[Hanoi5]

Nobody so far has thought (or said) that some people might be lying (or making a mistake). How does the club bid by opener influence your bid over the second double?

I'll post the complete hand in a new topic after getting some more answers.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on Jun 5 2008, 07:33 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

Actually I have many questions regarding this hand, but I'm just gonna make three in this topic. Your North and this is your hand: The bidding so far:
(_P) _P (1♦) _X
(2♦) 2♥ (3♣) 3♥
(_P) _P (4♦) _X
(_P) ???

There are two questions in the poll, feel free to add any comment after answering the poll. I'd also like to know whether you would have bid 2♥ after 2♦. If it matters, you are a good player against newbies in a team tournament.

---

IMO

• Over (2♦), 2♥ = 10, _P = 8.
  
• Now, _P = 10, 4♥ = 9.

IMO, the decision is close because the double is not penalties. It is action or cards or transferable values. e.g.
♠ AKxx ♥ Axxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx

[jdonn]

2♥ is a terrible bid over 2♦, there has to be a limit and this hand had no useful values at all. That is why we are in this terrible situation.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jun 5 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

2♥ is a terrible bid over 2♦, there has to be a limit and this hand had no useful values at all. That is why we are in this terrible situation.

Granny disagrees. She recommends: When responding to a double and holding an unbid suit, assume partner has bid one of that suit and, if you have the values for a constructive raise, then make it. Had partner bid 1♥ then many would raise on this hand. It is understandable that some prefer to pass instead -- because 2♥ is borderline and may direct the wrong lead -- but is 2♥ really "terrible"?

[the hog]

I think its terrible, Nigel. I really believe that this hand would be better without the QT of Ds. Without those cards I might be more inclined to bid 2H, but would probably still pass. With them I think this is a clear pass.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jun 5 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 5 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

2♥ is a terrible bid over 2♦, there has to be a limit and this hand had no useful values at all. That is why we are in this terrible situation.

Granny disagrees. She recommends: When responding to a double and holding an unbid suit, assume partner has bid one of that suit and, if you have the values for a constructive raise, then make it. Had partner bid 1♥ then many would raise on this hand. It is understandable that some prefer to pass instead -- because 2♥ is borderline and may direct the wrong lead -- but is 2♥ really "terrible"?

Yes, quite. If you are taking granny this literally then I suggest you find a less senile advisor.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't like the 2H bid, but I can live with it.

I agree the auction doesn't add up, but it's still a 'trust partner' position.

Partner's double doesn't show a stonking penalty double because he can't have an initial take-out double of 1D, a raise to exactly 3H, and a penatly double of 4D.

But I'm expected to pass it unless I have a very strange hand indeed (if I had some 2605 0-count say that decided to bid 2H on the first round and forgot to bid 4H last round).

Basically our side has said its piece once we tried to pass out 3H.

[helene_t]

This is a penalty-oriented dbl and we have nowhere near the O-D for taking it out.

It's true that the auction doesn't add up but maybe p bid 3♥ on the assumption that we have what we actually have.

In any case, for even considering bidding 4♥ I am too dogmatically against a bid that means "I changed my mind about my previous bid".

[Hanoi5]

Here's the new topic with the complete hand and a plot twist (or two):

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...t=0#entry286721