[rogerclee]

I'd call this "assign the blame", but there's not a whole lot to blame for, I think. Still, I'm interested in seeing how people feel about the choices this pair made on this deal.

Scoring: MP

---

1NT - (2♦) - 2♥ - (P)
P - (2♠) - P - (P)
P
2♦ - Natural
2♥ - Competitive, nonforcing

How do you feel about both North and South's decisions to sell out to 2♠? On the actual deal, 3♥ makes when you guess to finesse the heart, and 2♠ seems to drift off 1.

[the hog]

Neither Nth nor Sth can X 2S. Neither Nth nor Sth can bid 3H. South has bid her hand and Nth has a sterile distribution, a possible wasted J of S and may well have wasted H values.

[Hanoi5]

Having a 4333 distribution and wasted values (♦K) North doesn't like supporting hearts. However, with the fit being ♥AKJ, maybe...

[kfay]

I would have bid 3♥ for sure with the N hand. South's hand is more difficult because we might be setting 2♠ and down in 3♥ from that perspective.

[ArtK78]

North should bid 3♥ with AKJ of hearts and essentially 3 small in spades.

I cannot see selling out to 2♠ with the North hand. It might not work out, but selling out to 2♠ is losing tactics.

[benlessard]

RHO is W/R and didnt bid 2s rightaway his hand is probably crap.

Both north and south cannot sell out in Mp. Its pretty sure you had +110 and the fact that East balanced in 2s instead of bidding 2S right away mean that a fair amount of table will be in 2H. So its likely +50 or +100 will be a terrible result.

I would probably bid 3H with south (not proud of it at all) but i think the upside of 3H making is higher then the downside of being -100 instead of +50 since i dont give too much MP for +50 anyway. I would surely bid 3H with north, I consider north pass a mistake.

[gwnn]

wtp dude, trumps 3-3 etc

[Cascade]

I think 3♥ is ok from north.

Partner has bad trumps which makes me more inclined to think he has a good hand.

If north passes it might be very hard for south with bad trumps to offer the three-level when it is right.

On the other hand maybe this hand is not good enough with poor distribution and a minimum that got worse after the 2♦ overcall.

[Hairy_Scot]

South knows that his side hold at least 22-23HCP so he should use "stolen bid double" to request transfer to ♥s.
If opps come in with 2♠ over north's 2♥ then with a 6 card suit south can comfortably bid 3♥.
If east interferes with after the double and north takes no action then south still has options to coax north into 3♥.

[rogerclee]

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 17 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

South knows that his side hold at least 22-23HCP so he should use "stolen bid double" to request transfer to ♥s.

lol

[Hairy_Scot]

rogerclee, on Mar 18 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 17 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

South knows that his side hold at least 22-23HCP so he should use "stolen bid double" to request transfer to ♥s.

lol

Not sure what is so amusing.

The phrase "stolen bid double" is explained in a number of sources.
One of which is :-
ttp://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/SGlossary/GlossS.html

Stolen Bid Doubles
This is a colloquial expression for bidding sequences when the opponents have intervened and the intervention is the suit, which one partner conventionally decided to bid after the opening by partner. For example, North has opened the auction with 1 No Trump and South has a 4-card Major suit and wishes to employ Stayman to ask. However, before South has an opportunity to bid 2 Clubs, East overcalls the No Trump opening with 2 Clubs. By doubling, South communicates to North that East has "stolen my bid", and is asking for a 4-card Major suit. Another example is when North opens the bidding with 1 No Trump, East overcalls with 2 Diamonds, and South wanted to transfer his partner to Hearts by bidding 2 Diamonds. The favored conventional method is to simply double, meaning: "Partner, East stole my bid." These so-called "stolen bids" generally apply to the first round of bidding and can be employed in the above mentioned bidding sequences. Any double following a "stolen bid" is normally considered to be for penalty.

[Free]

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 18 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Mar 18 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 17 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

South knows that his side hold at least 22-23HCP so he should use "stolen bid double" to request transfer to ♥s.

lol

Not sure what is so amusing.

The phrase "stolen bid double" is explained in a number of sources.
One of which is :-
ttp://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/SGlossary/GlossS.html

Stolen Bid Doubles
This is a colloquial expression for bidding sequences when the opponents have intervened and the intervention is the suit, which one partner conventionally decided to bid after the opening by partner. For example, North has opened the auction with 1 No Trump and South has a 4-card Major suit and wishes to employ Stayman to ask. However, before South has an opportunity to bid 2 Clubs, East overcalls the No Trump opening with 2 Clubs. By doubling, South communicates to North that East has "stolen my bid", and is asking for a 4-card Major suit. Another example is when North opens the bidding with 1 No Trump, East overcalls with 2 Diamonds, and South wanted to transfer his partner to Hearts by bidding 2 Diamonds. The favored conventional method is to simply double, meaning: "Partner, East stole my bid." These so-called "stolen bids" generally apply to the first round of bidding and can be employed in the above mentioned bidding sequences. Any double following a "stolen bid" is normally considered to be for penalty.

1. Stolen bid is definitely not standard
2. Stolen bid sucks for intervention of 2♦ and above

[rogerclee]

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 18 2008, 03:09 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Mar 18 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 17 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

South knows that his side hold at least 22-23HCP so he should use "stolen bid double" to request transfer to ♥s.

lol

Not sure what is so amusing.

The phrase "stolen bid double" is explained in a number of sources.
One of which is :-
ttp://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/SGlossary/GlossS.html

Stolen Bid Doubles
This is a colloquial expression for bidding sequences when the opponents have intervened and the intervention is the suit, which one partner conventionally decided to bid after the opening by partner. For example, North has opened the auction with 1 No Trump and South has a 4-card Major suit and wishes to employ Stayman to ask. However, before South has an opportunity to bid 2 Clubs, East overcalls the No Trump opening with 2 Clubs. By doubling, South communicates to North that East has "stolen my bid", and is asking for a 4-card Major suit. Another example is when North opens the bidding with 1 No Trump, East overcalls with 2 Diamonds, and South wanted to transfer his partner to Hearts by bidding 2 Diamonds. The favored conventional method is to simply double, meaning: "Partner, East stole my bid." These so-called "stolen bids" generally apply to the first round of bidding and can be employed in the above mentioned bidding sequences. Any double following a "stolen bid" is normally considered to be for penalty.

Okay, I understand that you are trying to be helpful, so I apologize for being rude in my previous post. However, I want to point out two things.

1) This problem is not about methods. This pair happens to play that double here is negative. In general, I dislike it when there is a question asked about how a hand should be bid and someone pulls out a gadget he personally likes and says it is perfect for the situation.

2) I do not know how stolen bid doubles (2♦ or above) got around to being popular over 1NT interference, but it is one of those conventions that gets its support almost entirely from bad to mediocre players. I would go so far as to say that I could not take any bridge player seriously who advocated playing them in a high-level partnership.

[hrothgar]

Hairy_Scot, on Mar 18 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

Not sure what is so amusing.

The phrase "stolen bid double" is explained in a number of sources.
One of which is :-
ttp://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/SGlossary/GlossS.html

Stolen Bid Doubles
This is a colloquial expression for bidding sequences when the opponents have intervened and the intervention is the suit, which one partner conventionally decided to bid after the opening by partner. For example, North has opened the auction with 1 No Trump and South has a 4-card Major suit and wishes to employ Stayman to ask. However, before South has an opportunity to bid 2 Clubs, East overcalls the No Trump opening with 2 Clubs. By doubling, South communicates to North that East has "stolen my bid", and is asking for a 4-card Major suit. Another example is when North opens the bidding with 1 No Trump, East overcalls with 2 Diamonds, and South wanted to transfer his partner to Hearts by bidding 2 Diamonds. The favored conventional method is to simply double, meaning: "Partner, East stole my bid." These so-called "stolen bids" generally apply to the first round of bidding and can be employed in the above mentioned bidding sequences. Any double following a "stolen bid" is normally considered to be for penalty.

Hi Scot:

I suspect that most of the players here are familar with the concept of "Stolen Bid Doubles". None-the-less, posting links and definitions is always appreciated.

I don't think that there is any firm consensus on this discussion list regarding the best meaning for a double after interference over our 1NT opener. However, I expect that this (largely) reflects disagreement between

1. Those advoating penalty doubles
2. Those advocating negative doubles

I don't know of any strong proponents of Stolen Bid doubles. Most of us believe that the method has a number of well known problems.