have 3 hearts, I'm aiming for 3NT.
Not going to cause pard an headache by doubling when there's a clear-cut alternative here. Incidently, double should be for penalties: opener has 9-10 cards in the minors and no hearts. What do more do you want to know about his hand?
Not going to cause pard an headache by doubling when there's a clear-cut alternative here. Incidently, double should be for penalties: opener has 9-10 cards in the minors and no hearts. What do more do you want to know about his hand?
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,384
- Joined: 2004-February-16
- Location:Belgium
Posted 2006-January-02, 07:01
whereagles, on Jan 2 2006, 12:59 PM, said:
3♠. Since pard won't have 3 hearts, I'm aiming for 3NT.
It is said that you don't play support dbls so, yes, partner can still have 3♥.
Alain
Alain
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 94
- Joined: 2005-April-05
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:bridge and golf
Posted 2006-January-02, 10:29
I don't see why 3♣ would be better than a dbl. With a dbl, you leave partner more possibilities to explain his strength in ♠. With very good ♠ he can pass it out, with reasonable ♠ he can bid NT and with nothing in ♠ he can bid something else!
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2006-January-02, 10:34
joker_gib, on Jan 2 2006, 01:01 PM, said:
whereagles, on Jan 2 2006, 12:59 PM, said:
3♠. Since pard won't have 3 hearts, I'm aiming for 3NT.
It is said that you don't play support dbls so, yes, partner can still have 3♥.
Alain
Well, it is also said pard would have bid 2♥ with adequate 3-card support.
#13
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 2005-May-05
- Location:Oxford
- Interests:mathematics, science fiction, Tolkien, go, fencing, word games, board games, bad puns, juggling, Mornington Crescent, philosophy, Tom Lehrer, rock climbing, jootsing, drinking tea, plotting to take over the world, croquet . . . and most other things, really.
Posted 2006-January-02, 11:17
toothbrush, on Jan 2 2006, 11:29 AM, said:
I don't see why 3♣ would be better than a dbl. With a dbl, you leave partner more possibilities to explain his strength in ♠. With very good ♠ he can pass it out, with reasonable ♠ he can bid NT and with nothing in ♠ he can bid something else!
3♣ has the distinct advantage of letting partner know about the fit.
That said, I think I'm still going to try double.
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,291
- Joined: 2004-August-04
- Location:Work in the South Bronx, NYC, USA
- Interests:My personal interests are my family and my friends. I am extremely concerned about the lives and futures of the kids (and their families) that I work with. I care about the friends I have made on BBO. Also, I am extremely concerned about the environment/ ecology/ wildlife/ the little planet that we call Earth. How much more of the world's habitat and food supply for animals do we plan on destroying. How many more wetlands are we going to drain, fill, and build on? How many more sand dunes are we going to knock down in the interests of high-rise hotels or luxury homes?
Posted 2006-January-02, 11:44
Hi all
Happy New Year
This is a very interesting bidding problem IMO, perhaps because I always screw these situations up.
The issue pertains to the meaning of doubling 2 spades: specifically, does it imply a good hand with a good raise to the 3-level in one of partner's suits to differentiate from a direct 3m bid by responder which would be merely competitive? If the answer to this question is "yes" (please don't answer "maybe"), does that mean that opener needs to rebid 3C on any hand that doesn't qualify for some other bid, and might be made on 2-2-5-4? In other words, if the double implies an invitational-plus hand with support for one of opener's two suits, what are opener's rebids at this point? (e.g.: does 2NT show a stopper or is it some form of Gd/Bd?) Stuff like this. Would really appreciate further explanations from ye who chose to double.
TIA
DHL
Happy New Year
This is a very interesting bidding problem IMO, perhaps because I always screw these situations up.
The issue pertains to the meaning of doubling 2 spades: specifically, does it imply a good hand with a good raise to the 3-level in one of partner's suits to differentiate from a direct 3m bid by responder which would be merely competitive? If the answer to this question is "yes" (please don't answer "maybe"), does that mean that opener needs to rebid 3C on any hand that doesn't qualify for some other bid, and might be made on 2-2-5-4? In other words, if the double implies an invitational-plus hand with support for one of opener's two suits, what are opener's rebids at this point? (e.g.: does 2NT show a stopper or is it some form of Gd/Bd?) Stuff like this. Would really appreciate further explanations from ye who chose to double.
TIA
DHL
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
#15
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2006-January-02, 11:51
whereagles, on Jan 2 2006, 12:59 PM, said:
3♠. Since pard won't have 3 hearts, I'm aiming for 3NT.
Not going to cause pard an headache by doubling when there's a clear-cut alternative here. Incidently, double should be for penalties: opener has 9-10 cards in the minors and no hearts. What do more do you want to know about his hand?
Not going to cause pard an headache by doubling when there's a clear-cut alternative here. Incidently, double should be for penalties: opener has 9-10 cards in the minors and no hearts. What do more do you want to know about his hand?
I also play double as penalties after opener has made a rebid. For the same reason.
#16
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-02, 12:02
I seem to be in the minority here. I don't like to double when my partner is likely to pass and I have an undisclosed fit for him. I voted for the overbid of 3♠, but maybe I could be convinced 3♣ is better.
Arend
Arend
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 233
- Joined: 2004-April-28
Posted 2006-January-06, 01:45
Thank you for your replies !
Michael
Michael
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,016
- Joined: 2004-October-17
Posted 2006-January-07, 19:01
I voted for 3S. Double would be my second choice. Surprised to see majority voted for 3C, which is not forcing and too weak, in my view.
Senshu
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2006-January-07, 21:02
Once again a case where a bid has relieved partner from the responsibility of bidding yet he still bid - there must be a reason.
I would expect a dead minimum of a 6/4 pattern with AK, A but probably more.
With the Q of diamonds now carrying full values, anything less than 4C is a distinct underbid in my views and although this bypasses a speculative 3N, I'm not so concerned with this contract when partner has shown shape with his 2C bid - but with a shapely minimum it might be hard to get to 5C without a strong club move.
3S sounds too much like an attempt to get to 3N and paints me into a corner when partner bids 4C over it.
So 4C for me - once again out on a desert island without a cocunut tree.
Winston
I would expect a dead minimum of a 6/4 pattern with AK, A but probably more.
With the Q of diamonds now carrying full values, anything less than 4C is a distinct underbid in my views and although this bypasses a speculative 3N, I'm not so concerned with this contract when partner has shown shape with his 2C bid - but with a shapely minimum it might be hard to get to 5C without a strong club move.
3S sounds too much like an attempt to get to 3N and paints me into a corner when partner bids 4C over it.
So 4C for me - once again out on a desert island without a cocunut tree.
Winston
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Page 1 of 1