[Double !]

Hi all.

Echognome presented the following problem hand in a recent post: he said that he held ♠Q742, ♥T9, ♦ A96, ♣ KT93, and that the bidding had gone pass-pass-1H- double by his partner- 2H on his right - 2 spades by him, 3H by lho- pass-pass, back to him.

I see this hand as being a problem within a problem. Specifically, I would like to revisit the 2 spade bid and ask the following question.

How would people interpret a responsive double with the given hand both in terms of the number of spades it suggests as well as approximate hand power?

When I first starting to play seriously many moons ago, we played this auction similar to a negX. By that I mean that we played 2S as showing 5 spades and a hand that was good enough to bid, and the responsive double to show only 4 spades and a hand good enough to make a competitive bid at that point. This approach had both positive and negative features. It allowed the less-well defined hand, the hand that made the initial takeout double, to be better able to judge the combined strength of the partnership as well as to know how many spades would be in the combined hands, and put partner/ doubler in a better position to know what to do should the opps compete to the 3-level. It provided some protection should partner have been somewhat off-shape with only 3 spades fo the double: P could just compete in his minor. The downside of this approach was that it made bidding a hand that was
4-4 or better in the minors more difficult to handle, but we came up with a method.

Then, at some point, I read that I was doing it wrong, that the responsive double in this auction is minor-oriented, that one should just bid spades with 4 or more spades. As this "advice" was given by a well-known expert/ champion of the day, we decided that we were doing it wrong, and started to do what the famous guru wrote. This approach seems to be an almost unquestioned conventional wisdom (pardon the pun).

This hand made me think about this issue again, and about whether or not this is the most functional way to play the responsive double in this situation? The problem, as I saw it, with Echognome's hand was that the doubler's (his partner's) hand was so undefined that it put Echognome in a difficult situation to assess combined assets and to select what, if any, further action he should take: to bid, to make an "action double"(at matchpoints),to pass, etc. I wonder whether or not such a decision should have been his to make in the first place, that the traditional methods had left his partner without room to clarify the quality of the initial double, leaving the (at that point) more limited and defined hand in the position of having to make a final decision, especially in light of the fact that his partner had passed 3 hearts. (Not sure I agree with that pass, BTW) How could one have been sure about the spade situation, especially if a partnership might be inclined toward lighter and/or potentially a little off-shape doubles over 1-heart?.

So, out of curiosity, I wonder how others play a responsive double in the situation where the given hand bid 2-spades over 2-hearts by the opps? What type of hand might you have? Do you have any strength limitations? Does the type of scoring impact (e.g. Matchpoints) on your treatment of the responsive double?


Thanks in advance

DHL

[mike777]

Let's start with what Mike Lawrence has to say on this subject.

1h=x=2h=x
87...843...AJ83...QJT8
87...84...AQxx...Q8652

1h=x=2h=2s
8653...653....A7.....KJ73


1c=x=2c=2s
QJ93...Q7...JT53....982
Q763...K73...KJ6...874

1d=x=2d=2h
76....J9842....7542....K2

1d=x=2d=2s
AQ65...J5....763....Q763

1c=x=2c=3s
QJ63...A7....K653...T74
T8763...AQ...Q2....8763

1c=x=2c=x
QJ63...AT73...K63...94


He cues or bids game with more.

[adhoc3]

Quote

1h=x=2h=x
87...843...AJ83...QJT8
87...84...AQxx...Q8652

Don't understand this.
1h=x=2h=x
ps--2S?---2NT?

What would pd's 2S mean? and 2NT to show minors after 2S?

[Double !]

he means 1H-dbl-2H-dbl


Mike. I am familiar with Mike Lawrence and "what he says". The fact that Mike Lawrence, or anyone says something about a topic doesn't necessarily mean that what they have said is the last word on a topic. Case in point: Mike Lawrence's approach to 2/1 versus Max Hardy.

What I am asking people to do is to "think outside of the box", to consider this particular bidding sequence and then to do two things: 1) think of the number of times when this bidding sequence has occurred over the course of your personal bridge experiences and to think about which would have been more helpful/ important to you: to distinguish between 4 and 5-card spade support as soon as possible (like in one bid), or to show cards that are more minor suit oriented. 2). Think about which approach might have made life easier for the partnership and yielded better results over time.

Hopefully you understand that I am only partly asking what various people play in this situation. I am also suggesting that the "traditional wisdom" of bid spades with 4+ spades and to use the responsive double as showing something else such as 4-4 in minors in this situation be re-assessed. (and, while you're at it, think about this common sequence: 1S-dbl-2S-? and about the most useful meaning of a responsive double vs. of a suit, especially 3H might be.)

I thank you for your responses so far and in advance.

DHL

[dcvetkov]

Following Mike Lawrence advice is certainly a good idea. He has a good few books on a subject and a very good software on Conventions, Lots of them are discussed in detail with many examples and advantages and disadvantages. I highly recommend it.

He is clear and understandable. To put it simply, if you have a major to show, bid it ( otherwise it can be assumed you dont have it) or if you have both majors, and dont want to guess, double.

I fail to see for now some approach which will be superior to his. Until then I ll stick with Responsive double in the simple meaning. Its a very good convention provided both partners are on same wavelength. Of course you can always experiment and revise your system.