[DWM]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding Starting with West

(2♣*) - P - (2♦) - P
(P) - X - (3♦) - ??

2♣ was 21+ any shape or weak ♦'s

Do you enter the auction here? if so with what bid.

[jtfanclub]

DWM, on Jan 3 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding Starting with West

(2♣*) - P - (2♦) - P
(P) - X - (3♦) - ??

2♣ was 21+ any shape or weak ♦'s

Do you enter the auction here? if so with what bid.

Looks like 3NT to me....

If partner then bids 4♣ or 4♦, I'll say 4♥.

[Codo]

A resonable pd had known that 2 Club contains the weak two in about 90 % of all cases, so with a strong take out, he had act early.
So I give him 8-14 HCPs which makes 3 NT no nice goal.

I bid 3 HEart, this is just a little bid out of the LAW but many good things can happen. Besides some really ugly ones.

[Fluffy]

I agree with Roland, but I ain't so sure partner would like to act over 3 clubs with diamond shortness, was he sure enough 2♦ was take out?.

Depends on who is partner and how much do we know each other, but with a random one I think I would just bid 3NT.

[hrothgar]

I'm hitting 3♦

If we can make 9 tricks in Hearts, we should set them two in three Diamonds

[helene_t]

Pass, afraid dbl is not penalty.

[Fluffy]

I wouldn't take double as penalty either.

[pclayton]

Agree with Roland, although I've only played against this doo-dad once (an Iceland pair played it).

Is this multi 2♣ is rising in popularity? How long has it been around?

[jtfanclub]

Codo, on Jan 3 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

So I give him 8-14 HCPs which makes 3 NT no nice goal.

Bah. Do you really think the opps are sitting on 22 hcp on this auction?

If partner has 14 we should be in 3NT. If he has 12 I'll take my chances with their fit being jammed by my double stopper. It's Imps, we're vulnerable, I rolls the dice and I takes my chances. If he has 8, well, congratulate the opponents and move on.

[Apollo81]

Defending conventions like this without any discussion is always difficult.

Anyway, I think the most reasonable thing to assume is that partner may have doubled 2♣ with 15+ HCP, so I'd pass now. Game is probably a stretch at best, and doubling 3♦ probably isn't penalty. Even if I'm wrong and pard has a good hand, he may double again anyway.

[655321]

(Edited after I realised the ♦ are on my left.)

Auction similar to (2♦) X (3♦).
So X is not penalty (to me), and I therefore pass.
If partner re-opens with X, I will pass.

I don't like 3NT with sub-minimum values, no tricks, and ♦ sitting over the KQ.
Bidding ♥ doen't feel right on this hand, with 4 small, and half the hand in ♦.

This post has been edited by 655321: 2008-January-03, 14:37

[pclayton]

What's the recommended defense to this anyway? I would think:

Double = takeout of diamonds
2♦ = majors

else natural.

[andy_h]

Don't mind pass or 3H. I wouldn't take X as penalty as the auction looks like (2D) X (3D) X, where it'll just be responsive for me.

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Jan 3 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

What's the recommended defense to this anyway? I would think:

Double = takeout of diamonds
2♦ = majors

else natural.

Some people seem to like being able to show "cards" without necessarily making a takeout double. For them:

Double = 13-16 balancedish or any power double
2♦ = majors
2M = normal
2NT = 17-19

pass then double = light takeout
double then double = sound takeout

An auction like (2c) Dbl (2d) Dbl is responsiveish and just says "bid your hand" ... advancer could still have 4 card major(s)

I personally don't see a huge advantage to either method and tend to play the simpler one (Phil's suggestion)

[hrothgar]

I am very skeptical whether you can safely treat

(2♣) - P - (2♦) - P
(P) - X - (3♦) - X

as responsive

Partner's pass over the 2♣ opening already denies a good hand. His balancing double should probably show a nice pure minimum takeout double. If you use a responsive double over 3♦ the opponents are going to be able to rob you blind.

On the one hand, you're creating a fine opportunity for the opponents to raise 2♦ or a stiff or even a void because you can't hit them for penalties.

Moreover, if you start catering for this by forcing the takeout doubler to balance once again at the three level to protect your trap pass you now enable the 2♦ to sandbag a 3♦ raise with a relatively good hand. (Please note: There are a number of hands that would have made a preemptive raise or a mixed raise opposite a normal 2♦ opening that will be forced to bid 3♦ opposite the 2♣ multi)

I'm all for responsive doubles. I'm happy to play a responsive double after

(2♦) - X - (3♦)

But this strikes me as a very different beast

[whereagles]

Pass. Regardless of your agreements demanding immediate action or not, this rates to be the percentage bid. Will pass a further dbl by pard.

[jdonn]

I would pass. I think double is clearly responsive, at least by meta agreements that I believe I always play.

[Edmunte1]

Pass. It's a small chance that we can have a playable contract above 3♦ and double won't be penality in my methods.

[joker_gib]

Pass

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I will bid, it is either a penalty dbl or 3NT,
depends on the vulnerability, ... and maybe
a double by me is responsive, which would
mean I cant make a penalty double.

Since we are red vs. green 3NT it is.

With kind regards
Marlowe