[wclass___]

---

I would have passed both, but i am curious if some other good players would have doubled.

[karlson]

I would also have passed both times.

[aguahombre]

As West, the combination of doubleton heart and only 3 Spades would probably make me pass. Warning to others: West is under the 2♥ bidder, despite the appearance in the diagram.

That spade jack is really unlucky.

[gnasher]

I'd double 2♥ as West. Not having four spades is a disadvantage, but if we play in spades it will be at the two level.

As North, I think double merits consideration (assuming that the opponents don't play Lebensohl), but it depends on your style of weak twos in thris situation. Personally I could have xxx KJ10xx xx xxx or xxx Qxxxxx xx xx for 2♥, so this hand is much better than a minimum and I would double. If 2♥ promised a hand like the ones in the books, this wouldn't have that much extra, so I'd pass.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2011-September-13, 02:52, said:

(assuming that the opponents don't play Lebensohl)

Lebensohl shouldn't apply in this situation, should it? My rule is that Lebensohl applies if doubler is unpassed (whether advancer is passed doesn't matter).

Anyway, agree with double.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2011-September-13, 04:28, said:

Lebensohl shouldn't apply in this situation, should it? My rule is that Lebensohl applies if doubler is unpassed (whether advancer is passed doesn't matter).

Some people play it even when the doubler has passed, to allow the other hand to make a game try.

[PetteriLem]

Balancing over 2♥ seems reasonable, because east could have hearts and a good number of high cards or any decent hand, which didnt quite stretch to bid. What comes to 2nd balance, I am against it. I am assuming that a wish to punish the opponents is the main reason for the double. It could work. On the other hand we could be in deep trouble, if partner decides to bid. The opponents are going to hammer it, when it is right. Partner has passed 3 times, I draw the conclusion that he doesnt have much to tell.

[rhm]

I can understand West double. My guess is that West took some time before he doubled, making it clear to North that his double was borderline.
Without that I do not understand North double and think it is much against the odds.
The one who is not well limited in this auction is East. Partner is a passed hand. He had two chances to raise and did not and also could have doubled 3♦.
Partner will very often have nowhere to go. Do you really want to compete with 3♥, 3♠ or 4♣ giving West takeout double and partner passing throughout?

You have at most 2 defensive tricks. Why should a passed South have 3 tricks? Even if 3♦ goes down one the double will not matter much.

The difference between courageousness and foolhardiness is small in Bridge. This last double crosses the line.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-September-13, 02:52, said:

I'd double 2♥ as West. Not having four spades is a disadvantage, but if we play in spades it will be at the two level.

As North, I think double merits consideration (assuming that the opponents don't play Lebensohl), but it depends on your style of weak twos in thris situation. Personally I could have xxx KJ10xx xx xxx or xxx Qxxxxx xx xx for 2♥, so this hand is much better than a minimum and I would double. If 2♥ promised a hand like the ones in the books, this wouldn't have that much extra, so I'd pass.

I certainly would never open the North hand with 2♥ in first or second seat and if you open your hands 2♥ you should not open the North hand with 2♥ in third seat either. North hand is a real opener where I would not sign-off over Drury.

Nevertheless it is a fallacy to believe that having done so, gives you a license to bid again.
This is poor Bridge at any form of scoring.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

West's double is automatic imo.

[Fluffy]

north's double is automatic imo, West's double is somethign I'd do 7 days of the week, but don't expect it to be the best possible action necesarilly.

[pooltuna]

rhm, on 2011-September-13, 07:00, said:

I certainly would never open the North hand with 2♥ in first or second seat and if you open your hands 2♥ you should not open the North hand with 2♥ in third seat either. North hand is a real opener where I would not sign-off over Drury.

Nevertheless it is a fallacy to believe that having done so, gives you a license to bid again.
This is poor Bridge at any form of scoring.

Rainer Herrmann

Well so far you have opined about every seat but 4th! Would you actually call 1♥ in 4th seat? I find the actual call acceptable as 3rd seat is much more variable for weak 2 calls and as a tactical choice is probably reasonably effective. TBS I would not make a TOX of 3♦. As for the actual question I would not consider a reopening X at IMPs. MPs is a different matter and it deserves serious consideration. My answers are probably colored by a tendency to open light in 1st and 2nd seat and expecting partner to do so as well.

[wclass___]

South was jec (Jimmy Cayne), so this was a style thing to open more heavily. Not so sure about exact style in 3rd position, maybe it is more wide-ranged.

If someone is interested, here you can find a recent article written by Joshua Donn - Preempting then Acting Again.

[benlessard]

West X is normal. As North i prefer to open 3H VS 2H followed by a takeout X. But it depend on how often you have 5 card suit preempt in 3rd seat and the chance partner raise you with 2 cards.

North X is much more dangerous than most people think IMO.

[Vampyr]

I think that the first double is normal, but I would prefer a bit more defense against diamonds (as opener) to double on the way out (lacking a specific agreement).

As far as the opening is concerned, I like it. When partner is a passed hand I think it pays to play very undisciplined weak twos, ranging from a pile of crap, as in gnasher's examples, to a super-max as in OP. Well, I don't mean every time partner is a passed hand! This would be a very average opener in 4th.

[phil_20686]

If the opps are experts, it seems like they are probably playing semi-constructive weak twos in first and second, and are just in the habit of opening these hands in third aswell.

I might well have opened 1H, and had I done so, I would have felt that 1H 3d p p would merit a reopening double, and I doubt that I am alone. It seems hard then to criticise north.

I actually dont think that it is right to reopen the west hand. Although I do think its close and It will often be a winner. But you will moderately often hit partner with some 4333 hand where you just dont have any tricks. True that it is unlikely to be expensive, but still.

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-13, 13:40, said:

I actually dont think that it is right to reopen the west hand. Although I do think its close and It will often be a winner. But you will moderately often hit partner with some 4333 hand where you just dont have any tricks. True that it is unlikely to be expensive, but still.

It does depend on the form of scoring. I was just assuming matchpointed pairs, not really for a particular reason.

[rhm]

pooltuna, on 2011-September-13, 07:44, said:

Well so far you have opined about every seat but 4th! Would you actually call 1♥ in 4th seat? I find the actual call acceptable as 3rd seat is much more variable for weak 2 calls and as a tactical choice is probably reasonably effective.

What you do in 4th seat depends on your agreements. What is clear is that you expect a positive score if you open in fourth seat. So a preempt can not be weak.
I expect with the example hands gnasher gave for his "weak two" hands, even he would pass in fourth seat.
So there is nothing wrong if you have an agreement that 2♥ shows a minimum opener with a six card suit.

Quote

TBS I would not make a TOX of 3♦. As for the actual question I would not consider a reopening X at IMPs. MPs is a different matter and it deserves serious consideration. My answers are probably colored by a tendency to open light in 1st and 2nd seat and expecting partner to do so as well.

I always thought I have a fairly aggressive style of reopening colored by my tendency that partner need not find a bid when nothing fits even if he has values for a positive bid. However, being aggressive is not the same as a senseless automatic style of reopening.
(Apart from the fact that opponents are entitled to know such a silly style and can very easily use that to their advantage)
When the fight is over a partscore, there is a big difference when considering reopening whether there are still likely suitable trump contracts available at the 2 level or not.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

Nice article by Joshua Donn.