[Coelacanth]

---

Double was responsive. 1♣ showed 3+ cards. Partner's overcall style is quite disciplined.

(1) Do you agree with your double? If not, what bid would you prefer?
(2) What are some likely hand-types for partner?
(3) What call do you make?

[Phil]

3♥.

I play disciplined one level overcalls w/r too, so I'll have at least xxx xx KQxxx xxx.

(Sorry for the sarcasm - I just saw this was B/I).

[mikeh]

I would have bid 2♥ the first time. I'd pay to missing spades in order to avoid the predictable problems that can arise if I double.....given my shape, the fact that an opp was able to bid 3♣ and that partner couldn't bid either major is no surprise.

Having doubled, I have endplayed myself in the auction and would now bid 3♥.

Btw, I fully acknowledge that double might have worked well and that my choice of 2♥ didn't guarantee a better outcome.

As for partner's hand, I am of the view, which may be a minority, that one needs a slightly better hand to overcall 1♦, even w/r, than one does to overcall 1♥ or, especially, 1♠. 1♦ doesn't just NOT consume bidding space, which is an important part of overcalling, but in fact creates bidding space (assuming that LHO wasn't about to bid 1♦ himself). The opps now get the negative double, as well as a cuebid, so their bidding space has improved. So I don't see Phil's example as a good one.....I appreciate that I may be in the minority on this one. Other than that, we really don't have any reliable indicator of what partner's hand looks like, other than that he has no 4 card major, and is probably not looking at exactly 5 diamonds and a chunky 3 card major. I would also infer 3 clubs more often than not.

[Coelacanth]

mikeh, on 2011-September-07, 14:25, said:

Other than that, we really don't have any reliable indicator of what partner's hand looks like, other than that he has no 4 card major, and is probably not looking at exactly 5 diamonds and a chunky 3 card major. I would also infer 3 clubs more often than not.

In a somewhat analogous sequence (1♦-(2♣)-X-(P)-?), this same partner bid 2♥ on ♥Jxx just last week, so the inference of no chunky 3 card major is probably a good one.

[MrAce]

I would not make another dbl at this point. Too dangerous eventhough it is take out, we have too much unexpected shape and too less defensive cards.

My options are ;

a-Pass

b-3♥

We have too many unexpected length in major suits for pd. That makes it hard for us to pass. Otoh our suits are very weak. I know we are likely to have 6-2 ♥ fit or 5-3 ♠ fit, or both. Is this good enough to bid 3♥ now ?

Imo no. By passing what can happen worst is, if they make 3♣ and u make 3M u bail out 6 imps. But there are other scenarios to this, we may end up playing 3M doubled when pd holds 2164 2254 3154 shapes. which u will run out of dummy's trumps pretty soon and working hard to establish your weak side suit.

I maybe wrong, but i would just pass. Pd only overcalled 1♦ and bid simply 2♦ white vs red and i dont have too much confident in my long suits.

[bd71]

I pass at teams, as it seems a game is very unlikely. Very little reward for the risk.

But I X in pairs. They have a 9-10 card fit, so at worst we've got one 8-card fit and possibly two. Worst-case scenario is that partner is 2263 with better spades and we end up in the inferior spade fit, but I think that will be rare. I just can't see letting them play comfortably in a big fit at 3♣ when we can likely play comfortably at the 3-level as well.

[VM1973]

I'll try 3 hearts. We're not vulnerable and it's entirely likely that partner didn't feel comfortable bidding on a 2-card heart suit.

This has been another controversial, out of nowhere, trolling response made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of you.

[jdeegan]

3♥ seems OK. Your negative double is spot on. Pard figures to have only four major suit cards, so spades seems a forlorn hope. The saying is '6-5 come alive', so visualize something like:
Ax
AQ
KQxxxx
xxx
You have total control of this hand with 22 HCP combined. If pard has 3 spades and a stiff heart, you might get a strangled 3♠ bid. Even 4♦ with a 7 bagger. Both would be just fine.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for the interesting replies.

My own personal answer to the questions I posed were:

(1) Double seems perfectly normal
(2) Partner has denied as much as Hxx in either major. He is thus either (a) single-suited with diamonds or (b) has both minors
(3) Based on (2), pass seems clear. If partner has hand (a), we have a likely make in 3♦; if (b), we are setting 3♣, possibly doubled

The problem hand, held by my partner, bid 3♥. This was not a success when I tabled this dummy:

---

The opening lead was the ♣A, followed by the ♥Q. We lost 3 tricks in each major along with the club.

Would you have passed 2♣ doubled with my hand? At matchpoints I always would but at IMPs I chickened out.

[jdeegan]

Sry but I wud have passed 2♣ doubled w/o a second thought.

[Phil]

Coelacanth, on 2011-September-08, 08:20, said:

The problem hand, held by my partner, bid 3♥. This was not a success when I tabled this dummy:

---

KQ9xx of clubs is a real surprise here. He has an easy pass.

[mikeh]

Coelacanth, on 2011-September-08, 08:20, said:

Thanks for the interesting replies.

My own personal answer to the questions I posed were:

(1) Double seems perfectly normal
(2) Partner has denied as much as Hxx in either major. He is thus either (a) single-suited with diamonds or (b) has both minors
(3) Based on (2), pass seems clear. If partner has hand (a), we have a likely make in 3♦; if (b), we are setting 3♣, possibly doubled

The problem hand, held by my partner, bid 3♥. This was not a success when I tabled this dummy:

---

The opening lead was the ♣A, followed by the ♥Q. We lost 3 tricks in each major along with the club.

Would you have passed 2♣ doubled with my hand? At matchpoints I always would but at IMPs I chickened out.

Bidding 2♦ was a huge error on this hand......you should check your club holding just to be sure it is as good as it is, suppress your urge to smile, and pass.

Btw, while we are all trained to avoid doubling partscores at imps, unless it is clear, doubling 2 of a minor is an exception (not the only one). The point is that unless they are making overtricks, the double is not particularly expensive when they make. They get 180 as opposed to 90.

That's not to say that I think this is a close penalty pass....it isn't.....my main concern would be to avoid drooling on the table as I led the diamond K.

Oh, and see Justin's recent post on the impact of professionalism on NA bridge...including the reluctance to defend a doubled partscore....this wouldn't be one of the hands he was discussing, but the fear you had was of the same flavour.

[ArtK78]

Coelacanth, on 2011-September-08, 08:20, said:

Would you have passed 2♣ doubled with my hand? At matchpoints I always would but at IMPs I chickened out.

I echo Mikeh comment about doubling 2 of a minor. This should be done at IMPs more frequently than other doubles of partscores, as it is not game. So, if the contract makes, it is not nearly as big a disaster.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks all for the words of wisdom re: doubling minor-suit partscores at IMPs. This is why I'm "Intermediate" I guess.

I would have bid my hand the same way with one fewer club and one more diamond, so I still think partner's 3♥ was an error.