[rhm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-27, 07:41, said:

Just because 2♠ is NF is insufficient info, is J9xxxx, Kx, x, xxxx (where 4♠ is OK) a 2♠ bid ? or is it closer to AJxxxx, Kx, x, xxxx where you might well make 7 ? or is it NF but inv and can be an 11 count with 5 which you'd only pass with a bad weak no trump ? This has some bearing here.

Do I like X, not really, I'd much prefer it with the majors the other way round as partner will bid 2♥ with 4-4M.

Is 2♦ any better ? not really, doesn't help me find a major.

2♠ is an overbid and doesn't help if partner has 5♥.

Pass - could very easily be our hand, and partner with his 2416 11 count might not easily forgive me, we always reopen short in the suit overcalled.

So none of the options are perfect, I probably double, if partner stands it I have AK/A for him.

Negative free bids are usually defined as hands not good enough to force to game but constructiv.
Since it is not forcing it is either a six card suit or a good five card suit.
Your second hand fits the bill, but your first hand might pass.
Why is 2♠ an overbid?
Because you define it as such without thinking.
There is a big difference between for example

1♦ -(Pass)-1♠-(Pass)
2♥

and

1♦-(2♣)-Pass-(Pass)
2♥

Bridge logic does not support to treat these sequences on opener similar

Reopening is very different

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

I would double. My hand is not bad for defence (arghhh safari autocorrect, not "defines" lol) , I have two aces after all. In this system my reopening double apparently shows an unbalanced hand so partner will hopefully bid a 3-card diamonds in preference of a 4-card major, and he won't pass with just four clubs.

[Cyberyeti]

 rhm, on 2014-January-27, 08:01, said:

Negative free bids are usually defined as hands not good enough to force to game but constructiv.
Since it is not forcing it is either a six card suit or a good five card suit.
Your second hand fits the bill, but your first hand might pass.
Why is 2♠ an overbid?
Because you define it as such without thinking.
There is a big difference between for example

1♦ -(Pass)-1♠-(Pass)
2♥

and

1♦-(2♣)-Pass-(Pass)
2♥

Bridge logic does not support to treat these sequences on opener similar

Reopening is very different

Rainer Herrmann

I don't think the two sequences are equivalent, but I'd be much happier bidding 2♠ with say K10xx, x, AKxxxx, Ax than the actual hand. I think 2♠ is only a marginal overbid, but my major objection is that I will play somewhere silly opposite many hands with 5 hearts.

[mfa1010]

Double. I have a 3-suited hand so I don't want to guess a suit myself. The void is a flaw but my overall defense is ok.

[mr1303]

I'm happy reopening this one with a double.

Yes, the void is a concern, but no-one's forcing partner to pass with an unsuitable hand. I have AKA in defense as well.

[MickyB]

FWIW, double led to -470 at the table.

---

[aguahombre]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-27, 12:52, said:

FWIW, double led to -470 at the table.

---

A non-double followed by two doubles, actually. MickyB worded it properly..."led to -470" is more accurate IMO than a phrasing which implies blame.

[the_clown]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-27, 12:52, said:

FWIW, double led to -470 at the table.

---

I dont think anyone did something wrong, just tough luck.

[wanoff]

Bad luck or possibly a minus for the system.
It's bit easier for those of us playing Acol where north has an easy 2D to start, and later a raise of south's 2S.

[MickyB]

I don't really understand 2D on the North cards, even playing Acol. Seems like a good shot at turning a plus score vs 2C into a minus score vs 2H [or in 3D].

[rhm]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-27, 13:01, said:

A non-double followed by two doubles, actually. MickyB worded it properly..."led to -470" is more accurate IMO than a phrasing which implies blame.

 the_clown, on 2014-January-27, 13:05, said:

I dont think anyone did something wrong, just tough luck.

FWIW, I am not surprised.
No blame in the expert department?
Hands with a void in opponent's suit have a high ODR ratio.
Did South expect to get rich against a non vulnerable West, who stuck out his neck by rebidding his clubs again?
Note, that all of North clubs were working overtime (no sure thing) and there was still no way beating the contract.
Give North a fifth club and exchange the ♣3 for the ♦7 between North and East and the contract can still be beaten only by the improbable lead of the ace of trumps.
Granted the diamond distribution was unexpected, but good players just don't bid 3♣ in this position without a good reason.
I agree though that the problem starts with South rebid. You just better warn your partner that a penalty double might not be a good idea.
If a good partner then doubles you can respect his decision. With run of the mill players you are still better off in the long run to take out insurance.

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

 rhm, on 2014-January-27, 20:57, said:

No blame in the expert department?
Hands with a void in opponent's suit have a high ODR ratio.
Did South expect to get rich against a non vulnerable West, who stuck out his neck by rebidding his clubs again?

I didn't say I would have made the non-double on the first round, the reopening Double on the 2ND, or the final Double. They all led to the table result. If this were an ATB thread, IMO South would take the charge for the reopening Double instead of 2D, but it isn't. The decisions were unsuccessful.

[mike777]

Surprised so many experts feel the first double is so very wrong.


2c at fav vul could be such a very wide range. I would never guess a 5 loser 7 card suit across his unpassed partner.

[aguahombre]

 mike777, on 2014-January-27, 22:35, said:

Surprised so many experts feel the first double is so very wrong.


2c at fav vul could be such a very wide range. I would never guess a 5 loser 7 card suit across his unpassed partner.

The range gets very much narrower when we factor in (1) Responder who also knows the vulnerability risked a pass when partner might not reopen and (2) advancer didn't advance.

[sfi]

 mike777, on 2014-January-27, 22:35, said:

Surprised so many experts feel the first double is so very wrong.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that it is "so very wrong". My reading of other bidders (rather than doublers) is that it is antipercentage because it misleads partner about the nature of your defensive prospects when they want to sit a reopening double. The club void reduces the defence's options considerably while only increasing partner's expected club length a bit. Partner could easily be looking to pass a reopening double on this auction so it needs to be taken into consideration when choosing the action.

It's clear that a double can work well - it's the best way to a better major suit partscore for example. But partscore accuracy at IMPs isn't a high priority, and you need to consider what partner might do after your action. Think of the hands partner can have:

1. A weakish balanced hand. Here 2D is likely to be the long-term winner since you don't have to worry as much about losing control on the hand. But it probably doesn't matter much what you do.

2. A weak unbalanced hand. Double will win here since you'll find a real fit.

3. A moderate hand with no previous bid. Double can cause problems for partner who may feel the need to jump to show their strength. That should probably be fine, but still puts you one level higher opposite your moderate hand. Additionally, you don't have a minimum so you might bid again and get too high. These hands can creep up without either partner doing anything clearly wrong. 2D avoids this, and now if partner does move it's clearer that looking for game is a reasonable choice.

4. A moderate hand with club values. This is the hand here, where partner doesn't have any great desire to penalise but will willingly cooperate if you express interest in sitting for penalties. In this case the double misrepresents your hand and can lead to -280 (or -470 as here). If partner doubles 3C after your 2D reopening, they are at least forewarned and should have better defence than the given hand.

5. A good hand that wants to penalise clubs. Given the vulnerability we will need to take 9 tricks to make up for a game bonus. My offensively oriented hand is going to disappoint partner in this quest, and I would like to send this message. Occasionally I will miss out on +800/1100 and we'll score our normal game contract for a push board.

Weighting each option is complex, but the warning about the offensive nature of the hand is one worth sending. After a 2D bid and 3C rebid, now North can evaluate their hand differently and bid 3D for an 11 IMP swing to the good guys. That's not going to happen every time of course, and sometimes you'll lose IMPs whichever action you take.

[mike777]

thanks for your very thoughtful response.

I sent this hand out as an email quiz.

[mike777]

to quote one email:


"Perhaps to answer in a bit more depth: DBL with a void, particularly vul versus not is not so appealing, but here the honors
are defensive enough oriented to make DBL clear anyway."

[MrAce]

I prefer 2♠ as i said in another topic. This means i am bidding 3♣ if no spade fit and i really dislike dbl with void at low levels.

[MickyB]

I kibitzed this hand and instinctively wanted to bid 2♠, not sure if I'd have talked myself into bidding 2♦ at the table though. Glad to see I'm getting some support here! The best player I've asked away from the forums was a 2♦ bidder, and the other six or so [including two world champions] were all doublers.

[Fluffy]

I would double without thinking twice, perhaps I should think more