[ibraves]

---

MPs - Club night

Figuring I had one bid for my hand I thought the hand was worth a double. I appreciate it was v light and I was concerned that I had no quick tricks.

[MrAce]

It is of course light but it is not madness.

[masonbarge]

ibraves, on 2015-February-11, 18:01, said:

---

MPs - Club night

Figuring I had one bid for my hand I thought the hand was worth a double. I appreciate it was v light and I was concerned that I had no quick tricks.

I don't know about you but if I doubled with that hand, it would turn out with my partner bidding up to 4S with something like

♠Qxxxx
♥xx
♦Ax
♣KQxx

And probably, an opponent holding AJxx in spades who is rude enough to double.

Gah, I had two straight 4H hands last night go down. The first KJ10x behind me (down 1), the second K10xxx (down 2).

[ahydra]

Anything wrong with a simple 1D? Partner's less likely to go crazy over that.

ahydra

[akwoo]

I don't like it, but it has some merit. Here's a hypothetical situation where it pays off:

Partner has
♠QJxxx
♥QJx
♦Kx
♣xxx

and third seat bids 3♣, preemptive (say 0-8, 5+ clubs).

Partner is likely to bid 3♠ over double but pass over 1♦.

If your opponents don't play preemptive raises (in competition) though, there is no reason to double.

[ArtK78]

akwoo, on 2015-February-12, 12:21, said:

I don't like it, but it has some merit. Here's a hypothetical situation where it pays off:

Partner has
♠QJxxx
♥QJx
♦Kx
♣xxx

and third seat bids 3♣, preemptive (say 0-8, 5+ clubs).

Partner is likely to bid 3♠ over double but pass over 1♦.

If your opponents don't play preemptive raises (in competition) though, there is no reason to double.

My partners would tend to bid 4♠ on those cards. Still might be better than defending 3♣.

[billw55]

masonbarge, on 2015-February-12, 00:04, said:

I don't know about you but if I doubled with that hand, it would turn out with my partner bidding up to 4S with something like

♠Qxxxx
♥xx
♦Ax
♣KQxx

And probably, an opponent holding AJxx in spades who is rude enough to double.

Gah, I had two straight 4H hands last night go down. The first KJ10x behind me (down 1), the second K10xxx (down 2).

Overemphasizing negative outcomes is a common psychological phenomena. Try spending equal effort thinking up good things that could happen.

As for the double, I would not make it, but I have seen far, far worse. If my p did this, I might raise an eyebrow in the post mortem, but that's about it.

[mgoetze]

You have a clear double at MPs nonvulnerable. It's borderline vulnerable but not something I would worry about too much either way.

[rmnka447]

It's not complete madness, but it's not something I'd do very often.

If you bid on hands such as this one with any frequency, then you're broadening the definition of your TODs. At some point, that broadening poses a problem for your partner. For instance, what do you bid with this hand if partner makes a 2 ♣ cue showing a good hand? Would you also make that same bid with a similar TOD with say 12+ HCP and 2 QTs? If so, how can partner ever distinguish between the two holdings? If you propose different bids for this "light" double and a normal opening value TOD, then how do you accommodate even stronger TODS (16+) or strong overcalls (16+ and good suit) which also start with a double? Ultimately, it becomes difficult to distinguish between various holdings because of limited bidding space. Then, you will lose some accuracy on constructive auctions.

It may seem attractive to bid on hands like this one, especially when partner can find a call and you talk the opponents out of game or their best contract. However, that advantage may be short lived when partner drives to game with opening values and finds your hand too light. Or, partner fails to invite or bid game for fear you're bidding light only to find you with a full opening TOD.

That being said, an occasional tactical variance from normal is OK, especially at MPs. The idea is to keep the opponents from being completely sure of what you're doing -- as in, say, "xxxx always makes completely solid opening TODs." BUT be prepared to take the heat when it goes wrong ("Sorry, partner I got a bit rambunctious!") and don't do it often enough that it will affect how partner responds.

[mgoetze]

rmnka447, on 2015-February-13, 15:41, said:

The idea is to keep the opponents from being completely sure of what you're doing

Wrong.

[Cthulhu D]

Quote

It's not complete madness, but it's not something I'd do very often.

If you bid on hands such as this one with any frequency, then you're broadening the definition of your TODs. At some point, that broadening poses a problem for your partner. For instance, what do you bid with this hand if partner makes a 2 ♣ cue showing a good hand? Would you also make that same bid with a similar TOD with say 12+ HCP and 2 QTs? If so, how can partner ever distinguish between the two holdings? If you propose different bids for this "light" double and a normal opening value TOD, then how do you accommodate even stronger TODS (16+) or strong overcalls (16+ and good suit) which also start with a double? Ultimately, it becomes difficult to distinguish between various holdings because of limited bidding space. Then, you will lose some accuracy on constructive auctions.

This sort of thing works a lot better if you dedicate a few bids to the task. Playing 1NT overcall as a light TKO (limited to a good 14), we dedicate X and 2NT to stronger hands - a small loss to let you compete more frequently on hands like the above.

If you don't split the ranges it becomes much harder.

[Zelandakh]

It is Game All and second seat so everything points away from coming in right away but naturally it might work out well. For me both 1♦ and pass rank higher than double though.

[nige1]

ibraves, on 2015-February-11, 18:01, said:

---

MPs - Club night. Figuring I had one bid for my hand I thought the hand was worth a double. I appreciate it was v light and I was concerned that I had no quick tricks.

IMO 1♦ = 10. Pass = 9. Double = 8. Not mad

[Free]

nige1, on 2015-February-19, 05:58, said:

IMO 1♦ = 10. Pass = 9. Double = 8. Not mad

You're eights are usually quite mad...

[all loomis]

there are not enough bids for every hand where action might work. save x for those hands. 2d if you must.

[KurtGodel]

I think doubling is likely to gain if the deal is a partscore fight, but partner is likely to not be able to take a joke and hang you by bidding game a lot of the time. Anything wrong with 1♦? It probably attracts the lead we want, and if partner does have a good hand with a major we will still find our fit. There's nothing stopping p from doubling after 1C - 1D - 3C.