[VM1973]

West has to bid something - from his point of view his opponents most likely have a 9-card fit. That means his side has an 8-card fit and it's his job to go looking for it. I cannot seriously think that you want to defend 2♣ doubled with 17 trumps on the deal, even if you don't believe in the LoTT. He should bid 2♥. I think East should have bid diamonds instead of the 3rd double, but it's a style issue.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the 2nd double is penalty, and this makes the 3rd one penalty too.
The 2nd is usually based on a strong NT.

Bid 2D instead of the 3rd double.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2012-October-25, 11:04, said:

West has to bid something - from his point of view his opponents most likely have a 9-card fit. That means his side has an 8-card fit and it's his job to go looking for it. I cannot seriously think that you want to defend 2♣ doubled with 17 trumps on the deal, even if you don't believe in the LoTT. He should bid 2♥. I think East should have bid diamonds instead of the 3rd double, but it's a style issue.

A holding for partner of 4=3=4=2 in entirely consistent with the auction to this point, so it is not true to assert that EW is assured of an 8 card fit.

In addition, unless responder has psyched, partner almost certainly has only 2 or (more likely) 3 hearts. West's weakness argues against RHO having psyehed a 1 response, and opener rebid 1N. Even for those who routinely rebid 1N after 1♣ [P] 1♥ [P] with 3=1=4=5, some would choose not to do so after the takeout double, not to mention that a significant number of players open 1♦ with most hands of that shape. So the odds are very high indeed that opener holds 2 hearts.

Moreover, if RHO holds 4 decent hearts and a max, he may start doubling if we run to his suit....he's listened to the auction as well as we have...indeed, if we bid 2♥, I'd suggest he's paid more attention to the auction than we have.

I do agree that we have to run but I think 2♦ is the obvious choice.

[VM1973]

 mikeh, on 2012-October-25, 11:42, said:

A holding for partner of 4=3=4=2 in entirely consistent with the auction to this point, so it is not true to assert that EW is assured of an 8 card fit.

In addition, unless responder has psyched, partner almost certainly has only 2 or (more likely) 3 hearts. West's weakness argues against RHO having psyehed a 1 response, and opener rebid 1N. Even for those who routinely rebid 1N after 1♣ [P] 1♥ [P] with 3=1=4=5, some would choose not to do so after the takeout double, not to mention that a significant number of players open 1♦ with most hands of that shape. So the odds are very high indeed that opener holds 2 hearts.

Moreover, if RHO holds 4 decent hearts and a max, he may start doubling if we run to his suit....he's listened to the auction as well as we have...indeed, if we bid 2♥, I'd suggest he's paid more attention to the auction than we have.

I do agree that we have to run but I think 2♦ is the obvious choice.

Well I must misunderstand your post. Assuming that your partner is shaped 4-3-4-2 then the opponents ARE guaranteed an 8-card fit. Did you mean a 9-card fit?

[the hog]

I agree with all the doubles. West should bid over 2CX. 100% of the blame to West!

[dwar0123]

 the hog, on 2012-October-25, 17:51, said:

I agree with all the doubles. West should bid over 2CX. 100% of the blame to West!

What ever might be said of Luke Warm, at least he believes what he says.

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2012-October-25, 15:03, said:

Well I must misunderstand your post. Assuming that your partner is shaped 4-3-4-2 then the opponents ARE guaranteed an 8-card fit. Did you mean a 9-card fit?

You must have misunderstood your post...you said that we have an 8 card fit, and we don't necessarily...tho as it happens we do here, and it is, predictably, in diamonds.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-October-18, 10:25, said:

Yes, there's a chance that both opponents are bidding on minimums and partner might have the magic cards you need to make something. But what's the chance of that?

IME, this is a "Schrodinger's Cat" situation. IOW, the chance is 0% if I bid, and 100% if I pass.

[VM1973]

 mikeh, on 2012-October-25, 18:27, said:

You must have misunderstood your post...you said that we have an 8 card fit, and we don't necessarily...tho as it happens we do here, and it is, predictably, in diamonds.

Ok, let's try some math here. I forecast the opponents for a 9-card fit. This assumption is based on the idea that partner (to account for his repeated doubling) must be quite short in their suit. Ideally he is 4-4-4-1. So that means among the opponents' 26 cards, 9 of them are used up. So they have 17 remaining. Now if we try to split those as evenly as possible between the other suits it results in 6-6-5. Accordingly we must have at least an 8-card fit somewhere (in the suit where the opponents have only 5 cards, as 13-5=8).

In short, if the opponents have a 9-card fit and you DON'T have an 8-card fit, call the director immediately.

[aguahombre]

Your math is fine. Your assumptions are not our assumptions.

[VM1973]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-30, 10:15, said:

Your math is fine. Your assumptions are not our assumptions.

Well while talking about assumptions, let's put all of mine on the table.
1. Partner is short in the opponent's suit (probably a singleton). Hey! I'm right!
2. Partner wants me to bid a suit because he doesn't have a suit of his own. Oops! I'm wrong.
3. When partner doubles, he promises support for unbid majors.

So to me it seems clear that both 2♥ and 2♠ are reasonable calls. Pass is not a reasonable call. The call recommended (2♦) works out great considering that you've already seen your opponent's hand. I can't help but wonder if everyone would have been so keen on bidding that if the doubling hand had remained concealed.

[aguahombre]

Your assumption #1, after seeing East's actual hand, is no longer an assumption. Others have pointed out that East's 3 doubles would not have occurred with the given East hand.

Your assumption #2 is based on assumption #1. But a 4X1 hand should not have made those three doubles, either.

Your assumption #3 is the initital assumption from the first double. But, now, there is a possibility partner has a huge NT hand.

Don't dismiss, because you see the actual layout, that opener wasn't 4=3=3=3 and Responder 4-4 in the rounded suits ---leaving pard with what the 3 doubles would have meant to me. A whole bunch of players here would not have rebid 1S as opener with that balanced hand; and I, who disagree with them as a general style, would not have rebid 1S either with the T/O double behind me.

[VM1973]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-30, 10:57, said:

Your assumption #1, after seeing East's actual hand, is no longer an assumption. Others have pointed out that East's 3 doubles would not have occurred with the given East hand.

Your assumption #2 is based on assumption #1. But a 4X1 hand should not have made those three doubles, either.

Your assumption #3 is the initital assumption from the first double. But, now, there is a possibility partner has a huge NT hand.

Don't dismiss, because you see the actual layout, that opener wasn't 4=3=3=3 and Responder 4-4 in the rounded suits ---leaving pard with what the 3 doubles would have meant to me. A whole bunch of players here would not have rebid 1S as opener with that balanced hand; and I, who disagree with them as a general style, would not have rebid 1S either with the T/O double behind me.

I didn't even look at the opener's hand. I couldn't tell you what he has or doesn't have without going back to take a peek. It didn't enter into my consideration of the problem.

When partner makes a takeout double I assume he is 4-4-4-1 and see where the law of total tricks leads me. In this case it indicates that there are 17 trumps on the deal. Assuming that you can set 2♣ (opponents take 7 tricks) that means you're cold for 10 tricks in your suit. Now I am not so blind as to think that it's impossible that he has another shape, but when you make the assumption that your partner has his bid, you don't often lose the post mortem.

Assuming that the takeout doubler is 19+ and square then surely he has completely bid his hand with the first 2 doubles. What would the point of the 3rd double be? He's asking me to bid, and I'm going to bid what I have and what I have is hearts. To think that 2♦ or 2♠ is going to work out better, I need to picture him with a 5-card suit. Since I'm not picturing him that way (despite having seen his hand and knowing that he has biddable diamonds) I'm going to get the partnership into some trouble. C'est la vie! If partner wants to play diamonds, next time he should bid them instead of asking me what I want to play.

[Codo]

VM there are two possibilities:

The 3. double is take out or it is not. While it is take out for me too, I would not assume that this must be the world wide standard. You seem to think so, but I guess you are wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

 VM1973, on 2012-October-30, 10:02, said:

Ok, let's try some math here. I forecast the opponents for a 9-card fit. This assumption is based on the idea that partner (to account for his repeated doubling) must be quite short in their suit. Ideally he is 4-4-4-1. <snip>

Unless he happens to hold a power double, which can be made on any shape.
The 2nd double said, I have a powerhouse, hence I was able to make the 1st
double regardless of my shape.
From this followes, that all assumptions, that are based on the shape showing
nature of the 1st double are no longer valid.

[VM1973]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-October-31, 04:17, said:

Unless he happens to hold a power double, which can be made on any shape.
The 2nd double said, I have a powerhouse, hence I was able to make the 1st
double regardless of my shape.
From this followes, that all assumptions, that are based on the shape showing
nature of the 1st double are no longer valid.

As I said in the part right after you snipped, it IS possible that the person has a hand too strong to overcall 1NT and NT shape for his first two doubles. Now where I come from once someone has bid his values, he should remain silent and let his partner (whose hand is unknown, yet is aware of what the doubler holds) make the decisions. That's why auctions like 1NT-2♣-Pass-3♣-3NT are wrong.

Now I can certainly accept that if it goes 1♣-DBL-1♥-pass-1NT-DBL that the guy might well have 19+ and square and, if that is so, then he has bid his hand and should shut the f...er...I mean remain quiescent from that point on. The third double obviously means that there is some aspect of his hand that remains to be bid. So what might that be?

What I cannot accept are arguments that have little to do with the point at hand, such as aquahombre's claim that the opener might be 4-3-3-3 but chose to bid 1NT instead of 1♠. To be polite I merely said that I didn't think that had anything to do with anything and that it hadn't affected my decision (instead of pointing out that the doubler has promised 3 hearts for his takeout double, you have 4, RHO must surely have 4, and the presumed opener having 3 adds up to 14 hearts and insulting him for being unable to count to 13, like I'd wanted to).

Your partner, through doubling, has asked you to bid (unless, of course, you play some conventional doubling system that I'm not aware of. If that's so then I apologize). Now if you know that your partner has only three hearts because he's playing the English system of holding his cards with three fingers to show three hearts, then great - you have an advantage over the rest of us. Those of us who cannot commune with our magic underwear to find out that partner has 5 diamonds just go based on partner's bids and bid based on those 13 pieces of plastic we see in front of our eyes.

While I admit that it's a matter of style and there are lots of people here who agree with all three doubles, I think that a 2♦ bid might have alleviated any chance of misunderstanding and avoided the debacle that occurred while describing his hand more exactly than the 3rd double did.

Edit: Additionally since my opinion agrees with your first post on the subject, why are you busting my ... er... hassling me over having the same opinion as you?

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2012-October-31, 09:36, said:

What I cannot accept are arguments that have little to do with the point at hand, such as aquahombre's claim that the opener might be 4-3-3-3 but chose to bid 1NT instead of 1♠. To be polite I merely said that I didn't think that had anything to do with anything and that it hadn't affected my decision (instead of pointing out that the doubler has promised 3 hearts for his takeout double, you have 4, RHO must surely have 4, and the presumed opener having 3 adds up to 14 hearts and insulting him for being unable to count to 13, like I'd wanted to).

Your partner, through doubling, has asked you to bid (unless, of course, you play some conventional doubling system that I'm not aware of. If that's so then I apologize). Now if you know that your partner has only three hearts because he's playing the English system of holding his cards with three fingers to show three hearts, then great - you have an advantage over the rest of us. Those of us who cannot commune with our magic underwear to find out that partner has 5 diamonds just go based on partner's bids and bid based on those 13 pieces of plastic we see in front of our eyes.

I suspect that you are close to being the only person in the world who plays that partner has promised 3 hearts for his takeput double.

Those of us who know how to listen to auctions, as well as how standard bidding proceeds, understand that partner will have 'promised' 3+ hearts if he had a normal-range double...typically approximately opening values with support for the unbid suits. However, as has been discussed at length in this thread, there are two other hand types on which a good player will double. They are a powerhouse too good for an overcall, and a balanced notrump hand too strong for a 1N overcall.

When partner doubled 1N, he announced that he DID NOT HAVE the normal range takeout double. Were he to have held such a double, he would have passed 1N. Accordingly, his second double eliminated the prior inference that he held 3+ hearts.

Note that his second double didn't deny 3 hearts...it merely said that he was, as it were, agnostic on the topic.

Fortunately, for those capable of listening to the auction, the opps have been good enough to tell us that partner has at most 3 hearts.

RHO showed 4, and the auction doesn't seem to suggest he psyched. Opener rebid 1N. So he has either 2 or 3 hearts. We hold 4.

This tells us that partner has 2 or 3 hearts.

We can safely assume that partner almost certainly lacks 3 clubs. If he has the powerhouse balanced hand he simply has to pass rather than make the 3rd double. We will know that that's what he has, since his second double showed a big hand and if he had a pure one suiter, he'd bid the suit and if he had a desire for us to choose between spades and diamonds (or hearts with 5) he'd double again.

If he has 2 or 3 hearts and 1 or 2 clubs, he has either 4=4 in the other suits or he is 4=5/5=4. In all cases, he has a BIG hand.

We can discount the single suit powerhouse since with that he would have bid his suit rather than make the 3rd double. Had he held, for example, AKx Kx AKQxxx xx, we'd expect double followed by double followed by 2♦.

We can therefore infer that bidding 2♥ will land us in a 4-2 or 4-3 fit, while bidding 2♦ will land us in either a 3=4 or a 3=5. Moreover, we have an inference from the bidding that diamonds break while hearts, if we have a 4=3 fit, don't.

Accordingly, and without need to dogmatic statements of personal acceptability of bidding decisions, and without ill-considered gratuitous insults to a large part of the BBF population (as in your oh-so-clever references to Reese-Shapiro), it is possible to see that your suggestion of 2♥ is less than optimal and that one can and imo should bid 2♦ without any need to have recourse to the actual hand.

You demonstrated an unfortunate attitude when you were on this forum some time ago, then you disappeared. It would be nice to think that you have since learned some humility about your bridge knowledge, but it appears that you are as obstinate, and as wrong, as you were earlier. I suspect, therefore, that your return will be as unpleasant for all concerned as was your first appearance. I truly hope to learn that I am mistaken.

[VM1973]

 mikeh, on 2012-October-31, 09:59, said:

I suspect that you are close to being the only person in the world who plays that partner has promised 3 hearts for his takeput double.

Those of us who know how to listen to auctions, as well as how standard bidding proceeds, understand that partner will have 'promised' 3+ hearts if he had a normal-range double...typically approximately opening values with support for the unbid suits. However, as has been discussed at length in this thread, there are two other hand types on which a good player will double. They are a powerhouse too good for an overcall, and a balanced notrump hand too strong for a 1N overcall.

When partner doubled 1N, he announced that he DID NOT HAVE the normal range takeout double. Were he to have held such a double, he would have passed 1N. Accordingly, his second double eliminated the prior inference that he held 3+ hearts.

Note that his second double didn't deny 3 hearts...it merely said that he was, as it were, agnostic on the topic.

Fortunately, for those capable of listening to the auction, the opps have been good enough to tell us that partner has at most 3 hearts.

RHO showed 4, and the auction doesn't seem to suggest he psyched. Opener rebid 1N. So he has either 2 or 3 hearts. We hold 4.

This tells us that partner has 2 or 3 hearts.

We can safely assume that partner almost certainly lacks 3 clubs. If he has the powerhouse balanced hand he simply has to pass rather than make the 3rd double. We will know that that's what he has, since his second double showed a big hand and if he had a pure one suiter, he'd bid the suit and if he had a desire for us to choose between spades and diamonds (or hearts with 5) he'd double again.

If he has 2 or 3 hearts and 1 or 2 clubs, he has either 4=4 in the other suits or he is 4=5/5=4. In all cases, he has a BIG hand.

We can discount the single suit powerhouse since with that he would have bid his suit rather than make the 3rd double. Had he held, for example, AKx Kx AKQxxx xx, we'd expect double followed by double followed by 2♦.

We can therefore infer that bidding 2♥ will land us in a 4-2 or 4-3 fit, while bidding 2♦ will land us in either a 3=4 or a 3=5. Moreover, we have an inference from the bidding that diamonds break while hearts, if we have a 4=3 fit, don't.

Accordingly, and without need to dogmatic statements of personal acceptability of bidding decisions, and without ill-considered gratuitous insults to a large part of the BBF population (as in your oh-so-clever references to Reese-Shapiro), it is possible to see that your suggestion of 2♥ is less than optimal and that one can and imo should bid 2♦ without any need to have recourse to the actual hand.

You demonstrated an unfortunate attitude when you were on this forum some time ago, then you disappeared. It would be nice to think that you have since learned some humility about your bridge knowledge, but it appears that you are as obstinate, and as wrong, as you were earlier. I suspect, therefore, that your return will be as unpleasant for all concerned as was your first appearance. I truly hope to learn that I am mistaken.

Forgive me for the lateness of my reply as Thursday was a holiday in Peru and so I ended up with a four-day weekend.

Nothing that you have said has detracted from the point previously made: That if partner had held 4-2-4-3 and 19 that he should not have made a 3rd double, as he would have already bid his hand with the first two doubles.

All of your deductions of the opponent's bidding points up an obvious fact: Partner has 0-2 clubs and partner has 2-3 hearts (unless, of course, RHO psyched). Now my math skills aren't perfect, but last I checked 13-1(the average of 0-2)-2.5(the average of 2-3)=9.5 cards in the other two suits. Obviously he has a 5-card suit in there somewhere. Why isn't he bidding it? It beats me, but I can tell you that, at the table, I do not normally stare at ♦873 and think "That's what I'll bid!" I still think partner should take me off the hook by bidding HIS hand instead of insisting that I better describe my worthless one.

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2012-November-05, 11:09, said:

Forgive me for the lateness of my reply as Thursday was a holiday in Peru and so I ended up with a four-day weekend.

Nothing that you have said has detracted from the point previously made: That if partner had held 4-2-4-3 and 19 that he should not have made a 3rd double, as he would have already bid his hand with the first two doubles.

All of your deductions of the opponent's bidding points up an obvious fact: Partner has 0-2 clubs and partner has 2-3 hearts (unless, of course, RHO psyched). Now my math skills aren't perfect, but last I checked 13-1(the average of 0-2)-2.5(the average of 2-3)=9.5 cards in the other two suits. Obviously he has a 5-card suit in there somewhere. Why isn't he bidding it? It beats me, but I can tell you that, at the table, I do not normally stare at ♦873 and think "That's what I'll bid!" I still think partner should take me off the hook by bidding HIS hand instead of insisting that I better describe my worthless one.

I'm not sure why I bother responding to you. Stupidity is doing the same thing in the same circumstances and expecting a different result!

You have just demonstrated that you understand that partner will have 2 or 3 hearts, and that he 'obviously' has a 5 card suit, which is going to be spades or diamonds and you still insist on bidding 2♥ on 10xxx.

I know I am repeating myself, but imo had he bid 2♦ or 2♠ at his 3rd turn, that would have revealed the power one suiter which is consistent with both an initial double (too strong to overcall) and the second double (expects to beat 1N, possibly a lot).

Since he actually doesn't have the power one suiter, and yet doesn't want to sell to 2♣, his correct course of action is to double a 3rd time to get you to choose between the remaining two suits.

While he no doubt was hoping that you'd have something better to choose between than xxx xxx, sometimes that's all you get dealt. it doesn't invalidate his actions, anymore than you holding xxxxxx xx xxx xx means that he shouldn't double 1♠ for takeout holding 1=4=4=4 13 hcp.

As for his not bidding 2♦ with his 4=5, I have answered that by reference to the hand that 2♦ would show, but if you want to focus on what you might hold (as opposed to what you actually hold.....I trust you see the difference between the two concepts), what if you held xxxx xxxx xx xxx? He'd far rather you played in your 4-4 fit than your 5-2.

I suspect that this may be the last time I try to discuss bridge with you. You seem to be cut from the same cloth as Lukewarm, whose contributions are found almost exclusively in the watercooler area. But maybe I'm wrong and you possess some ability to recognize and admit when you are mistaken. If not, you are never going to become even close to being as good a player as you already think you are.