[mtvesuvius]

NV vs V at IMPs you hold:

AKJTxx
KQxx
--------
A9x

1♠ - (Pass) - 1NT - (2♦)
?

[helene_t]

I think dbl shows 18-19 bal and 2NT followed by a pull of 3♣ to 3♥ shows this hand.

Just made it up, hopefully p did, too.

[Phil]

Double is takeout. That's a possibility, but I better plan all of my next bids:

Pass - kind of happy.
2♥; 4♦
2♠; 4♠
2N; hmm - 3♦ I guess
3♣; 3♦

The other possibility is an agricultural 3♥.

I like x.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on May 18 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

The other possibility is an agricultural 3♥.

"Agricultural"?! I like it.

Have I been missing some new lingo in TBW, or is this a Phil C. Special?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I bid hearts.

2H or 3H are both fine, I am super max. for 2H,
but sometimes this happens, if partner corrects
to 2S, which he will usually do, I have an easy 3S.

With kind regards
Marlow

[JLOL]

Obv three d

[jdonn]

I like 3♥. Double I don't like too often if partner passes, and I think anything that isn't a heart bid will miss 4-4 heart fits. Or if I cuebid then bid 4♥ we get to hearts too much instead.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 18 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

I like 3♥. Double I don't like too often if partner passes, and I think anything that isn't a heart bid will miss 4-4 heart fits. Or if I cuebid then bid 4♥ we get to hearts too much instead.

I think everyone has lost their minds. I picked your post because you bring up the part that best illustrates why everyone has lost their mind, but go the other way, which means I think you are the King of the Loonies.

Double is a giant WTP, IMO. What, partner passes and you are worried? The opponents are red on white here. If partner opts to defend, I trust him.

[andy_h]

x for takeout.

[rogerclee]

I don't think double is a good bid since if 2♦ gets raised we are in a bad position to describe our hand. If you think 3♥ over 3♦ or 4♥ over 4♦ should show a strong hand with 64 in the majors, then maybe you are right in principle, but I prefer to get good results at the table (I think it should be 5404 anyway).

[Codo]

X
When partner sits, I am happy. He plays me for around a 5413 hand, so he will sit just when it is right.

[ochinko]

I am not sure whether 2♥ or 3♥ is better, but there is no such thing as t/o double after NT from partner. All doubles after limited bids are natural. The same goes for all doubles after partner has suggested his hand was balanced. Perhaps you have a very clever arrangement with your partner to double for t/o here, but this is B&I forum after all.

I agree with helene_t that double is more like 18-19 balanced.

[cherdanno]

ochinko, on May 19 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

I am not sure whether 2♥ or 3♥ is better, but there is no such thing as t/o double after NT from partner. All doubles after limited bids are natural. The same goes for all doubles after partner has suggested his hand was balanced. Perhaps you have a very clever arrangement with your partner to double for t/o here, but this is B&I forum after all.

Playing 2/1, partner's hand is not limited. Partner has not suggested his hand is balanced.

In my experience, it is much more helpful to explain a beginner that low level doubles are takeout (and then add some exceptions), than to start with takeout doubles over opening bids, then add negative doubles, etc., or to try teaching rules such as yours (that never completely work anyway).

Anyway, the OP is not a beginner but an ambitious but modest advanced player. And any ambitious intermediate or better players is best served by trying to learn expert standard, in such a simple auction in particular. Modern expert standard here seems to be takeout, it's not a 'very clever arrangement' for some strange partnerships.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, a hand was provided to a group of 20 or so people anyone here would call clearly expert. The hand was ♠AKxxxx ♥Kxxx ♦xxx ♣--, after a 3♣ overcall. One of the pair asking had doubled, which was deemed sick by the crowd, with one exception (his partner, who was called over to confirm, said "not if you put a gun to my head"). However, change the King to the Ace, and many would have doubled.

The point is that double is clearly takeout here.

Part two was of note, however, for this hand. When the problem auction was then changed to Responder's options, all but a few opted to pick a major with 2♠/3♥, at game because Responder had a good hand in the context of what should have been a decent hand from Opener. This was in response to a choice to bid 3♥. When the person asking noted that 4♣ seems better, as choice, the vast majority acknowledged that this would be the "expert" bid.

The second point is that Roger has a valid point, namely that these auctions and this situation are not easy at the table even if they should be in theory and even if after the auction one of you might slap your forehead and say, "Duh -- that was dumb." Another good reason for BBF -- now it will be.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 19 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

The second point is that Roger has a valid point, namely that these auctions and this situation are not easy at the table even if they should be in theory and even if after the auction one of you might slap your forehead and say, "Duh -- that was dumb."  Another good reason for BBF -- now it will be.

What makes them easy in theory? If partner bids 3♣ then does 3♦ promise better club support? Does 3♠ show a hand this good? Does 3♥ not show 5-5? If lho raises to 3♦ and it comes back to you you could double again but partner has no idea you have self sufficient spades or a diamond void. Or you could bid 3♠ and find out you missed hearts or defending. And meanwhile then you still haven't shown a hand this good, or have you?

I am interested to see what you had to say in the paragraph before the one I quoted. Could you retype it in English instead of Swahili?

[vuroth]

My first thought was 3♦.

After some thought, I'm not sure. If partner has ♦s, would I rather be defending 3♦X or dummy for 3NT. You know, maybe 3NT isn't so bad. If nothing else, it gives me a 13 trick head start out the door.

Clearly, I want to make a strong bid, and clearly I want to encourage partner to show her long suit, even if it's clubs, even if we have to pass 3NT to get there. I'm just not sure what prototypical 3♦ and X bids look like, and how they differ.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 19 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 19 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

The second point is that Roger has a valid point, namely that these auctions and this situation are not easy at the table even if they should be in theory and even if after the auction one of you might slap your forehead and say, "Duh -- that was dumb."  Another good reason for BBF -- now it will be.

What makes them easy in theory? If partner bids 3♣ then does 3♦ promise better club support? Does 3♠ show a hand this good? Does 3♥ not show 5-5? If lho raises to 3♦ and it comes back to you you could double again but partner has no idea you have self sufficient spades or a diamond void. Or you could bid 3♠ and find out you missed hearts or defending. And meanwhile then you still haven't shown a hand this good, or have you?

I am interested to see what you had to say in the paragraph before the one I quoted. Could you retype it in English instead of Swahili?

I'm hving trouble deciphering what you are saying and what you are asking, perhaps because I think you have must have misunderstood my comment.

What I meant by "easy in theory" is that the auction described in the example auction, where 4♣ was ultimately a choice bid, waqs easy in theory but not at the table.

Take this example. Suppose you either double and LHO raises to 3♦ or you bid 3♦ and LHO passes. In either event, partner may have a good hand with 2♠/3♥ and not be sure whether your bidding should show 5-4 in the majors, 6-4, 5-5, or any two or three of these options. Not knowing this is understandable. However, if he wants to bid four of a major but is not sure which one to bid, his theory solution is easy -- bid 4♦. However, many people miss that and guess 4♥ or 4♠, only to slap their foreheads later and say "duh!"

Roger noted how later actions by Opener might be ambiguous as to major length, which creates an analogous solution for partner, at least when he wants to raise to game.