[han]

This is a subject we have talked about several times in the past. You open at the 1-level, LHO preempts, partner and LHO pass. Should you always reopen with shortness in their suit?

Here is a recent hand where my opponents (two frequent members of this forum so please be gentle) did not agree on this subject:

Scoring: IMP

p-p-1D-3C
p-p-Dbl-p
3H-all pass.

---

I was south so I had no role in this matter. West thought that his double showed significant extras because (1) they were vulnerable against not so partner wouldn't usually trap pass and reopening is more dangerous and (2) partner was a passed hand. Reasonable arguments, but others might argue that west should reopen with almost any honest opening hand and club shortness. What do you think?

[whereagles]

I think East should double 3♣. He can play in all suits. In this occasion, West would cue 4♣ and EW end up in the obvious 4♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

whatever your view is, this hand is not a good example,
assuming the 3C bidder is not lunatic, and has a suit which
is worth to be called a "6 card suit", opener looking at
AQ in clubs knows, that partner is not trap passing,
he cant have the honours to do so, i.e. partners pass
is a sigh of weakness, ... this means not, that he cant be
maximum for his pass, in which case they got you.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I believe a reopening double on the 3 level should
show additional values, ... my partner thinks different.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I can't make up my mind regarding whether its optimal to require that partner to re-opens any time that he has shortness in LHO's suit. While I agree that this will simplify bidding in many cases, I can't help but believe that this style is vulnerable if RHO trap passes. Assume that the auction starts 1♦ - (3♣) - P - (P) and you're sitting on a 4=4=4=1 12 count. The mandatory re-opening style shoudl score well if partner is sitting on a strong NT hand with good trumps. The mandatory re-opening style will score very poorly if RHO is sitting on that same hand. My own suspicion is that the success of the mandatory re-opening style requires incomplete disclosure by its proponents....

Comment 2: I dislike East's bidding a lot. I consider 3NT a reasonable call by East. Sure, I'd liek the Jack of Clubs, but life isn't perfect... With this said and done, if I were to pass this hand, I think that I'm obligated to chose a stronger bid than 3♥ when the double gets passed arround to me.

Comment 3: I'm not expecially fond on the re-opening double. Here, once again, 3NT is calling to me...

[mike777]

Hannie, on Dec 21 2005, 04:34 PM, said:

This is a subject we have talked about several times in the past. You open at the 1-level, LHO preempts, partner and LHO pass. Should you always reopen with shortness in their suit?

Here is a recent hand where my opponents (two frequent members of this forum so please be gentle) did not agree on this subject:

Scoring: IMP

p-p-1D-3C
p-p-Dbl-p
3H-all pass.

---

I was south so I had no role in this matter. West thought that his double showed significant extras because (1) they were vulnerable against not so partner wouldn't usually trap pass and reopening is more dangerous and (2) partner was a passed hand. Reasonable arguments, but others might argue that west should reopen with almost any honest opening hand and club shortness. What do you think?

Assume I was not playing the Mexican so I would have reopened with 3nt not x.
1) Yes I would almost always reopen with shortness in WJO suit if partner is an unpassed hand. Too many good players just try to steal from you at these colors.
2) At the 3 level with partner a passed hand, I must be showing alot of extras, yes.

[Stephen Tu]

I am of the school that high level reopening doubles should have extras, and partner should not trap with game values esp. at this vulnerability (just bid 3nt if appropriate).

I don't agree that East should make a negative double. I think if partner has the common balanced minimum opposite, that will too often turn 3c down 1 into 3M down 1, & often in the wrong strain to boot.

It's the same reason I wouldn't reopen at 3 level with a minimum, my estimate is by doing this you turn plus into minus (sometimes big minus, if RHO is strong + misfit) far more often than you get a bigger plus by extracting the bigger penalty. Also you make it easier to bid your games when you actually do have extras as in this hand.

[mikeh]

1st point; preempts work, else why make them?

2nd point: common sense and bridge logic combine to require that the higher one requires partner to act, the stronger your hand should be. Thus a reopening double of a preempt shows extras: the higher the level, the greater the extras.

Sure, this means that on occasion you will pass out a hand that belonged to you, because responder had no bid and opener was a touch light. Too bad: see point 1 and move on.

3rd point: while reopening at the 3-level requires extras, the double did not show a 19 count hand with AQxx in partner's probable sure 5+ card suit. Why 5+? because he did not bid 3♦ and he rates to be (but was not) short(ish) in ♣.

Note this inference is not solid, hence the 'probable'

Note also that, in fairness, the hand is not worth 19 hcp with the lead coming through the ♣AQ

Point 4: see point 1. Both E and W could have bid more. W could have opened 2N (I rarely stretch without a good 5 card suit but I don't like opening 1♦ on this hand either). I do not fault 1♦: I merely point out that the (close second) choice of 2N works well on the actual layout. E's pass of 3♣ seems clear: he cannot stand partner jumping to 4♠ should he double, and he has no reason to bid anything else. He could have bid 4♥ or (possibly) 3N after the double. I think 4♥ is best but opener could have held less.

When both partners have close decisions and both swing the same way, the result is usually not good. This is especially the case in competitive auctions, in which bidding space has been consumed and there is less room for recovery. See point 1.

I think that in partial/game decisions, the common expert approach is to stretch for the game, while in game/slam decisions the approach is to settle for the game... I am speaking of auctions in which the opponents have preempted us out of important biddng space so that we have to make a go/no go decision on limited information.

[Kalvan14]

IMHO, E should not pass: a negative double is quite appropriate, looking forward to hearing 3♥ or maybe 3♦ (over which he can now bid 3♥). Note that the 3 clubs should make him hopeful of a fit.

W should reopen with a minimum hand and shortness in the pre-empt suit. Too many times oppos like to be smart, in particular at this vulnerability. Certainly I would not reopen with 14 hcp balanced including AQ in clubs

Having passed the first time [against my best judgment ] I would not bid 3♥ now. 4♥ is the right bid (pard must have at least 3-4 in the majors).

If the auction goes as it did in RL [1D-(3C)-P-(P)-X-(P)-3H-(P)] W has a tough decision. I'd probably bid 3N to protect AQ♣. Take away the ♠ or ♥ Q and I would pass.

[mikeh]

Kalvan14, on Dec 21 2005, 06:57 PM, said:

IMHO, E should not pass: a negative double is quite appropriate, looking forward to hearing 3♥ or maybe 3♦ (over which he can now bid 3♥). Note that the 3 clubs should make him hopeful of a fit.

If he hears 3♠, you suggest what? 3N opposite a hand that could not open 1N and bid only 3♠, so lacks 15+ hcp?

If he bids 4♠?

I have not (and cannot) estimate the probability that West's longer major (assuming he has one) is ♠ rather than ♥, but it will be substantial given the 2 card discrepancy in our hand.

[Kalvan14]

mikeh, on Dec 21 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Dec 21 2005, 06:57 PM, said:

IMHO, E should not pass: a negative double is quite appropriate, looking forward to hearing 3♥ or maybe 3♦ (over which he can now bid 3♥). Note that the 3 clubs should make him hopeful of a fit.

If he hears 3♠, you suggest what? 3N opposite a hand that could not open 1N and bid only 3♠, so lacks 15+ hcp?

If he bids 4♠?

I have not (and cannot) estimate the probability that West's longer major (assuming he has one) is ♠ rather than ♥, but it will be substantial given the 2 card discrepancy in our hand.

If W has both majors, he will give us a chance to choose.
If he has just spades and diamonds, I'll pass 3♠ (and obviously 4♠ too: but this shows a good hand, very close to a reverse).
A Moysian fit is not the best, but I control the 2nd round in clubs (and S honors would be submitted).

These kind of decisions are never 100% one way or the other, agreed; and pre-empts are a big nuisance. But I do believe that E should try to help W as much as possible.

[awm]

I think the balancing double should show extras at the three-level. In general it's right to bid two over two on the vast majority of hands, but three over three is much more risky. Admittedly I'd balance with something like 14-15 points with the "perfect" 4441 shape, but I'd never balance on a "weak notrump" hand with doubleton club.

From east's viewpoint, I believe in competing aggressively with shortage in the enemy suit, and passively with length. Since east has three clubs, I believe a pass is in order. This decision is a lot closer if we change one of the small clubs to a diamond or spade.

After the double, I prefer 4♥ for east. Often it's right to push on game decisions; also the fifth heart and ♦Q are very useful cards, and the ♣K is well positioned.

[Fluffy]

That could had happened to me easilly :/

[Double !]

Hmmm
This East hand reminds me very much of one that I held relatively recently, and my decision and results were not some of my better moments. Shows what serious fatigue can do, but....

If indeed I was the East player in question, I indeed only bid 3H in response to my P's re-opening X.

So, Han, if this is the same hand, then I choose to reveal my identity because this is one of many situations that I have a lot of difficulty with. And I am not afraid to admit my errors.

Part of my difficulty is the fact that the one person with whom I actually sometimes play live bridge/ tourneys is someone who will reopen at matchpoints with a minimum and the correct shape. If my memory serves me well, we were playing BAM (essentially matchpoints) and I didn't wish to hang partner for reopening in the pressure situation. As over pre-empts (2 & 3-bids), I am assuming that something similar to the Rule of 7 is in effect in this situation: that partner is assuming that I have 7 hcps or a little something (he/she is borrowing a few values from my hand), and has predicated his/her bidding on that assumption. Upon reflection, I am not sure if the problem was poor evaluation of the east hand by me (do I really want to play 4H if P has a 4441 14-count (my club king seems wasted), or not being on the same wavelength as P regarding assuming that he/she was playing me for certain values when he/she reopened.

I really don't like a neg. X in this situation. I am fixed if P bids 3S: Txx is not exactly reasonable support when I have strongly encouraged P to compete in a major at the 3-level.

So, my problem is, do I assume that P has based the reopening decision on the assumption that I had certain values to start with (and I must then disregard those values because partner has already bid them), or do I assume that Partner has extra values in order to reopen? If the former, then maybe I need to expect partner to take one more bid with extras. Either way, the potential for one member of the partnership to hang the other is ever-present. In addition, I haven't thought this through but I wonder how much the meaning of the reopening X is influenced by the opening NT range that the partnership is playing.

Anyway, this is a very iinteresting and important partnership issue.

DHL
And, yes, pre-empts sometimes work.

[Winstonm]

My two cents in the "For what it's worth department."

The double here shows extras - but not this much extra. East has no reason to bid over the preempt. Back to west. It is reasonable at this point to adopt the "useful 7 principal" and assume when prempted that partner will produce a useful 7 points.

If that is close to right, it seems to me the standout bid by West is 3N. I know this would have been my call at the table, so maybe I'm biased. But when preempted, I'm not looking for the best game any longer - just a making game.

Winston

[han]

East was indeed you Don, and I don't think that you looked foolish at all (and neither did west). This was not a "whose-to-blame" question, I just posted the hand as an example of what could go wrong when you haven't discussed this issue. Bridge in a pick-up partnership is always difficult.

I thought that last time the majority view was that one should always reopen with shortness. Now (with some new people and some old posters gone) the majority thinks that reopening is not mandatory with shortness. I'll ask again in a year.

[Echognome]

I held the West hand. I don't mind admitting it either.

I agree with Mikeh that I could have opened 2NT on the hand. However, I didn't see any reason to upgrade. I had no extra shape and I have no rebid problems opening 1♦.

As per the reopening, I was tempted to reopen with 3NT, but that to me is taking more of a view than opening 2NT to begin with. I'm basically bidding 3NT on my own only armed with the knowledge that the clubs are behind me.

I also do not believe that East should negative double. I do however believe reopening at the 3 level must show extras. Let us not forget that East started with a pass. If you think about East's box, he has started with a pass, he passed over 3♣ and only bid at the cheapest possible level in response to a takeout double. What would East need to jump to game? East has already limited his hand to at most a bad 10. I cannot imagine an 11 or 12 count that does not take some action over 3♣ or is now passing for penalties. Thus if we think about the small box, I would try to bid game with somewhere in the 8-10 range. What does East bid with xxx Kxxx Jxxx xx? Or with xxxx xxxxx xxx x? Of course East's hand is wide ranging for the simple 3♥ bid. Just like West's hand is wide ranging for the reopening double. Who should be the one taking the push? I don't know. I think Mikeh put it well, preempts sometimes work and we both took conservative views on the hand.

I think from Han's original question of whether we always reopen with shortage, I don't think that is quite the correct notion. I read in Meckstroth's book that they always reopen with shortage, but they have limited openings. Thus their partner will not expect them to have more than 15. Of course, if partner passes ahead of you, I'm sure they will not always reopen with shortness. I think we are taught that we always reopen with shortness if it does not take us past the 2-level of our original opening. Once we force partner to take preference at the 3-level, we should be showing extras. How much extras? I leave that up for partnerships to decide. Very tough to know in a pickup partnership.

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Dec 22 2005, 12:35 AM, said:

East was indeed you Don, and I don't think that you looked foolish at all (and neither did west). This was not a "whose-to-blame" question, I just posted the hand as an example of what could go wrong when you haven't discussed this issue. Bridge in a pick-up partnership is always difficult.

I thought that last time the majority view was that one should always reopen with shortness. Now (with some new people and some old posters gone) the majority thinks that reopening is not mandatory with shortness. I'll ask again in a year.

Instead of asking next year, how about just extending this thread because it is a good topic in general: negative doubles.

I read recently that negative doubles were an area that it is rare to find two experts in complete agreement. When and on what type of hand does one reopen is essentially a continuation of the discussion on negative doubles.

A look through most of the world class players' cards will show a propensity for less shape showing the higher the auction progresses. Where is the dividing line?

1D-3C-X ?? Should this promise both majors?
1C-3D-X??

More complex:

1D-3H-X. Should this show spades are "cards"? When are where should the negative double showing suits revert to the old "Sputnik" double that showed cards.

Winston

[Robert]

Hi everyone

You are rolling dice here. You are supposed to play partner for about 6-9HCP

so with the given hand and to protect the club AQ, reopen with 3NT.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

Here's what I told Matt tonight: Don has a clear 4♥ call; he's shows closer to a yarb with 3♥. 3♥ aims for a narrow target. 4♥ takes the pressure off.

Game is still pretty good if you have a prime 13 and club shortness: AQxx, AQxx, JTxx, x.

I agree with the initial pass too.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Dec 22 2005, 01:37 AM, said:

A look through most of the world class players' cards will show a propensity for less shape showing the higher the auction progresses.  Where is the dividing line?

1D-3C-X ??  Should this promise both majors?
1C-3D-X??

More complex:

While I cannot speak for 'most wc players', I have played with several and on teams with and against many and, in my good partnerships, we mark our card as responsive and negative doubles through 7♠.

By doing so, we are clearly not stating that we show specific shapes at the higher levels: we have an agreement that the higher the level, the more the double shows 'transferable values'. That is to say, a double at a high level shows cards, and cards that are going to work on defence and offence.

1♦  (4♠) x does not announce interest in a 4=4 ♥ fit: it announces that we own the hand, and that opener should pass with most hands but not be afraid of bidding with unusual hands. The double does not show a trump stack: indeed it might be made with no actual ♠ winner at all.

This treatment is, I believe, common practice amongst most levels of experienced players.

1♦ (3♣) x is more complex.

However, my understanding of common expert practice is that a double here shows either both majors or the ability to handle a bid in an unheld major.

Thus with xx KJxxx Axxxx x I could double because I can comfortably correct any number of ♠ to ♦. If partner bids 4♠, then 5♦ should have a play.

With KJ10xxx xx AJx xx I could double and correct any number of ♥ to ♠ with some level of comfort


1♦ (3♥) x is for me ♠, not cards. For me the dividing line is 3N: doubles above 3N become more cards while doubles below 3N deliver the unbid major, if only one, and either both majors (if two) or the ability to handle an unwanted major suit bid by partner.

This is why, on the posted hand, I agreed with E's initial pass and strongly dislike a negative double. This is NOT a hand with which to venture into a 4-3 ♠ fit and the ♦ support makes a ♦ preference absurd.