[pclayton]

A good agreement is that any double of an artificial raise by opener is takeout of the major. You can extend this reasoning to the double of a Bergen Raise as well.

If pard wanted to suggest playing 3S x'd, he could have passed 2N and hit 3S on the way back. Never mind the fact that our xxx of spades suggests the double is takeout anyway.

Therefore, even without firm agreements, the double of 2N is takeout, and the double of 3S is still takeout, but stronger still. I would not have expected a hand as strong as Ed's partner, but the pattern looks right.

I am very close to pass and 4C and I would certainly pass at MPs. If pard has the hand I think, we have a lot of defense in the red suits and 3S will not be a lot of fun. At IMPs, I take a little insurance and bid 4C.

I don't like the suggestion of 4D. While pard might have 4D's, he also might have only 3 with a 1=4=3=5 powerhouse, and the Moysian will be a problem, even with the short hand taking the spade tap.

[SoTired]

Halo, on Jan 18 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

Why 4C from so many? Why is the 53 fit better than 44 - nobody suggested less than 4D. He doesn't have to be solid clubs and diamonds with gaps.

4C.

The 2nd double is takeout. If you make a takeout dbl and partner passes and you double the same suit again, it is still takeout, only with more strength.

The 2N bid is a good spade raise. So the initial double is takeout. Opener is not doubling a natural 2N bid. Opener is doubling a spade raise. Now the 3S bid is passed around to opener who doubles it again. Clearly takeout. Looking at 3♠ and knowing that opener has, at most, 1♠ makes the takeout meaning all the more obvious. How can opener want to punish the opps with a singleton spade?

Why not 4D? Because opener could be 1435. I don't think responder could have much less, so if opener wants to bid game, opener will have to bid it herself.

[000002]

the advocacy of 4♣ competition is a little crazy.

the DBL --2nt promise 5loser and good 7playing tricks,u can uphodling 1 to 2,but no 3 clearly,with total 8 cards trump,easy to beat 3♠ than making 4♣.
for instance:
X
AKxx
Axx
AQxxx
if 3♠ is a makable contract,4♣ certainly down 2!

Take ur calm,master-s!



regards 000002

[mikeh]

Halo, on Jan 18 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 18 2007, 01:20 PM, said:

Halo, on Jan 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Knew I should have bid game.

I'm sure partner is going to bid game with that monster if you bid 4 of a minor over his 2nd X. A lot of flat 0 counts produce a game.

Yes, very reasonable.

Why 4C from so many? Why is the 53 fit better than 44 - nobody suggested less than 4D. He doesn't have to be solid clubs and diamonds with gaps.

No reason for him to be 0445: yes, that is a possible shape, but so is 1=4=3=5 or, an extreme case, 0=4=3=6. 4♣ has to be the logical call here.

[ewj]

I didn't think double was penalty at all, I just didn't think he would have such a shapely hand for his double.

[FrancesHinden]

000002, on Jan 18 2007, 11:39 PM, said:

the advocacy of 4♣ competition is a little crazy.

the DBL --2nt promise 5loser and good 7playing tricks,u can uphodling 1 to 2,but no 3 clearly,with total 8 cards trump,easy to beat 3♠ than making 4♣.
for instance:
X
AKxx
Axx
AQxxx
if 3♠ is a makable contract,4♣ certainly down 2!

Take ur calm,master-s!



regards 000002

He would have passed 3S with that.
Double of 2NT showed a very good hand. There's no reason to show a very good hand twice.

[000002]

wow,
what poor english by me!

my meaning is giving up a jacobinical 4♣ competition, be placid to pass this 3♠.

now,did u read my word?


regards 000002

[whereagles]

I would have either passed or bid 4♦, depending on tactical factors. I don't think opener can be 1-4-3-5 story because that hand might have bid 4♣ instead of doubling a 3rd time.