[gprentice]

---

With this hand can south make a re-opening double after 3C by east. Can north bid 2S after 2C by west. What does a re-opening double by north show after east 3C. If south makes a re-opening double after east 3C, how should the bidding continue.

[jillybean]

2C seems ill advised. This would be a Do We Want To Die double against competent opponents.

[P_Marlowe]

No, they got you, happens sometimes.

You are red, South has a min opener, the raise may only indicate a 8 card fit for them,
due to this, you have no certain 8 card fit your way.

North did well to Pass, after a neg. X he would be dead if opener introduced heart.

Pass, next board.

[apollo1201]

2C is a disgusting bid that should deserve to be more punished than a mere -50. But it happens sometimes, bad bids get rewarded.

N is not stong enough to bid 2S unless specific convention. X is risky business with only 2 hearts. You might survive if the bidding stays low (correcting 2H from opener to 2S but risking being in a 52 with such a lousy suit) but you better have an escape like a clear D fit to compensate.

True, S has an ideal shape for a X, but cruelly lacks strength as well. Give W the 2 Q from N so that the hand looks more like a normal 2C and see if you d fancy playing the hand at red with what remains.

Had E passed it would be though an auto X as you could expect some strength and probably a nasty surprise in trumps for the overcaller.

[mikeh]

Bad bridge works sometimes, even against good players. West should keep overcalling on hands and suits like this…I’ve scored very well, on average, against players like that. But once in a while they’re tte ones who score well.

As for what, if anything, N-S can do, north has no call other than pass over both 2C and 3C. South, otoh, has a close decision over 3C. Of course, it’s trivial to say south should pre-balance via a double but it’s impossible to be objective. If you want to solicit views on this, you’d have to post just south’s hand and the auction to the 3C bid. I wouldn’t believe many players who claimed, knowing all the hands, that they’d always double as South. One of the few I would believe is my main partner. As for me…I definitely like to think I’d double but it’s possible I’d talk myself into passing. Being overly conservative is a problem I sometimes have. Btw, calling the south hand a minimum strikes me as exceedingly odd. It’s got virtually perfect shape for a double and 5 controls when a minimum opening hand will often have as few as 2.

My take is that winners double (sometimes doing badly) and losers pass (sometimes doing well). To me the deciding factor, which I often forget to apply, is that even when bidding is ‘wrong’ it’s surprising how often the opps let one off the hook,

Had south doubled, the spotlight turns to north. The club holding has no direct offensive value but it’s not worthless. It guards against being tapped and/or offers ruffing tricks in dummy. The diamond holding is great and the fifth spade is a bonus…south will often be 3=4=5=1 rather than 4=3=5=1 so having five spades is good news. The heart Queen rates to be useful.

While I don’t view tte south hand as (even close to) a minimum, it is close to a minimum for the double. I don’t think it’s wrong to bid just 3S and indeed I think it clear at mps. Vulnerable at imps makes it far more difficult. Unless they can double 4S, you want to be in it if it has around a 40% chance if making. Again, seeing the hands makes it impossible to be objective but…weak spades, very soft clubs and only 1 control might well get me bidding only 3S. However, if I took a long time, I have to bid 4S snce partner is virtually barred after a slow 3S and why can’t he have AQxx Kxx AQxxx x?

[akwoo]

I would pass 3C as South all red at MPs, and probably also red vs white at MPs. Not up for risking -200 (especially combined with giving up some chances of +200).

IMPs I think a double (again as South) is more clear (but like mikeh I might very well talk myself into passing), because -200 is lose 2 or lose 3, and the potential gains are much bigger.

I agree North can't act if South doesn't. I'm not sure North should bid 3 or 4 after a double at IMPs but note 4 is clear with Kxxxx Qx Kxx xxx

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2026-September-02, 21:35, said:

I would pass 3C as South all red at MPs, and probably also red vs white at MPs. Not up for risking -200 (especially combined with giving up some chances of +200).

IMPs I think a double (again as South) is more clear (but like mikeh I might very well talk myself into passing), because -200 is lose 2 or lose 3, and the potential gains are much bigger.

I agree North can't act if South doesn't. I'm not sure North should bid 3 or 4 after a double at IMPs but note 4 is clear with Kxxxx Qx Kxx xxx

They’re red so +200 on defence is exceedingly unlikely. But, of course, if they are going down 2 (for 100) a double must surely be right. They’re not going down 2 on hands where partner is likely to pull the double.

[barmar]

Just a terminology nitpick: A re-opening double is a double in the pass-out seat, usually for takeout. Double by South would be for takeout, but it's not re-opening. Double by North would be reopening, but since they don't have a takeout-oriented hand it would be ill-advised.

Regarding the advisability of West's 2♣ bid, aggressive bidders often have the attitude "non-vulnerable is invulnerable", and take extreme liberties at favorable vulnerability. I also remember Fred once posting that he tries to find any way to justify bidding 2♣ over 1♦ because of the bidding space it takes. NS would have little trouble bidding a reasonable spade contract if North were allowed to bid 1♠.

[bluenikki]

barmar, on 2026-September-03, 09:12, said:

Double by North would be reopening, but since they don't have a takeout-oriented hand it would be ill-advised.

Just to be clear, north declined to make a takeout double over 2♣, so they can't make a takeout double of 3♣.

Double now would be balanced 10-11 3=3=3=4, right?