[eagles123]

---

Scoring MP

P is a bbo pickup self rated expert think sayc but might have been 2/1

what do people do here

Thanks

Eagles

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3S.

I do think, that 2S is NF, hence 2S is out for me.
If 2S is forcing, than ok, 2S is a lot better, but
I dont think so, it is certainly encouraging.

Playing with an unknown, I am not going to
risk 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

2S. I am not doubling with a void.

[helene_t]

I can see a case for 2♠ being nonforcing - with a 4414 9-count it would be nice to have a nonforcing 2♠ available, which would mean that a dbl would become somewhat penalty-oriented, allowing opener sometimes to pass with only three diamonds. A GF hand with four spades can usually do something else.

But I am pretty sure that 2♠ forcing is standard.

Double is out - if partner passes it is likely to be bad.

[billw55]

Aha, here is a thread I can learn from.

Why would it be so bad if partner passed a reopening double?

[whereagles]

There is actually a case for NF 2♠, but I think losing the mnemonic "reverse by responder is GF" is a bad idea in general. And besides, most of the people will take 2♠ as forcing.

So I bid that.

[Phil]

With one partner I don't play support doubles here rather x shows 4 of the other major.

I can't believe 2s is NF but I might come around to the idea. I would hate to have to x on this shape since I want partner passing with HHxx.

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2014-June-23, 06:05, said:

Aha, here is a thread I can learn from.

Why would it be so bad if partner passed a reopening double?

Good point. My gut reaction was "if partner has four diamonds he has 5+ clubs so we have at least an 8-card fit against their 9-card fit, so we need to bid at least 3♣ according to the LOTT".

But ok, hour hand is not that bad for defense and the vulnerability if favorable. I dunno. Give partner Axx-x-QTxx-AQxxx defending 2♦X looks very good. Maybe double is the right call after all?

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2014-June-23, 06:05, said:

Aha, here is a thread I can learn from.

Why would it be so bad if partner passed a reopening double?

Good point. My gut reaction was "if partner has four diamonds he has 5+ clubs so we have at least an 8-card fit against their 9-card fit, so we need to bid at least 3♣ according to the LOTT".

But ok, our hand is not that bad for defense and the vulnerability if favorable. I dunno. Give partner Axx-x-QTxx-AQxxx defending 2♦X looks very good. Maybe double is the right call after all? Hopefully partner won't pass with xxx-Qx-ATx-KQJxx.

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2014-June-23, 06:05, said:

Aha, here is a thread I can learn from.

Why would it be so bad if partner passed a reopening double?

Well i think those who says double will be so bad can explain you. I voted 2♠ but at these colors it is very close imo. I would not mind double as much as they do.

As Helene says the number of trumps + purity + void vs vulnerability.

---

I just made up this hand. You can make 4♥ (probably +1 ) and the fate of 2♦ doubled depends on very good defense. If you are that good in defense you can set them i guess. Otoh change some spot cards then double may be the winner, The reason for people bidding here instead of double is probably to avoid a random result. At least that was my intention when I voted for 2♠

[whereagles]

Not sure I would pass the dbl with East's hand, but it sure is tempting...

[gwnn]

Doubling with a void can be dangerous because playing a trump through declarer is often crucial to the defence. Usually doubler has more points than his p so he will likely get in first and he can't play a trump if all he has is a void. Partner can also convert with more confidence with an unsuitable hand for other action if he knows we're not usually void in trumps.

[PhilKing]

I have a fairly large file consisting of hands where the final contract was two something doubled. When that resulted in disaster without anyone doing anything particularly ridiculous, two general themes dominated:

1. We had not explored our full offensive potential.

2. One player had a void.

Both of those considerations are present here. Against 2m, partner should be able to pass my double fairly speculatively, since the cost of being wrong is low. Yes, double could be right, but I think such double are a massive long-term loser.

[whereagles]

Well, note also that opps are bound to have 9+ cards in diamonds (unless pard has 6C-5D, a very rare bird). A passed out dbl is not going to yield a good result.

[gszes]

I would always be willing to invest one level to make sure we got the strain right
when we are competitive so a 2s bid would have to be at least a 1 round force. To
consider a 2s bid as completely non forcing we might have to be willing to accept
responder bidding 2s with Kxxx xxxx xx Kxx and that seems hopeless even if it might
win some MP on occasion by going down less than the opps making in diamonds (assuming
no x that is).

This means a 2s bid should probably be at worst the old two quick tricks or greater
than 8 idea which p can raise to 3 level with a min or try game with near max. Sure we
get in trouble sometimes but this route has to be a whole ton safer than using x for
any hand remotely close to this one. It would also be a shame to not be able to show 55
56 hands (which is what we have 3s for) and game forcing (surely we would not want to x
with such a hand).

Even at favorable it has to seem wrong to x with this type of hand when we have game
opposite almost any minimum imaginable and even slam opposite a pretty large number of
minimums. It is not a failing of imagination that p might have a hand where playing 2d
x might net us a big score it is primarily a fact of % that doubling the opps in 2d here
rates to be a poor action and that is the main idea against x. We see p with the off the
wall chance of having QJxx and become blinded to Kxx Axx and a whole host of other hands
where playing 2dx might be horrible yet might easily become partners choice if we offer
it up with x.

[kuhchung]

I'm glad PhilKing's database matches my intuition. I feel like I've gotten tons of bad results doubling on hands like these at the 2 level.

[eagles123]

thanks all, interesting stuff. As predicted i did double and did end up with a terrible result... why P passed with like 4 good spades and 3 diamonds i will never know lol but i can see that he would have a had a legit hand to pass with and it still would have been bad.

[eagles123]

thanks all, interesting stuff. As predicted i did double and did end up with a terrible result... why P passed with like 4 good spades and 3 diamonds i will never know lol but i can see that he could have a had a legit hand to pass with and it still would have been bad.

[Mbodell]

2♠ was my first reaction because I too hate doubling with voids. But I also know how people stretch to get in to the bidding at the 2 level especially in the sandwich position. And favorable and MP are the ideal for the double to pay off, if we don't have game (or can't find the right one) we only need down 1, and if we do have game we only need down 2. Partner has opening strength, is behind the 2-level overcall, and the partner of the 2-level overcall didn't raise to the three level. I fully expect that this could be a bottom if we double and partner leaves it in, but I think it will be a top more often when left in.

[the hog]

eagles123, on 2014-June-23, 13:55, said:

thanks all, interesting stuff. As predicted i did double and did end up with a terrible result... why P passed with like 4 good spades and 3 diamonds i will never know lol but i can see that he could have a had a legit hand to pass with and it still would have been bad.

One prime reason why doubling with a void is poor, is that you don't have a trump to lead at any time. This may well mean that declarer will be able to make some of his small trumps by ruffing and escape with a small penalty. I make it a rule pretty much never to double with a void. This is one of the things you learn with experience, (or judging by some of the replies here, perhaps not.)