[42krunner]

I can't agree with any of his three doubles.
-Daniel

{comments}

---

[ArtK78]

I agree with the first two doubles.

The first double is a normal takeout double.

The second one says we are not defending 1NT undoubled. It is still for takeout.

After partner passes the second double for penalties, the third one is too much. It should show extras. There are none. So I disagree with the third double. If partner wants to double 2♣, he is free to do that. I don't want to encourage him.

By the way, I totally disagree with partner passing the double of 1NT.

[42krunner]

The third one was crazy.

Why not just overcall 1D instead of the first double? He has a pathetic three hearts. It would seem to me that the second promises the high side of the lie he was trapped in, given the first double. So maybe the second was ok since the first was already there.

[wyman]

42krunner, on 2013-December-04, 12:33, said:

I can't agree with any of his three doubles.
-Daniel


http://www.bridgebas...4503-1386178681

Agree with Art.

The first two are normal. Passing the dbl of 1N by east is poor. I don't think GIB should dbl 2C; he's already shown his hand, and we should be in a force (imo) when east passes 1Nx.

[Stephen Tu]

I think first double is totally normal but second double is rather pushy, second double should already show extra as partner should be bidding pretty freely over 1nt with any sort of normal values. Hand is on lower end for initial double so shouldn't double again.

[wyman]

I agree that the 2nd dbl should show more than a min, but west has a really nice hand. Sure it's 12 HCP, but it's
* K&R = 14.70
* Zar = 29
* LTC = 6

I mean it's clearly above minimum for opening, and especially at MPs where one ought to double on anything close, this is clear extras to me.

So we agree on the bidding but not hand evaluation I guess, which is fine.

[Stephen Tu]

wyman, on 2013-December-04, 16:19, said:

I mean it's clearly above minimum for opening, and especially at MPs where one ought to double on anything close, this is clear extras to me.

Sure it's a bit above minimum for first double, but I don't think enough for the second double. Partner heard the double, he should BID on anything close over the 1nt, so I really don't think one needs to double again. Double again to me shows an extra ace, not merely an extra Q.

[ArtK78]

I don't care if you have extras or not. You don't need extras in this situation. The opponents stopped bidding, so you are in a balancing situation. All the double says is that you don't want to play in 1NT undoubled. It doesn't promise extras.

[Stephen Tu]

Why should it not promise extras? You already showed most of your hand. Partner had an opportunity to bid but didn't. Logically you should have extras. It's not the same situation as if you passed initially. You doubled, saying partner please bid. He chose not to. Doubling again shouldn't merely mean "the opps stopped low so I am obliged to bid again", it should mean "I have more than I initially promised, even though I know you are weak, I think it's worthwhile to compete further".

Or are you saying that you should auto- 2nd double on this auction, and conservative opps can have you at their mercy by stopping in 1nt and letting you step back in?

[wank]

lol of course a 2nd double shows extras. partner didn't bid. why didn't he bid? most likely because he has a low point count and he doesn't have a fit for any of your suits. you only make him take another action when you've got the shape and HCP to make it less dangerous and more worthwhile (i say worthwhile because even if partner has a fit good enough for you to make anything, his hand must be so crappy for him not to bid in the first place that they can just outbid you anyway).

but op, the first double is entirely normal. you seem to be living in the 1930s when take-out doubles showed 4 cards in each unbid major.

[ArtK78]

Pard didn't bid because the 1NT bid preempted him from bidding at the one level and he doesn't feel that he has enough to bid at the two level. That doesn't mean that it still isn't our hand.

[wank]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-05, 01:49, said:

Pard didn't bid because the 1NT bid preempted him from bidding at the one level and he doesn't feel that he has enough to bid at the two level. That doesn't mean that it still isn't our hand.

partner has a maximum for a hand which passes despite having a fit, but it's still not our hand.

[lycier]

---

here is your hand.

How to edit the hand?here is my link.

[ArtK78]

wank, on 2013-December-05, 03:19, said:

partner has a maximum for a hand which passes despite having a fit, but it's still not our hand.

It may not be our hand, but 2♠ is a very playable spot.

[georgi]

---

Just to be here before to expire.