[cherdano]

Scoring: Total Points

1♦-(1♠)-X-(P)
2♦-(P)-?

---

So what do you do after you doubled 1♠ and partner rebids 2♦?

Arend

[hrothgar]

if you're feeling conservative, pass...
if you're unwilling to abandon hopes of a vulnerable game, bid 2NT

I suspect that the decision is largely a function of opening strength/style

[pbleighton]

"if you're feeling conservative, pass...
if you're unwilling to abandon hopes of a vulnerable game, bid 2NT

I suspect that the decision is largely a function of opening strength/style"

Agree. I would tend to bid 2NT, with a sinking feeling.

Peter

[han]

Total Points? 2NT, maybe this is technically qrong, but I will likely play the contract much better than my total point partner (unless it is GIB, clear pass with GIB).

[kenrexford]

I keep noticing a theme over the last 24 hours, somehow.

What ever happened to the idea of bidding patterns out in the "right" order? Has Walsh thinking completely corrupted us?

I do not get the modern trend of what I see as over-use of negative doubles. This is a classic case. To my old mind, 1♦-1♠-X is wrong with 3415 pattern and 11 HCP's. It always used to be proper to bid 1♦-1♠-2♣ with this hand. If you do that, then 2♦ from Opener leaves you well-placed to bid 2♥, forcing one round. If partner would then bid 2♠, for instance, you'd bid 2NT and the tale would be told.

The other example I recently saw featured, I believe, 1453 pattern after 1♣-1♠-? One partnership started with a double and missed a slam after spade competition. The other started with 3♠ and found slam; note that their 3♠ call might have shown something like this, as opposed to long club support and shortness on the wrong side, a much better technique IMO.

I suppose that the theoretical response is that not doubling means loss of the major fit many times. But it seems that doubling often loses whenever there is no fit for the major. I'm not all that convinced that the major is lost often enough to justify this much negativedoublism.

[cherdano]

Ken, for me bidding 2♣ then 2♥ would be game forcing. Of course I am not sure that is best. (I 100% agree with you for all game-forcing hands.)

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

To my old mind, 1♦-1♠-X is wrong with 3415 pattern and 11 HCP's.  It always used to be proper to bid 1♦-1♠-2♣ with this hand.  If you do that, then 2♦ from Opener leaves you well-placed to bid 2♥, forcing one round.  If partner would then bid 2♠, for instance, you'd bid 2NT and the tale would be told.

It also use to be proper not open 1NT unless you had all 4 suits stopped.
Thankfully, people learned how to bid...

Lets take a look at the sequence you're proposing

First: You're completely supressing your Spade support. Partner has showing 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds. Somehow, you've never seen fit to mention the fact that you have 3 card Spade support. Instead, you decide to bid 2NT which could easily be bid on a 2=4=2=5 pattern or even a 1=4=2=6.

Second: For whatever reason you seem to think ♣A9863 is a key feature than needs to be emphasized. This is a really anemic suit which needs a hell of a lot of help before its worth anything. One important consequence of using a negative double with hands like this is that a 2♣ advance can be a bit more descriptive.

[Apollo81]

another no brainer...2NT

[Poky]

I'll fake a GF 2♠ intending to:
- raise 2NT to 3NT;
- pass 3♦;
- pass 3♣;
- reconsider after 3♥ .

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

To my old mind, 1♦-1♠-X is wrong with 3415 pattern and 11 HCP's.  It always used to be proper to bid 1♦-1♠-2♣ with this hand.  If you do that, then 2♦ from Opener leaves you well-placed to bid 2♥, forcing one round.  If partner would then bid 2♠, for instance, you'd bid 2NT and the tale would be told.

It also use to be proper not open 1NT unless you had all 4 suits stopped.
Thankfully, people learned how to bid...

Lets take a look at the sequence you're proposing

First: You're completely supressing your Spade support. Partner has showing 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds. Somehow, you've never seen fit to mention the fact that you have 3 card Spade support. Instead, you decide to bid 2NT which could easily be bid on a 2=4=2=5 pattern or even a 1=4=2=6.

Second: For whatever reason you seem to think ♣A9863 is a key feature than needs to be emphasized. This is a really anemic suit which needs a hell of a lot of help before its worth anything. One important consequence of using a negative double with hands like this is that a 2♣ advance can be a bit more descriptive.

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[Echognome]

If it had gone 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ what would you have done?

I think it's clear the options are Pass or 2NT.

With the lack of fit in partner's suit, I'm going to go quietly into the night...

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

If it had gone 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ what would you have done?

I think it's clear the options are Pass or 2NT.

With the lack of fit in partner's suit, I'm going to go quietly into the night...

Ditto. Spade stopper is anti-positional, and we don't have a diamond card. Its neglible clubs will be a source of tricks as well.

I would concur that a 2♣ over 1♠ doesn't deny 4 hearts, but reversing guarantees GF values.

[whereagles]

Yup, pass here too. 2NT if I need a swing.

[inquiry]

PASS... color me yellow for more than one reason.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2007, 09:50 PM, said:

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Sorry, somehow I was thinkig that you have spades and he had Diamonds...

(I still think that the club suit is rather aenemic to mention)

[brianshark]

I think I'll pass. I don't see our source of tricks with no fit and an anemic ♣ suit. We'll need time to establish any slow winners we do have, and with Axx in opps suit, I don't think we have it. I don't fancy 3NT's chances, even opposite 15/16 pts or so.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

Total Points? 2NT, maybe this is technically qrong, but I will likely play the contract much better than my total point partner (unless it is GIB, clear pass with GIB).

While that may be true, is this really a concern on this hand? I think one can be quite confident that partner will make 2♦, and 3N will probably be trivial to play and defend.

On the other hand, it seemed like a good opportunity to pass and bring out dessert, which is what I did. So I can't report what happened on the actual hand except that we scored +130 in 2♦.

[Edmunte1]

Pass, no fit with partner, only 1spade stopper, bad positioned for bidding 2NT. I'll just try to get a plus score. I would have bid 2♠ if desperate

[mike777]

cherdano, on Feb 6 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

Scoring: Total Points

1♦-(1♠)-X-(P)
2♦-(P)-?

---

So what do you do after you doubled 1♠ and partner rebids 2♦?

Arend

One more example why it is so important to agree to an opening bid style.


3c game force now assuming roth stone opening style.

If you pass now you guys must open on a bit less.