[helene_t]

One of the upsides of X is that if we X and partner bids anything (4♠, 4NT, 5♣, 5♦) we have a very easy decision. If we pass and partner doubles, it is not entirely clear to bid 5♦. 4♠ or 4NT could be right.

[helene_t]

 KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 19:31, said:

Perhaps in the sequences 1♣ - 1♥ (by opp) - X: You could double with just about any hand with 4♠. But, I think over an opening bid of 1♥/1♠, you actually should have proper takeout shape AND exactly 4 of the other major.

This sounds very weird to me - I know some people at the local club who have this agreement but I don't think I have ever come across an expert pair that plays this way. Everybody would double 1♥ with 3154, even if the diamond suit is quite good. With 3253 and a decent suit the opinions are divided, though.

Some may prefer a 2♦ overcall when nonvulnerable, especially over a 2nd seat opening, for the preemptive effect. But here were are red against green, so I would expect partner to try to avoid overcalling on a mediocre 5-card suit if he has any reasonable alternative.

[eagles123]

 helene_t, on 2020-January-20, 20:52, said:

This sounds very weird to me - I know some people at the local club who have this agreement but I don't think I have ever come across an expert pair that plays this way. Everybody would double 1♥ with 3154, even if the diamond suit is quite good. With 3253 and a decent suit the opinions are divided, though.

Some may prefer a 2♦ overcall when nonvulnerable, especially over a 2nd seat opening, for the preemptive effect. But here were are red against green, so I would expect partner to try to avoid overcalling on a mediocre 5-card suit if he has any reasonable alternative.

yes requiring a 4 card spade suit for a double of 1H is just total nonsense and no one sensible would play such methods

[Cyberyeti]

 KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 19:28, said:

Please read the posts before arguing. I was not talking about a double of 4♥, but rather, a double of 1♥. Also, we were told that partnership overcalls are NOT sound. Either way, you're just very wrong.

Actually you weren't, I asked initially what to do if the overcall WAS sound, then later what to do if it wasn't.

[nudnikbp]

Double. I don't have any regular partners (my bidding is too wacky), so I can't define it well. But double anyway.

[maartenxq]

I pass cowardly or double bravely. No way i will save. I guess both games will down, so depending on mood, mp/imp I will choose one or the other.

This double is penalty for me, I should add after reading other comments.

Maarten Baltussen

[Cyberyeti]

Partner's hand is:

---

With the ♦Q where you expect, you can make 12 in either minor and 10 easily in spades (if you're in 5♠ you have to play for clubs 2-2 and will get away with that too), 4♥x is 300.

W is 4522 with ♦AQ.

At our table partner bid 5♥ with essentially Qxxxxx and out for -150, unfortunately we lost 2 IMPs when team mates failed to act over 4♥.

[Tramticket]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-21, 09:19, said:

Partner's hand is:

---

A 2♦ over-call would be my third choice on that North hand - after double and 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

 Tramticket, on 2020-January-21, 09:51, said:

A 2♦ over-call would be my third choice on that North hand - after double and 2NT.

2N not an option if you play weak/strong as many round here do, this is clearly in the middle

[bluenikki]

 KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 15:59, said:

I don't think most players would agree that 2♦ shows any more than 5 diamonds. Of course, you may have more. But, typically, 5 is the minimum number.

The problem with doubling is when you catch your partner holding a bad 3235 hand. Or worse, a bad 3325 hand. Now what? Takeout doubles show 3 cards in each unbid suit. If you don't have that shape, don't bid them. It's just bad bridge. If you have a strong hand, this is a different story, but, then it's not really a takeout double is it? It just looks like one. If I had to pick one rather garbage agreement that novice players should correct before any other, it would be offshape doubles such as this example. At least, without any set of agreements around them that facilitates them. I won't dismiss them entirely without applying context.

If your partner can't make a balancing double themselves, or cannot balance with an unbid suit, how effective is this takeout double with such a hand really going to be? Now, how often are you going to run into a train-wreck doubling without clubs? Am I really gaining enough on average to risk a bad board? Possibly, but, I'll erode partnership trust in the process. It's just not worth it.

If I had 4162 shape, I certainly would not double. So, not doubling doesn't deny 4 spades. So, I'm not just going to randomly double with all hands that have 4 spades. If I don't trust partner to balance, then I'm bidding 2♦ with 4252 shape, if I do, then I'm passing. Depending on the suits and my strength of course.

The problem with double is not when partner has 5 C and a bad hand. The problem is when partner has 5 C and a fair hand. And jumps to 3C with 9 including D shortness.

[bluenikki]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-21, 09:19, said:

Partner's hand is:

---

With the ♦Q where you expect, you can make 12 in either minor and 10 easily in spades (if you're in 5♠ you have to play for clubs 2-2 and will get away with that too), 4♥x is 300.

W is 4522 with ♦AQ.

At our table partner bid 5♥ with essentially Qxxxxx and out for -150, unfortunately we lost 2 IMPs when team mates failed to act over 4♥.

Never make a simple overcall with a void in opener's suit. Find a different call, no matter how flawed.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluenikki, on 2020-January-21, 21:16, said:

Never make a simple overcall with a void in opener's suit. Find a different call, no matter how flawed.

X is worse and the route to playing in a 3-3 spade fit, and that's a ridiculous comment, what are you going to do with the 3064/3073/2074 version of that hand ?

[bluenikki]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-22, 04:40, said:

X is worse and the route to playing in a 3-3 spade fit, and that's a ridiculous comment, what are you going to do with the 3064/3073/2074 version of that hand ?

With 3064/3073, choose between flawed double and flawed non-simple overcall. With 2074, choose between flawed non-simple overcall and flawed unusual NT.

3-3 spades undoubled at 1-level is not so bad if they do not guess opening trump lead. And you won't play 3-3 spades above 1-level.

[bluenikki]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-22, 04:40, said:

X is worse and the route to playing in a 3-3 spade fit, and that's a ridiculous comment, what are you going to do with the 3064/3073/2074 version of that hand ?

By the way, are you assuming that advancer to double of 1H will bid 3-card S instead of 4-card minor??? Your partners must think they are the world's greatest declarer.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluenikki, on 2020-January-22, 09:23, said:

By the way, are you assuming that advancer to double of 1H will bid 3-card S instead of 4-card minor??? Your partners must think they are the world's greatest declarer.

What do you expect partner to do with a 3433 ? particularly if the diamond may be 3, what are you going to do if the auction goes 1♥-X-2/3♥-P-P- a new suit shows way more than you have and X will cause partner to bid a 3 card spade suit, passing may miss game when partner has clubs.

[bluenikki]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-22, 10:06, said:

What do you expect partner to do with a 3433 ? particularly if the diamond may be 3, what are you going to do if the auction goes 1♥-X-2/3♥-P-P- a new suit shows way more than you have and X will cause partner to bid a 3 card spade suit, passing may miss game when partner has clubs.

Of course advancer bids 1S with 3=4=3=3, < 9. But only in that case.

Why is partner passing over raise with clubs plus values?

Wait. Are you suggesting that (1H) - x - (2H) - P ; (P) - x would not show the same 20+ that bidding a suit would? That is madness. Advancer bears complete responsibility for competing for partscore.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluenikki, on 2020-January-22, 11:42, said:

Of course advancer bids 1S with 3=4=3=3, < 9. But only in that case.

Why is partner passing over raise with clubs plus values?

Wait. Are you suggesting that (1H) - x - (2H) - P ; (P) - x would not show the same 20+ that bidding a suit would? That is madness. Advancer bears complete responsibility for competing for partscore.

Partner doesn't need values for you to make a lot of tricks, are you suggesting he bids over 3♥ with Jxx, xxxx, x, Kxxxx without the prompting of another double ? and yes I'm suggesting doubling again can show way less, partner will be very disappointed looking at his whopping penalty double if you fail to double with shortage as double by him is not penalties for us.

[FelicityR]

 Tramticket, on 2020-January-21, 09:51, said:

A 2♦ over-call would be my third choice on that North hand - after double and 2NT.

I couldn't agree more. 2♦ looks a terrible bid here: the ♣ suit could well be lost in the subsequent auction. I acknowledge that the poster, Cyberyeti, says that an unusual 2NT can be weak or strong, but I'd rather be showing partner my shape here than bidding a poor suit vulnerable.

In terms of playing strength the hand is strong, especially if a minor suit fit is found, but it is hardly super strong, and it all depends what you define as weak at unfavourable vulnerability here, and what you are prepared to bid 2NT on. From what I have read in books, weak here is 12 HCPs or less (others may bid differently), but I rather downgrade slightly so partner knows immediately. The two minor suits are hardly solid, and half the points of the hand are in ♠s.

Just my humble opinion...

[Cyberyeti]

 FelicityR, on 2020-January-22, 15:26, said:

I couldn't agree more. 2♦ looks a terrible bid here: the ♣ suit could well be lost in the subsequent auction. I acknowledge that the poster, Cyberyeti, says that an unusual 2NT can be weak or strong, but I'd rather be showing partner my shape here than bidding a poor suit vulnerable.

In terms of playing strength the hand is strong, especially if a minor suit fit is found, but it is hardly super strong, and it all depends what you define as weak at unfavourable vulnerability here, and what you are prepared to bid 2NT on. From what I have read in books, weak here is 12 HCPs or less (others may bid differently), but I rather downgrade slightly so partner knows immediately. The two minor suits are hardly solid, and half the points of the hand are in ♠s.

Just my humble opinion...

2♦ is what we'd bid without much thought, and partner will double, we'll now play 5♣ or 5♥x. This is too good for a "bad" 2N, partner will keep quiet over 4/5♥ at this vul worried I'm weaker.

[bluenikki]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-22, 11:50, said:

Partner doesn't need values for you to make a lot of tricks, are you suggesting he bids over 3♥ with Jxx, xxxx, x, Kxxxx without the prompting of another double ? and yes I'm suggesting doubling again can show way less, partner will be very disappointed looking at his whopping penalty double if you fail to double with shortage as double by him is not penalties for us.

Absurd. What is your reference for shading second double? When doubler fails to pass in later rounds, it is reserved for game interest opposite roughly nothing.

It's advancer's job to do all the partnership's overbidding.