[kgr]

You play (kind of) SAYC.
You open the bidding and it goes:
1♥-(2♣)-DBL-(3♣)
DBL of your partner is negative: 4-card ♠ and 6+ pts.
What do 3♦ and DBL by you show now and is one stronger then the other?
What would you bid with (MP's if it matters):

---

[Chamaco]

The way I play:

...- DBL shows extras, generally without shortness (if shortness, no slamgoing)
...- 3D shows a distributional hand
...- PASS shows a minimum hand, "Nothing to say"
...- CUEBID would slam oriented hand with shortness

[Al_U_Card]

Is there not a lot to be said for selling out with that hand? Despite the stiff C, the rest of the hand (even on a 5-3 spade fit) seems likely to be going south......While I think that 3D would show more (esp. in D) and pass would usually be 5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2 (with 2 Spades both times) waiting to see if pard has the goods to take on a 3 level contract (despite his possible length in C) seems to be the prudent action. Justin's youthful vigor is commendable but forcing pard to prefer with a 4-2 major suit holding and 6-8 hcp seems like 3D or 3H doubled and troubled.

[mila85]

I think that dbl. should be penalty oriented - values and no fit.
Hands like:
Ax
AQxxx
xxx
Axx
Can be perfect contract against hands like this:
Kxxx
xx
KQxxx
xx

[mikeh]

For me double would be takeout, but with more than an minimum. 3♦ would be shapely, and would deny a terrible hand, but not promise more than a decent opening bid.

This hand is very close.

All of my cards are working, so this hand is far from a minimum on this auction (imagine Jx AQxxx Kxxx Kx: a lot more hcp, yet a much worse offensive hand now).

Pass is too risky, and may only delay the problem: what do I do over a reopening double? Yes, 3♦ stands out, but I am not going to be thrilled about having underbid my hand.. a lot depends on what a 2♠ call would have shown by partner: for me 2♠ would be (on a practical if not theoretical level) forcing to game. If 2♠ could be no more than an indifferent 10 count with 5♠, then my worries are reduced. Opposite me, a reopening double could be based on AJ10xx xx AJxx xx and I like my chances in game.. I won't get close to game if I pass.

3♦ is right on values, but overstates the suit length (and maybe the quality as well) and leaves ♠ on the shelf. This hand's future for game purposes rates to be in ♠, and 3♦ does not point in that direction.

So double: I hate it, since it is usually a better hand in hcp, but the shape is right if you play these low-level doubles in opp fit auctions as takeout... as most experts do these days.

A long-winded way of agreeing with Justin's much more succint post

[mike777]

1) Lawrence plays the first x as showing 8 working hcp.
A return x by opener is takeout. Unclear how many working hcp are needed. 14+ are ok, not clear if 12+ is ok or not.

2) "fought the law" If we assume partner is 4243 or 5242 with 8 working hcp then:
13-3-0=10 tricks for us in our longest fit.

[FrancesHinden]

Irritating pedantic nitpick from the topic title:

2D shows that I have mis-heard the auction.

As for what Dbl and 3D show, I think 3D shows a decent 5-5 and double shows this type of hand (or could be 3532). Whether it's right to double on this hand in this auction depends on your partner: I have one partner who passes the double about 50% of the time. With him I would only double with a singleton club on a maximum. I have another partner who believes double is take-out unless he has a stack, with that partner I double at matchpoints and pass at imps.

I don't think double is initially stronger than 3D, but it has a higher upper range (3D is arguably non-forcing).

[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 11:03 AM, said:

lol ok, keep selling out with a stiff in their and a fit somewhere at matchpoints(unless partner is specifically 4234). If partner has anything like KJxxx xx Axx xxx, Axxx xx ATxx xxx, or otherwise, I'm sure he'll come up with the balance... Even if you go down 1 vs their make you need to be bidding. I'm not sure how you expect them to X you all the time when youre holding half the deck and an extremely likely fit, but that seems like a pessimistic way to think. You need both contracts to go down for a pass to be right, and with such a pure hand and a stiff and well placed values this seems like a highly pessimistic point of view. Good thing I have "youthful vigor." On a side note, I'm not sure where you get partners range as being 6-8. He could pass out 3C with up to 10 points, especially given that he probably has 3 (or 4) clubs. Most 6 point hands would not make a negative X at the 2 level either.

That stiff C does say act, but the conditions of the example said 6+ hcp.......My preference would be to make the neg dbl on a great 8 or more. With less, come in later especially with C length, pard will be likely to act especially if they have a fit. Come to think of it, it is possible that pard has C shortness too and may be light but has longer D than S and intends on bidding D later if you don't have C.....

[han]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 09:04 AM, said:

to me X=takeout, 3D=diamonds. Neither shows more than a solid min. I would X with your example hand.

Can't think of anything I could add to this.

[han]

When short in clubs you sometimes have to make a negative double with a little less than 8 HCP. This is unlikely here, but if it is then we want to act over 3C even more! (and we can't expect partner to take action again with less than 8)

[Al_U_Card]

Hannie, on Aug 31 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

When short in clubs you sometimes have to make a negative double with a little less than 8 HCP. This is unlikely here, but if it is then we want to act over 3C even more! (and we can't expect partner to take action again with less than 8)

Well, the negative double does imply D so pard will prefer after the double or maybe even after the pass but he will not bid 3D unless he is in the 9 hcp range or you dbl again, so I would like to amend my answer to dbl.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Aug 31 2005, 01:45 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 09:04 AM, said:

to me X=takeout, 3D=diamonds. Neither shows more than a solid min. I would X with your example hand.

Can't think of anything I could add to this.

Trying to reason this one out. Prior to this discussion, I probably would've played 3D as showing diamonds and dbl showing more than a minimum. This discussion so far has suggested to me that both bids could be played as not promising extra values, but with the double showing spade tolerance (3) and the diamond bid showing diamonds and warning against spades. After all, P might have needed to dbl on a hand that other might make a negative free bid with. Therefore, if I am going to force competitive action at the 3-level, would it be logical to differentiate between the two options by saying that a dbl by me suggests that it is safe for P to compete in either spades or diamonds where-as 3D says diamonds and hearts?
je ne sais pas.

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers. Some remarks:
- After posting I tried to change the error in the title, but that seems to be impossible.
- DBL by partner does say nothing about diamonds. It says 7-9 pts with 5-card S or 8+ with 4-card S. (but it would be difficult to pass for my partner with 6 or 7 pts and 4-card S ).
- We play DBL as takeout as long as hand patern of partner is not yet well defined and we don't have found a fit. DBL by me is takeout and style of my partner (as referenced by Frances) is that he will only pass it with a lot of Clubs.
- I did bid 3D and Partner did bid 3NT. I was afraid that he expected more from me (that triggered this question), but he had the hand to bid 3NT anyway and he made it. (Patner had AJx in clubs. 4=2=4=3)
==================
Consenssus seems to be after 1H-(2C)-DBL-(3C):
- 3D shows 1/2=5=5=1/2 and 14-16 HCP (12-16 in MP's)
- DBL shows 3=5=4=1 and 14+ (12+ in MP's)
...and?:
- 3H is 6-card H and 14-15 (12-15 in MP's)
- 3S is 4-card S and 12-14 pts

[Walddk]

Double, take-out, not four spades. Excellent description of that hand. Then you have 3♦ available for 5-5 and 6-5 hands. Whether a double is for take-out or penalties you may want to adopt this rule:

Doubles of low-level contracts are for take-out unless it's obvious that the opponents have a misfit, or if preceded by a redouble. Opps have a fit here, so forget about penalties already. It's 100% take-out; whether partner leaves it in at MP is a different story altogether.

I just hope she knows what she's doing

Roland

[han]

I would add to Roland's excelent rule:

Unless they are already running from a double (similar to Rolands redouble comment), and,

Unless they are bidding a suit already bid or implied by us, and,

Unless they are bidding notrump (possible exceptions here by partnership agreement).

[mr1303]

I'll agree with Roland again. 3D for me would suggest a 5-5 hand or more shapely, not wanting to hear a correction to 3S. X here would show spade tolerance, club shortage.

So either 3541 or 3631 or something similar.

[Al_U_Card]

A most thoughtful and useful thread. This has helped my bridge knowledge, hopefully I'll be able to put it into practice this century....