[ahydra]

IMPs, both VUL, spots <9 approximate

---

As you can see, 3NT has a minor issue with spade stops. Where did this go wrong?

Thanks,

ahydra

[TylerE]

N 100%. Bidding 3N without a stopper is unthinkable. If S has a stopper he can just bid 3N instead of doubling. What else could double be probing for?

I also think that 3♣ is a mild overbid, as a minimum ♣ hand can just pass over 1♠, but that wasn't fatal and it's barely an overbid.

[billw55]

Wrong forum IMO

[ahydra]

billw55, on 2013-June-18, 14:03, said:

Wrong forum IMO

Please elaborate?

ahydra

[rmnka447]

North 100% for bidding 3 NT without a stopper.

South's double is card showing because the initial 1 ♦ response is ambiguous. It could anywhere from 5 to 18 value, so South needs some mechanism to show values when no clear cut bid is available. If South would have bid 4 ♣ or 4 ♦, it would more or less commit the hand to an 11 trick minor suit game. But a 9 trick 3 NT game is still a possibility if opener can stop ♠. At IMPs, it's much less important which game is bid when both 5 of a minor and 3 NT are makeable. But if only one makes, it's critical to find the right one.

If North properly makes a 4 ♣ second rebid, then South carries on to a good 5 ♣ game.

[ArtK78]

The only bid that was wrong in the auction was the 3NT call. I am 100% in favor of the 3♣ call.

The only other questionable call was 1♦, and that is a matter of partnership agreement. If this was an old-fashioned partnership that requires a redouble on any 10 count, then South should redouble. However, 1♦ is the 100% correct call in my opinion.

As others have said, if South wanted to play in 3NT South could have bid 3NT. Instead, South doubled, showing values and no clear direction. North had clear direction but went elsewhere for reasons only known to North.

[gszes]

there are many things that could have been done better so blame is
pretty even. given the bidding i think 2s by N would have been much
better than 3c. I also would have prefereed a xx vs a 1d bid that really
accomplishes nothing since s is more than willing to sit for 1c xx with
their 3 card support. As for south now x 3s why? values and no clear
direction? that cant be right you have a doubleton spade and 3 card
support fo p who bid 3c and a side heart A. This hand is closer to a
5c bid than anything else. S feels the need to do something to make
up for lost ground since they did not xx in the first place. If xx had been
the first bid s would have an easy pass here and let p decide what to
do and p knowing you had xx and nothing much in spades will be more
than happy to be searching for the 5 level or more.

[billw55]

ahydra, on 2013-June-18, 14:08, said:

Please elaborate?

ahydra

I am suggesting this question belongs in beginner/novice.

[Cyberyeti]

1♦/XX is a matter of choice/system.

What is S's double ?

I'm guessing N has taken it as penalties which is why he's bid 3N, if not 3N is barking mad.

[the hog]

North. I would not bid 3C, but that is by the by. What on earth is this idiotic 3NT bid without a stopper?

[ggwhiz]

Whatever north was thinking 3nt meant the auction left the rails when they started ummm "thinking".

[ahydra]

Many more useful replies here - thanks all. I was South and opted not to XX the first time because I can't really defend spades (we play all Xs starting from responder's second call as penalty following a first-round XX). As Cyberyeti guessed, partner did indeed think I had a penalty X. But I don't think that implies a spade stop - one can also double on high cards - and I did say to partner afterwards, if I had a spade stop I would have just bid 3NT myself!

It's interesting at what point your Xs change from takeout to optional to penalty. Here it was intended as optional (values, no clear direction, not minding too much if partner leaves it in as I have some defence). I think it's clear that having only zero or one unbid suits doesn't automatically imply X = penalty, but where is the borderline? I thought about "any X on the third and subsequent rounds of the auction" - but I guess there might even be exceptions to that.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2013-June-19, 04:37, said:

Many more useful replies here - thanks all. I was South and opted not to XX the first time because I can't really defend spades (we play all Xs starting from responder's second call as penalty following a first-round XX). As Cyberyeti guessed, partner did indeed think I had a penalty X. But I don't think that implies a spade stop - one can also double on high cards - and I did say to partner afterwards, if I had a spade stop I would have just bid 3NT myself!

The problem here is that yes you can double on high cards, but if so, you've normally redoubled first, so it's not a silly assumption that you're carrying spades if this is a pen X (which it isn't for me).

[billw55]

Interesting, I had a related situation happen recently:

---

No brilliancy prizes here, but I thought that after doubling diamonds twice, it should be reasonably clear that I had stoppers and west could at least bid 3NT if he was going to pull.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-June-19, 07:29, said:

Interesting, I had a related situation happen recently:

---

No brilliancy prizes here, but I thought that after doubling diamonds twice, it should be reasonably clear that I had stoppers and west could at least bid 3NT if he was going to pull.

Wow. 2 aces and 2 trump and West pulled! Perhaps he had seen some of your doubles before.

I have a rule about a two penalty double situation. If there is a pull of a penalty double and the opponents bid the same suit at a higher level and it is doubled again by the player who doubled it the first time, the second double had better be right.

[neilkaz]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-June-19, 06:40, said:

The problem here is that yes you can double on high cards, but if so, you've normally redoubled first, so it's not a silly assumption that you're carrying spades if this is a pen X (which it isn't for me).

I agree completely with Cyberyeti here.

[Cascade]

ahydra, on 2013-June-19, 04:37, said:

Many more useful replies here - thanks all. I was South and opted not to XX the first time because I can't really defend spades (we play all Xs starting from responder's second call as penalty following a first-round XX). As Cyberyeti guessed, partner did indeed think I had a penalty X. But I don't think that implies a spade stop - one can also double on high cards - and I did say to partner afterwards, if I had a spade stop I would have just bid 3NT myself!

It's interesting at what point your Xs change from takeout to optional to penalty. Here it was intended as optional (values, no clear direction, not minding too much if partner leaves it in as I have some defence). I think it's clear that having only zero or one unbid suits doesn't automatically imply X = penalty, but where is the borderline? I thought about "any X on the third and subsequent rounds of the auction" - but I guess there might even be exceptions to that.

ahydra

I think that it is much more useful for double here to be an onward going. Sort of a directional ask. Often, especially with the proliferation of preemptive raises the opponents will get the three level and we will have a good hand with no clear direction. Double is the cheapest and therefore most economical noise to make when we want to move but don't know which direction to move.

Opposite such a double 3NT is clearly poor.

Given your methods I think double is poor and 3NT not much better. In my experience it is seldom right to make a penalty double with undisclosed support for partner. Partner can easily have a hand with clear direction if only your support was known.

Another way of looking at it is that they think they are safe at the three level and there is nothing about your hand that suggests otherwise so why would you want to double.

I would bid four, five or six clubs before I would double with your methods. 4♣ is probably too little and 6♣ too much so I guess that means 5♣ in practice.