[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-August-14, 16:42, said:

Thanks for the clarification.
I have seen it played as, and played it, as negative or slammish hand.

I’ll bet you haven’t seen this played that way by any good player

I’ve stopped being surprised by the unusual ideas espoused by bad players

[harikannan]

A different auction: 1H (2S) .... to us.

Would you consider a double with 7, A4, AK865, AT952?

[DavidKok]

No.

Mikeh said it very well. Putting it in my own words: if we have a lot of distribution, a lot to tell, we should be showing our hand. When instead we don't have that much to share we should be asking. Making nebulous bids on unbalanced hands with long suits is bound to make things difficult for partner, because they have no way to tell that their 3-card fragment (or, in Kathryn's case, a doubleton) is golden.

With shape, show. With lack of shape, ask. On close calls, make the shape-showing bid in favour of the nebulous bid.

[smerriman]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 01:24, said:

Would you consider a double with 7, A4, AK865, AT952?

Sneaky

[harikannan]

 DavidKok, on 2025-August-15, 01:45, said:

No.

Mikeh said it very well.

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

[P_Marlowe]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 02:18, said:

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

Hi,

it is your turn over 3D, before the preemptive raise can happen, due to this you start with your longest 5+
major and bid the 2nd at whatever level you feel comfortable.
I would also not worry to much about 6-6 hands, they exist, black swan exist, I have seen them, but they
are rare.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 02:18, said:

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

3♦ is natural and game forcing. I will get to bid again. If the opponents are silent from here on out that's actually scary - it means partner has the spades, and it's looking like a misfit (imagine 4=5=2=2 opposite). However, I think I'm strong enough to bid on over 3NT to probe for slam, and partner can sign off in 4NT with an unsuitable hand.
The more interesting case is when LHO raises the preempt. Now I might have to bid at an uncomfortable level. However, this would be even more true if I had doubled first! Double doesn't nearly show this AAAK 5-5 minors hand, and partner will not play me for this if I do not take more action. Preempts work, and we make the most of our limited space and time by starting to describe immediately. This is exactly the scenario where doubling loses.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-August-14, 21:56, said:

I’ll bet you haven’t seen this played that way by any good player

I’ve stopped being surprised by the unusual ideas espoused by bad players

X does "fix the problem" of partner passing your forcing bids.
I am not suggesting this is a good use for the X here

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-August-15, 07:03, said:

X does "fix the problem" of partner passing your forcing bids.
I am not suggesting this is a good use for the X here

There are two ways to fix that problem, and neither features a double.

One is to later explain to partner what a forcing bid means

The other is to find a better partner

The first is the preferable approach.

[Huibertus]

jillybean, on 2025-August-13, 11:33, said:

Start with a X

A slow X to inform partner he shouldn't pass I assume?

[smerriman]

smerriman, on 2025-August-15, 01:48, said:

Sneaky

For those wondering about my comment, the (second) hand harikannan posted was part of a bidding contest last month. Double was the majority choice for the panel (13 votes), ahead of 3♦ (6 votes) and 3♣ (3 votes).

This post has been edited by diana_eva: Today, 07:23
Reason for edit: removed link

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-August-16, 01:14, said:

For those wondering about my comment, the (second) hand harikannan posted was part of a bidding contest last month. Double was the majority choice for the panel (13 votes), ahead of 3♦ (6 votes) and 3♣ (3 votes).

But there was also Zia "3♦, what's the joke?"
Interesting discussion there, particularly about the merits of 3♣ which I would not have considered.
I suspect one factor causing weaker players to prefer Double is doubt about whether 3m is NF, F1 or GF after 2♠ interference.
But there are several experts there arguing for Double.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-August-16, 02:39, said:

But there was also Zia "3♦, what's the joke?"

Yes, amusingly just after Brink saying he thought 3♦ bidders have no clue about bridge People certainly have strong opinions, but definitely an interesting discussion.

[harikannan]

As Davidkok feared, if partner is 4=5=2=2, then 3NT may be the best spot. If LHO furthers the preempt and partner is 2=5=3/4, double keeps it flexible to find the right minor. Even good rules for bidding may admit some exceptions!

[jillybean]

Huibertus, on 2025-August-16, 00:48, said:

A slow X to inform partner he shouldn't pass I assume?

This isn’t the first time you’ve suggested that I use tempo to cheat at the bridge table.
I find it very offensive.

[DavidKok]

harikannan, on 2025-August-16, 04:23, said:

As Davidkok feared, if partner is 4=5=2=2, then 3NT may be the best spot. If LHO furthers the preempt and partner is 2=5=3/4, double keeps it flexible to find the right minor. Even good rules for bidding may admit some exceptions!

I'm afraid you've misread or misunderstood. If LHO furthers the preempt I would prefer to have bid 3♦, so that I can double or bid clubs the next round. Double-then-double will not inform partner of the great double fit if partner does have, say, 2=5=3=3.
If partner is 4=5=2=2 then 3NT is most likely the best spot, but I am giving up on getting there. At best I will get to play 4NT opposite that hand.

[harikannan]

My bad - I didn't communicate properly. I only intended to attribute the first sentence to Davidkok -- still,"feared" is not the right word. I should have made my views as a separate para.

If RHO bids 3S after my presumed double and is passed around to me, would 4NT mean choose a minor or a 6-card heart suit?

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-August-16, 01:14, said:

For those wondering about my comment, the (second) hand harikannan posted was part of a bidding contest last month. Double was the majority choice for the panel (13 votes), ahead of 3♦ (6 votes) and 3♣ (3 votes).

ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. Why bid part of your hand, when you can bid all of it?

[pescetom]

Very interesting thread hijack Maybe some enterprising admin could split it off into a specific thread?

jillybean, on 2025-August-16, 07:36, said:

ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. Why bid part of your hand, when you can bid all of it?

Yes, but you will never convince Zia that double shows all of this hand. And while he can be conservative about some things (I remember Duboin confiding that Zia was the only partner with whom he did not play transfer responses to 1♣), I doubt that his is the conservative position here (negative doubles have been around for 70 years, after all).

The radical division is maybe between those who still retain that takeout and negative doubles are about undeclared suits and those who retain that they are about undeclared majors, or in their absence, cards - minors can always be bid if necessary.

To a lesser extent, maybe MP oriented vs IMP oriented - the former being ready to scuttle towards 3NT rather than a more natural minor contract. And finally the Acol brigade, who see no problem in bidding clubs rather than diamonds.

FWIW the basic system I refer to - written twelve years ago, so aging a bit, but still - says that "if our major is overcalled with the other major, Double loses its original scope of showing undeclared majors and shows generic useful values in a hand without a better natural declaration".

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2025-August-16, 03:38, said:

Yes, amusingly just after Brink saying he thought 3♦ bidders have no clue about bridge People certainly have strong opinions, but definitely an interesting discussion.

I checked the link. Brink was one of 3 out of 22 expert panelists who chose 3♣, not double.