[AL78]

---

The 1♣ is Acol. I was North and held this hand:

♠T3
♥J9543
♦KT95
♣A6

I felt this was too good for 1♥ hence the jump. What hand would you expect for the 3♥ raise and how would you respond?

[DavidKok]

I would expect a decent 14-count or so, if 2♥ shows five it may contain only three-card support and if it did not at least 4-card support. Having already upgraded I think we have to pass now - I can't find enough extras to go to game. Some days partner will have a 15-17 balanced hand without a club stopper, but on the better half of those hands partner might have opted to take the reigns over our jump.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

no idea, what partners hand looks like, is it important?
3H asks me, if I have a min hand for my current bidding, or if I have something to spare.
The HCP count is about, what you need to make the 2H jump, I did not show the 5th heart,
I also have undisclosed ruffing features as well, the HCP are hard / working values.
Is this enough? At IMPs you will take the push, at MP, ...
The bidding tells declarer, where the missing HCPs are, i.e. this reduces the required
strength.

Some play, that the difference between 2H and 3H is the heart length, i.e. the 3H showes 5.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[AL78]

I decided to raise to game expecting a borderline strong NT hand opposite and/or a double red suit fit. I guess I was too optimistic. Partner held:

♠Q973
♥AT86
♦Q3
♣KQ5

One down after the defence cashed their three quick tricks and I have to lose one heart.

[DavidKok]

That's not a double of 1♣, and it certainly isn't a raise of 2♥. But you should also not raise to 4.

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2022-July-22, 11:37, said:

I decided to raise to game expecting a borderline strong NT hand opposite and/or a double red suit fit. I guess I was too optimistic. Partner held:

♠Q973
♥AT86
♦Q3
♣KQ5

One down after the defence cashed their three quick tricks and I have to lose one heart.

Hi,

3H showes add. values, that were not shown yet, those add. values, allow asking partner,
if he has more that he has shown?
If he does not have add. value, how are you supposed to make the add. trick, if you dont
have add. values yourself?

A T/O showes opening values, the hand has those values, but it is a min opening hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-22, 12:00, said:

That's not a double of 1♣, <snip>

As far as I understood, the Italians may disagree with this,
one has 44 in the majors. I would not have made the T/O, ...,
but I dont think T/O is a bad idea.

[DavidKok]

If you wish to play minimum offshape takeout doubles that's a very viable approach to doubles, but you need solid followup agreements. I've personally never cared for them. It is also important to note that this style of doubles is more effective against non-natural or semi-natural bids (e.g. the "0/1/2+ 1♦" in Precision).

To be blunt, partner's raise shows that these 'solid followup agreements' were missing. The hand is a sub-minimum in terms of offensive potential, stop bidding while you're ahead.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-22, 12:25, said:

If you wish to play minimum offshape takeout doubles that's a very viable approach to doubles, but you need solid followup agreements. I've personally never cared for them. It is also important to note that this style of doubles is more effective against non-natural or semi-natural bids (e.g. the "0/1/2+ 1♦" in Precision).

To be blunt, partner's raise shows that these 'solid followup agreements' were missing. The hand is a sub-minimum in terms of offensive potential, stop bidding while you're ahead.

Yes, we can agree on that one, passing 2H is ..., but this would also be true, if the minors would be switched, and than you have a traditional T/O.

[Cyberyeti]

I would treat 3♥ as "I have 4 opposite your 5" barely invitational with 3♣ as the more serious raise, but this is a discussion you need to have.

[mycroft]

As a devout unbeliever in "minimum offshape takeout doubles", I would argue that many modern experts are strongly in favour of "if you've got the majors, get in there. If you end up playing the short minor, oh well". So, while I probably wouldn't have done it (I'm a chicken, and 7 of my 13 are Qx and opener's KQx), I don't give this the same air of reproach that others here are giving. Give me

---

(worse if the short major was spades!) and I'm all with them.

Same argument applies if you play Equal Level Conversion (another thing I'm a devout unbeliever in, but at least it has its uses).

I agree that your hand is worth 2♥ opposite a standard takeout double. But that range is good 8-11 (ACBL site says "Make a jump response in your suit with 9–11 HCP, or a good 8 HCP and some distribution.", Larry Cohen says "9-11", I push a bit.) Partner knows you have this, and invited.

Despite invitations being described as "blame transfers", and "I don't remember the last time he declined an invitation", they are intended to be accepted when you're a maximum for your previous auction (if you're limited; or "with extras" if you're not; or "with what I asked for" if it's that kind of invite). If anything, you're subminimum for your 2♥ call (although the fifth heart in a likely 9-card fit is pulling its weight). Half your hand is Ax in partner's "short suit", which while not waste paper, isn't pulling full weight; you have no singleton; and your hearts are - not stellar. Pass 3♥, and accept the blame if even 3 is too high (even if it's 100% partner's fault as well).

Accepting the invitation is classic Simon "weaker players overbid their good hands." You've already shown a good 8. Sure, that's much better than the "usual" 3 or 4, but what do you have that you didn't show last time? (Please note, I would consider myself a Simon "weaker player". I definitely catch myself doing that, or more often the converse: "underbid [my] bad hands").

Would I have invited with doubler's hand? No; besides the (expected) fourth heart, I'm pretty minimum myself, and 13-opposite-11 with "no" shape doesn't tend to make game unless you're MeckWell.

[DavidKok]

mycroft, on 2022-July-22, 13:48, said:

I would argue that many modern experts are strongly in favour of "if you've got the majors, get in there. If you end up playing the short minor, oh well".

In my experience, when experts say something like this it is implied that they don't have slow value in the opponents' minor suit. ♠KQ73, ♥AT76, ♦Q3, ♣Q95 is a more suitable takeout double than the example hand (I've swapped a club honour for a spade honour). Arguably the hand improves if the club queen were a small one.
More importantly, the actual hand has lots of defence. What contract are the opponents playing? If I pass and it goes (1♣)-P-(1NT)-P; (P)-? I've got a normal double (...or is this penalty?), and if they bid to some major suit I'm not jumping at the chance to declare instead. The only real risk is (1♣)-P-(1♦)-P; (2♦)-? or the likes, and even here we can double now to find a major suit.

[paulg]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-22, 12:00, said:

That's not a double of 1♣, and it certainly isn't a raise of 2♥. But you should also not raise to 4.

I don't normally disagree with DavidKok but I think it is an obvious double of 1♣. But I agree that it is not close to a raise of 2♥.

[mw64ahw]

Assuming X shows opening values and 3+ in each unbid suit then you have 10/11 total points and an 8 card fit. This is mixed/limit raise territory. With 3 Queens South's hand plays as a minimum so 3♥ should be it. MLT wise you have a crude 8+8.5 before upgrades again meaning 3♥ is enough. As South I pass the 2♥ bid rather than raise.

[nullve]

AL78, on 2022-July-22, 11:37, said:

Partner held:

♠Q973
♥AT86
♦Q3
♣KQ5

DavidKok, on 2022-July-22, 12:00, said:

That's not a double of 1♣

2022 Spingold Final:

---

---