[FrancesHinden]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ 2♥ ?

---

1♣ = natural or balanced (not 15-17) without 4 diamonds or a 5-card major

[Fluffy]

On my system I could bid 2NT (clubs) followed by 3♠. But I still double.

[the hog]

X. Where does this never double with a void idea come from?

[paulg]

Double. Bad things may happen but there's no sensible alternative.

Paul

[whereagles]

dbl wtp?

[Halo]

3C

Seems a good idea to show my support. Spades aren't necessarily lost if they were worth finding.

[Codo]

Halo, on Mar 27 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

3C

Seems a good idea to show my support. Spades aren't necessarily lost if they were worth finding.

Of course not, because pd now bids 3 Spade shwoing 4 Spades and you confidently bid 4 Spade, knowing that this is the right level and the correct strain?

I go with the double and agree with the Hog: Who says: never double with a void?

[jillybean]

Double!
Never double with a void is just another one of those rules that some people love to tell B/I's. My very first bridge teacher had many rules.
Then I found BBO, forums and a great bridge coach and all the rules I learned are being thrown out

[whereagles]

Kathryn, the only rule that always works in bridge is "to think"

[Halo]

Codo, on Mar 27 2008, 07:01 AM, said:

Halo, on Mar 27 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

3C

Seems a good idea to show my support.  Spades aren't necessarily lost if they were worth finding.

Of course not, because pd now bids 3 Spade shwoing 4 Spades and you confidently bid 4 Spade, knowing that this is the right level and the correct strain?

I go with the double and agree with the Hog: Who says: never double with a void?

I don't think we have heard all the opponents have to say on this hand (unless partner is unexpectedly strong).

So I don't share your confidence that after a double all will be clear when the auction gets back to me (if it does).

[Apollo81]

I am 99% sure that it will not go 3♣ all pass, so I'll bid 3♣ planning to bid spades next. It could go double all pass.

[jillybean]

whereagles, on Mar 27 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

Kathryn, the only rule that always works in bridge is "to think"

dont think, feeel !

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Mar 27 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

I am 99% sure that it will not go 3♣ all pass, so I'll bid 3♣ planning to bid spades next. It could go double all pass.

And I am equally confident it won't go double - float.

[jdonn]

There is no bridge bid but double.

[Walddk]

Double is for take-out, so I don't see the problem. If partner leaves it in with AKQ10, KQJ9 or AQJ9, she knows what she is doing. If she passes with less, I will, politely of course, remind her that my double is for take-out.

Roland

[dcvetkov]

Ok, that never double with a void rule its not that ridiculous as it seems. I think I read article somewhere from Larry Cohen to be wary of doubling low level contracts with a void, story had actually very bad ending.

Too often Partner will have no sensible alternative and will take from his point of view most likely plus by passing 2Hx with some 4 trumps.

I will go with the crowd and dbl, but wont be suprised of occasional flops.

[Walddk]

dcvetkov, on Mar 27 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

... by passing 2Hx with some 4 trumps.

Get a new partner if she passes with "some 4 trumps". I am sure she knows she is sitting under the suit and that the format is IMPs, so it's evident that passing with "some 4 trumps" is completely out of the question.

Take-out doubles should be taken out (hence the term), and once in a blue moon be left in with four king size trumps.

Roland

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Mar 27 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

There is no bridge bid but double.

Almost agree. A double is not a bid though...

[dcvetkov]

Walddk, on Mar 27 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

dcvetkov, on Mar 27 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

... by passing 2Hx with some 4 trumps.

Get a new partner if she passes with "some 4 trumps". I am sure she knows she is sitting under the suit and that the format is IMPs, so it's evident that passing with "some 4 trumps" is completely out of the question.

Take-out doubles should be taken out (hence the term), and once in a blue moon be left in with four king size trumps.

Roland

OF course, partner would not pass with 10xxx. But I can show you a hand where his or her pass is reasonable, lets say with KQ9x, and we are cold for 6♣, and I dont have to imagine too wildly or have too unlikely scenarios.

If you dont have the stomach to stand the double to be passed out, dont double.

If you dont mind being passed out, double.

[jdonn]

dcvetkov, on Mar 27 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

OF course, partner would not pass with 10xxx. But I can show you a hand where his or her pass is reasonable, lets say with KQ9x, and we are cold for 6♣, and I dont have to imagine too wildly or have too unlikely scenarios.

If you dont have the stomach to stand the double to be passed out, dont double.

If you dont mind being passed out, double.

KQ9x is not generally reasonable to pass a takeout double in front of the bidder, although it's barely possible on a difficult hand. Even then we are w/r, who is to say we won't get 500 vs game, 800 vs game, etc. If it's 800 vs slam, boo hoo. Even 500 vs 6♣ gains if they don't bid it at the other table.

All this is somewhat moot to me. What are the odds we have to find a spade fit compared to the odds the double is passed out AND that's bad for us? It's not even close. One bad possiblity should not prevent the normal bid (I know, you did agree with double to begin with).