[ahydra]

ATB:

North:
♠x
♥KJx
♦AK98x
♣Kxxx

South:
♠xx
♥Q10xxx
♦J10
♣A9xx

MPs. EW vul, West deals; he opens 1S. At the table we bid (1S)-2D-(2S)-p; (p)-3C-(3S)-out, +100, joint bottom when 4H makes our way. How can we better bid this? Can you get there after East raises to 3S rather than 2S on his first turn?

Thanks,

ahydra

[mikeh]

n gets all the blame from me. I prefer double rather than 2 diamonds, Having bid 2 diamonds,he should double at his second turn. Both at least get S to bid hearts, although the former is the best hope of reaching game. S could have made a responsive double but that might well get clubs for an anyway.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2013-May-28, 05:01, said:

n gets all the blame from me. I prefer double rather than 2 diamonds, Having bid 2 diamonds,he should double at his second turn. Both at least get S to bid hearts, although the former is the best hope of reaching game. S could have made a responsive double but that might well get clubs for an anyway.

Couldn't say it any better.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-28, 05:17, said:

Couldn't say it any better.

You might have made fewer typos: I am doing this on an iPad and having trouble with the virtual keyboard....but since I am currently taking a brief break from lying in the sun in Nerja, Spain, I can't complaina too much!

[mcphee]

In complete agreement, this view that you require 4 cards in the major to make a t/o dble is not the way to approach hands.

[ggwhiz]

Bidding 2♦ initially is a legit style choice but bidding 3♣ instead of double is a serious error.

The opps can still give you a hard time by bidding 3♠ at any point but at least South can whack it if they don't bid the game or pass a reopening double over a fast 3♠ bid.

[PhilKing]

Even a squid doesn't need four hearts.

[aguahombre]

100 percent for double instead of 2D; not convinced we would get to game. The players sold out at 3S over their minor suit; afraid we might sell out to 3S over our 3H for no difference.

[gszes]

only the most pessimistic amng us bid 2d vs x initially--
a 43 fit is hardly the worst that can happen with ruffs
coming from the 3 card suit. As it turns out s will have
an easy 3h bid over 2s and easy 4h game is reached.

If e bids 3s than it is much tougher but with extra values
N can x again though its close and again 4h is reached.

[mycroft]

I have been convinced to show good 5-card suits if I can double next time sanely; especially in the major, but in this case it's AK98x. So I won't double, but I can totally see why one would. 3♣ means that North doesn't think South can see her cards, though.

I don't mind a responsive double by South after (1♠)-2♦-(2♠); I agree it's a bit light, and will frequently lose the hearts, but any response is fine in a competitive situation. Having not doubled, after (2♠)-p-(p)-X, this is a huge hand that can and should drive in hearts.

It's easier to get to game if East bids 3♠, because I'm still doubling and partner's still finding hearts, hoping we haven't taken the last guess.

[Trinidad]

I don't think there is anything really wrong with 2♦, given that the diamond suit is two cards longer than the heart suit and it contains half of the HCPs. But bidding clubs when you have a perfect hand for a takeout double -particularly since you didn't double first (how many more hearts will partner expect?)- is a mistake.

Rik

[Winstonm]

I think this is an automatic t.o. double. Why risk 2 bids when 1 will do?

[Codo]

I think 2 ♦ is a serious error. You may have game and if you have it, it will be most often in NT or hearts: Even if you have just a 4/3 fit- you ruff with the trumps in the short hand.
If it is a partscore battle, you may be outgunned by the spades anyway...

[Fluffy]

I am biased since I consider that not doubling with 1363 is an error already.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2013-May-28, 16:01, said:

I am biased since I consider that not doubling with 1363 is an error already.

The hand is 1-3-5-4. 1 3 6 3, IMO is a different story, and 2D followed by a double would be a good thing. And on this point I am biased from doing it that way for so long ---considering 1-3-6-3 to be textbook for overcall followed by double.

[Vampyr]

Have you ever considered Snapdragon doubles? They would work well on the given auction, but not if E bids 3♠. Then it is a matter of North choosing to double back in.

Original double probably better, but I have no quarrel with 2♦. It does show the hand better if/when North doubles back in over 3♠.

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-28, 17:28, said:

The hand is 1-3-5-4. 1 3 6 3, IMO is a different story, and 2D followed by a double would be a good thing. And on this point I am biased from doing it that way for so long ---considering 1-3-6-3 to be textbook for overcall followed by double.

I play different, I consider that overcall + double promises more strength than a simple double. But it is rare that you can choose either action, normally we are talking about different types of hands.

Not doubling with 1354 is crazy IMO. Instead of showing your lovelly 9+ cards (3+3+3+) you decide to lie to partner showing 6 where you only have 5, it really makes no sense.

[ggwhiz]

The mandatory double (instead of 2♦) crowd needs to take a deep breath.

1♠ - double - 2♠ - 3♥
p - ? is not about to be an auction of beauty although I'm sure y'all have the situation covered. I'm not seeing you bidding game on this one without scaring your pard out of making competitive bids in the future.

Whatever, the 2♦ overcall is legit especially with diamond spots only a pip away from a 5 1/2 card suit. If double has an edge I make it 51-49 hardly mandatory.

In context this is obviously the OP's style I contended that the 3♣ follow up instead of double was the problem. I don't regard telling him to unlearn this fundamental and start over to be helpful as per the completely different set of problems you have to solve in the above sample auction. Come to think of it, 2♦ followed by a double of whatever number of spades is the best shot to get South to bid this game so make the edge 50-50. At worst.

[655321]

Agree with those who say that 2♦ is wrong rather than being a matter of style.

But sure, if we are ranking the bids, 3♣ (instead of double) is much worse than the 2♦ overcall, in fact it is so bad I can only guess that North has a policy of not allowing partner to play any hands.

Having said all this, I can't say I would get to 4♥ either, particularly if they raise to 3♠ immediately.

[rogerclee]

655321, on 2013-May-28, 20:57, said:

Having said all this, I can't say I would get to 4♥ either, particularly if they raise to 3♠ immediately.

I would just man up, it's not like I want to defend 3S at all.