[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP

Bidding:
W N E S
1♥ 1♠ 2♥ ?

---

I looks like both of us have an 8 card fit or possibly more. How do I rate this hand?
2♠ - This seems to get over that I have 3 card support and willingness to compete but we could possibly have game on. Would partner make a try on ♠Qxxxxx, ♥Axx, ♦AK, ♣Qx? So I am too strong to bid 2♠
3♠- Although I am happy to compete to 3♠, this bid would indicate a pre-emptive raise and showing longer spades.

This leaves double and 3♥

My inclination was to double hoping that partner would not take this as a penalty double. I think it should be equivalent to an unassuming cue bid (I don't know if this is a purely British term) normally 2♥ which was stolen from me asking partner rebid spades with a min overcall. We could then cheaply play in 2♠ if opps do not compete any further. I rejected this as too dangerous when these types of doubles have not been discussed with partner.

How about 3♥? Does this say that we want to be in game unless you are dead minimum? If partner bids 3nt will I be happy? No this looks worse.

So I took the easy option and bid 2♠. The bidding continued:
1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠
3♥ pass pass 3♠

So I violated the rule that I should bid my hand to the limit the first time. In the event it was no problem. 3♠ was par and I made it.

Any views particularly what a double means?

[helene_t]

I think dbl is normally understood as a flexible hand, something like a 2245-shape, but maybe it is better to play it as a constructive raise.

It's true that this hand is somewhat strong for 2♠. As a LOTT follower I prefer 2♠ followed by double. For 3♥ I would prefer to have 4-card support, or a singleton hearts.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

I use double as a 'stolen bid' double. It shows a 'limit' raise type hand.

With the standards for overcalls being pushed downwards, the 'stolen bid' double meaning appears to me to be well worth the lost of another meaning.

I overcall with 8+HCP and even if your limit is higher, do you really want to play 3S with this hand opposite say a 10HCP hand?

Regards,
Robert

[pbleighton]

We have found our fit, they have found their fit. I play double as penalty. I would bid 3H.

Peter

[whereagles]

We probably don't have a game on, so 2♠ followed by double if opps bid 3♥.

[Double !]

lol
I must be getting old and/or my bidding has become obsolete.

I play the double as responsive: support for the two unbid suits and tolerance for partner's suit.

OY

DHL

[mike777]

2s not worth a limit raise, why is everyone xing 3H at IMP?

[Winstonm]

When the opponents have located an eight-card fit, especially a 5-3 fit, it is usually unwise to bid 2N naturally, so in this auction 2N could substitute for a responsive double, showing a willingness to compete in the minors, double could show a limit raise with 3 trump and 3H could show a 4-card limit raise.

Winston

[foo]

♠AKT♥J8♦J9542♣K84

(1H)-1S-(2H)-??

11 HCP not counting the wasted HJ +1 likely length trick in D's
=> easily a 3card limit raise of S's.

I'd prefer to have 4card support, but Invitational values and 3card support are still Invitational values and 3card support.

Depending on your partnership agreements, either a 3H cue bid or a Negative X followed by S raise shows this hand.

Most pairs would use an immediate cue bid to show a Inv+ hand with 3+ card support.

[Kalvan14]

Double would be responsive (you don't double for penalties at 2-level in an assured fit sequence): usually, it denies a fit for partner's suit.

I'd prefer 3♥: limit raise or better. The strength is more or less this, and AKT in spades are quite a good complement for partner. Double is not a crime, though .

2♠, followed by a double is not my preference: I might use this sequence with less points in spades, though.

2♠, followed by 3♠ is a no-no.

[jdonn]

pbleighton, on May 14 2006, 09:40 AM, said:

We have found our fit, they have found their fit. I play double as penalty. I would bid 3H.

Peter

You haven't found a fit. You have one but your partner doesn't know it, so how is he supposed to know your double is penalty if that agreement is based on your having a fit?

[keylime]

I have four graduations of raise here:

2S - just a raise, nothing expected
2NT - limit raise, offensive in nature
3S - mixed raise (no preemptive raises)
X - cuebid double, i.e. a defensive limit raise

[mikeh]

In a relatively unsophisticated partnership, I would play that 2♠ is a single raise, 3♠ weak, 3♥ limit, and 4 level bids are fit-showing (4♥ splinter)

Double has to be responsive. It makes no sense to give up on an important and fairly common hand type: both minors with enough to get involved.

We will almost NEVER have a hand on which we want to penalize 2♥, so that is not worth catering to.

And we should not need yet another raise... we already have at least 6 ways to raise ♠, up to and including 4♠, yet no way to show both minors... except via double. I am astounded that so many posters apparently do not play responsive here.

As for the actual hand, I am puzzled by those who think that this is too good for 2♠. The OP suggested a hand for partner of Qxxxxx Axx AK Qx, if memory serves.

Hmmm.. that gives the opps a total of 13 hcp and an 8 card fit... not impossible, but wildly improbable even in the modern era of open and respond on air.

It is not as if we have anything to be really proud of with this hand.

I would bid a comfortable 2♠, prepared to accept a game try, and would consider reopening with double after 3♥ p p....which should decribe my general hand type accurately.

In a more sophisitcated partnership, 2N for me shows ♣, 3♣ shows ♦, and everything else remains the same.

[kenberg]

I suppose a case can be made for playing X as showing something like what you have. If any of my partner's were to X over 2H, I would expect them to have the minors. Certainly this is so if you have agreed to play responsive doubles and haven't discussed any exceptions. You can't play both, and it seems to me that the responsive double is more useful.

Given that double shows the minors, I agree it's something of a problem. While game could be on it seems to me that a. it isn't likely and b. it would be hard to get to game when it is right and stay out of game when it is wrong. I probably would bid 2S and hope to beat 3H. I suppose that Total Tricks says you bid 2S and let partner perhaps take the push over 3H if he has 6 cards, but honestly I never find TT to be that helpful during the auction. It seems to be more useful as an explanatory tool after you see the result. For example if you bid 2S, if they bid 3H and if partner holds a six card suit then he can infer that there are probably 17 total trump. Or maybe 18. So maybe he should bid. Or not. I gather here 3S is right, but you bid it, not pard. I don't have the same reaction some do to such a sequence. 2S might have bought the contract (they are vul and seem to not be loaded with values) and when it didn't you opted to play where your values are. Not so crazy in my book.

Ken

[paulg]

mikeh, on May 18 2006, 07:47 PM, said:

In a more sophisitcated partnership, 2N for me shows ♣, 3♣ shows ♦, and everything else remains the same.

Presumably in this structure you also play that 3♦ is a 3-card limit raise and 3♥ is a 4-card limit raise?

Paul

[jdeegan]

Bid 3♥ showing a limit raise with cards and only three trumps. Partner will correct to 3♠ unless he has the strength of a full opening bid plus extras. With that he would bid 4♠. Your hand is a bit too good just to bid 2♠, you will miss some good games.

You could, by agreement, play a double in this position as responsive showing cards, both minors and shortness in spades. Otherwise, it should be for penalties, which is not a very useful treatment in most duplicate games where the opponents almost never psyche.

In competitive auctions, doubles are either negative, responsive, penalty or (in certain well defined situations) co-operative. Co-operative doubles of part scores are always made IN FRONT OF THE HAND THAT FIRST BID THE OPPONENTS' SUIT. It advertises a holding like Axx in their suit and that our side has the majority of high cards.

[hatchett]

Partner has made a vulnerable overcall of 1S over 1H at IMPS missing the AKT of spades, for me, this makes this hand any easy limit raise to the 3 level and 3♥ would be my choice. I can write down loads of hands that would pass 2S where game is desirable eg Qxxxxx xxx Kx Ax etc. I might bid 2S here on Kxx xx Qxxxx xx, so this hand is just too good.