[henriqued]

Hello bridge players,

I had a problem yesterday, for which I would like to ask for your contribution:
I was sitting in South (all Vulnerable) and playing duplicate. East opened with 1 Spade. I passed (8 points) and West bidded 3 Clubs (Bergman, showing 4 cards support in spades and 10-11 points). North (my partner) doubled, what I thought was a negative double, showing both red suits. Esat closed the auction in 4 Spades.
However, afterwords, North argued that it was not a negative double but more a penalty double, antecipating a whish for my leading in Clubs. Its reasoning was that the Clubs were not promising the Clubs suit but only a conventional bid and in such case, his "double" shows some strength in the clubs suit rather than the remaining red suits.
Do you agree with him?...If so, than another question arises: - what about after one opening of 2 clubs or 2 diamonds (both strong in our conventions, but diamonds equating to the old 2 clubs and 2 clubs being strong undetermined); it that a takeout double or also a sign for the opening lead?
Thank you,
henriqued
Portugal

[helene_t]

hi Henrique,

welcome to the forum!

First of all, it is "Bergen", not "Bergman".

Second, if it is negative then it shows all three unbid suits, not just the red suits. 3cl is an artificial bid so negative would mean negative relative to the suits that have been shown, which in this case is spades only.

On the other hand, a double on an artificial bid is normally lead directing as your partner says.

So you can play it as negative (take-out) of spades, i.e. showing hearts-diamonds-clubs, or you can play it as lead-directing, showing clubs only. A third option would be just to let it show values, i.e. typically a strong balanced hand, which is a good strategy against many disruptive conventions, but not recommended in this case.

Both agreements (take-out or lead-directing) are fine, as long as you and you partner are on the same wavelength!

[Vampyr]

A double of a Bergen raise is usually takeout of the opening major. Lead-directing is playable too; the important thing is just to have an agreement, which many people don't have.

As far as doubling artificial strong bids, I am not sure what is standard these days, but traditionally these doubles are lead-directing, and that agreement is fine.

[Ant590]

I don't know of anyone who would treat a double of a Bergen raise as a takeout double for the unbid suits (♦ and ♥ in your 1♠-3♣ example) for the reasons Helene outlined.

I remember someone (80% sure it was Justin) on here say that they like double to be lead-directing (in the example showing clubs) if the artificial raise is game-forcing, but takeout of the major if the artificial raise is not game-forcing. Seems a sensible rule to me.

As for the two-level openings, they too show strength rather than strain, but in this case both sides of the partnership haven't bid. So we have no suit to anchor to, and they have announced a really strong hand. Moreover, it gives them extra bids (pass, redouble) which they would not have had before (which is a bigger gain compared with the Bergen auction because they haven't agreed a suit yet). A sensible option would be for double to show the suit they bid, but I would be interested to hear other themes.

[ArtK78]

The "standard" expert treatment of the double of a Bergen Raise is that the double of a bid showing a limit raise or better is lead directional, and the double of a bid showing less than a limit raise is takeout of the opponents' major suit.

[fromageGB]

ArtK78 summarised the answer to the first question. The second is more contentious. While X of an artificial strong 2♣/♦ open might show that suit, there is very little point, and a negative expected return because when declarer plays the hand he has that additional information, and their bidding may be made more accurate by your double, as Ant says. My view is that if you have long ♣/♦ it is better to bid them at the 3 level, to take away bidding space. If you don't fancy that, pass.

This means that the X does not exist.

[paulg]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 07:08, said:

The "standard" expert treatment of the double of a Bergen Raise is that the double of a bid showing a limit raise or better is lead directional, and the double of a bid showing less than a limit raise is takeout of the opponents' major suit.

Roy Hughes, in 'The Contested Auction', wonders whether this is the best treatment in the modern game when opener+limit raise does not necessarily guarantee the balance of points A lot depends on how valuable you believe lead direction to be.

[ArtK78]

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-12, 07:28, said:

ArtK78 summarised the answer to the first question. The second is more contentious. While X of an artificial strong 2♣/♦ open might show that suit, there is very little point, and a negative expected return because when declarer plays the hand he has that additional information, and their bidding may be made more accurate by your double, as Ant says. My view is that if you have long ♣/♦ it is better to bid them at the 3 level, to take away bidding space. If you don't fancy that, pass.

This means that the X does not exist.

I have to disagree. Clearly, the double of a strong forcing and artificial 2♣ or 2♦ opening shows the suit bid (absent any agreement to the contrary). And while it doesn't take up any space (indeed, it gives the opening side additional options), it does get your side into the auction. So it is not pointless, and it may allow you to compete effectively.

Besides, just because you have the suit bid doesn't mean you have to show it. That is a matter of judgment.

A better agreement would be to play some sort of conventional defense to strong forcing artificial opening bids, in which case the double would have an assigned meaning.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 09:25, said:

Besides, just because you have the suit bid doesn't mean you have to show it. That is a matter of judgment.

Specifically, you'd probably want 6 or 7 of them to bid the suit on the 3 level. But you can double with a good 5-card suit, and then let partner decide whether to compete. And he still may end up on lead, so it will be a lead director.

[aguahombre]

 paulg, on 2013-February-12, 08:16, said:

Roy Hughes, in 'The Contested Auction', wonders whether this is the best treatment in the modern game when opener+limit raise does not necessarily guarantee the balance of points A lot depends on how valuable you believe lead direction to be.

After wondering, does he give the readers his conclusion? Did you decide? Are expert pairs wavering? Inquiring minds would like to know.

FWIW, I believe light-opening expert pairs adjust upward on their invites enough so that we can still assume they probably have the balance of power.

[paulg]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-12, 11:11, said:

 paulg, on 2013-February-12, 08:16, said:

Roy Hughes, in 'The Contested Auction', wonders whether this is the best treatment in the modern game when opener+limit raise does not necessarily guarantee the balance of points A lot depends on how valuable you believe lead direction to be.

After wondering, does he give the readers his conclusion? Did you decide? Are expert pairs wavering? Inquiring minds would like to know.

FWIW, I believe light-opening expert pairs adjust upward on their invites enough so that we can still assume they probably have the balance of power.

Best to buy the book but my reading is that he does seem to think that lead directional doubles, in general, are over-rated.

We have changed so that they are all takeout doubles, perhaps reflecting our own views of what an opening bid + limit raise can be!

[fromageGB]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-12, 11:11, said:

FWIW, I believe light-opening expert pairs adjust upward on their invites enough so that we can still assume they probably have the balance of power.

I'm not in that category on both counts, but I can't imagine any pair whose methods include, say, opening a 5 card major on a routine 10 count, would have a reply that invites game with 4 card support on a routine 9 count. (Any experts out there owning up to doing this?) I am happy to believe that it shows at least half the points in the pack.

[Stephen Tu]

 paulg, on 2013-February-12, 11:29, said:

[size="2"]
Best to buy the book but my reading is that he does seem to think that lead directional doubles, in general, are over-rated.

We have changed so that they are all takeout doubles, perhaps reflecting our own views of what an opening bid + limit raise can be!

Perhaps it is right to play the double of the limit-raise bid as takeout if the opponents have hearts, but lead-directing if the opponents have spades? It's probably more common to have a profitable sacrifice (or making) 4♠ over 4♥, than a 5 level sac, maybe enough to tip the balance?

[PhilKing]

 Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-12, 13:31, said:

Perhaps it is right to play the double of the limit-raise bid as takeout if the opponents have hearts, but lead-directing if the opponents have spades? It's probably more common to have a profitable sacrifice (or making) 4♠ over 4♥, than a 5 level sac, maybe enough to tip the balance?

I suspect you are right, but this way madness lies. I would rather have a consistent simple agreement (ie double is takeout of the major) than strive for perfection and screw it up.

[gwnn]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-12, 11:11, said:

FWIW, I believe light-opening expert pairs adjust upward on their invites enough so that we can still assume they probably have the balance of power.

From what I can tell, this is generally not the case. They will still invite with good 8-counts with shortness, for example. Also ill-fitting 13 counts will usually force to game unless opps play 8-12 openers or so. It seems to be the conclusion that messing up your invite range too much is not worth the trouble. If a super-minimal opener gets an invite or a GF from across the table and it doesn't go as planned, it's just the price you pay for opening light.

[han]

Indeed, they don't.