When responder bids over partner's takeout double

[ais523]

This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.

The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.

(1C), X, (1S)

Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).

Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.

It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

[nrford100]

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.
--
ais523

Statistical analysis shows that on this auction, you are competing for a part score, barring highly distributional hands. Thus I worry more about showing partner where I live than showing HCP, so I would Dbl to show 4 hearts and bid 2H to show 5+ hearts.

[John Hall]

In message <rahhdp$ja8$***@dont-email.me>, ais523 <***@nethack4.org>
writes

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.

Can't the invite be 2S? If you want to invite game in hearts, then a
bid that will allow partner if minimum to sign off in 3H seems OK and
would allow 2H to be purely competitive. Admittedly you could be in
trouble if partner has only three hearts for their take-out double, but
responder's bid of 1S has made that less likely.

Post by ais523
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

I think after (1C) - X - (1S), a double by you has to show 4 spades.
Otherwise it's too easy for responder to psyche a 1S bid.

[[e-mail]]

Post by John Hall
writes

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.

Can't the invite be 2S? If you want to invite game in hearts, then a
bid that will allow partner if minimum to sign off in 3H seems OK and
would allow 2H to be purely competitive. Admittedly you could be in
trouble if partner has only three hearts for their take-out double, but
responder's bid of 1S has made that less likely.

Post by ais523
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

I think after (1C) - X - (1S), a double by you has to show 4 spades.
Otherwise it's too easy for responder to psyche a 1S bid.
--
John Hall
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

And even to psych even without intending to, with 5432 in the suit. You absolutely must not allow them to take your suit away. The purpose of the double of 1S is not to collect a number, but to keep open the chance of playing spades yourself.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

Spades is one of partners suits. The natural meaning of double is
clearly penalty. Of cause you can make the agreement that double be
negative, and so force parnter to bid over 1S. Likely bidding 2 hearts
on the next round would then mean a strong hand.

Co Wiersma

[Travis Crump]

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

I wouldn't be concerned with the opponents playing 1S. Most people
nowadays play 1S as forcing, and even if not partner can take another
bid if they have extras. If partner doesn't have extras and we have a
minimum, the opponents have near to at least game values.

I also don't see the problem in bidding 2H on a 5 or 6 count when you'd
usually require 8 or 9. A 4-10 point 2H is still a narrower range than a
0-8 1H.

[ais523]

Post by Travis Crump

Post by ais523
(1C), X, (1S)

[snip]

Post by Travis Crump
I also don't see the problem in bidding 2H on a 5 or 6 count when you'd
usually require 8 or 9. A 4-10 point 2H is still a narrower range than a
0-8 1H.

I'd normally bid 2H with a hand worth 8 over (1C), X, (P).

I guess an even more interesting situation is if the bidding started
with two passes: (P), P, (1C), X; (1S). At this point, 1S being passed
out is a real danger; you can expect partner to be fairly strong, and
the 1C bidder might be (but does not have to be) quite weak.

So I guess my main question is what the "low end" for a 2H overcall is.
I agree that it makes sense that a 4-count should be enough; but what
about, say, a 0-count?

I guess part of the argument here is how strong partner has to be to
reopen the bidding (but if partner has spades, then they'll likely
stay quiet even with a hand much stronger than a typical takeout
double); if there's any chance that the opponents will pass out 1S
rather than trying for game, then either this hand needs to keep the
bidding alive, or else partner needs to try again.

[Travis Crump]

Post by ais523

Post by Travis Crump

Post by ais523
(1C), X, (1S)

[snip]

Post by Travis Crump
I also don't see the problem in bidding 2H on a 5 or 6 count when you'd
usually require 8 or 9. A 4-10 point 2H is still a narrower range than a
0-8 1H.

I'd normally bid 2H with a hand worth 8 over (1C), X, (P).
I guess an even more interesting situation is if the bidding started
with two passes: (P), P, (1C), X; (1S). At this point, 1S being passed
out is a real danger; you can expect partner to be fairly strong, and
the 1C bidder might be (but does not have to be) quite weak.
So I guess my main question is what the "low end" for a 2H overcall is.
I agree that it makes sense that a 4-count should be enough; but what
about, say, a 0-count?

I base my willingness to bid in this auction much more on shape than HCP
so it is harder to pin down a firm line. I'd probably pass with xxx KJxx
xxx xxx, but bid on x QTxxx xxxx xxx.

Post by ais523
I guess part of the argument here is how strong partner has to be to
reopen the bidding (but if partner has spades, then they'll likely
stay quiet even with a hand much stronger than a typical takeout
double); if there's any chance that the opponents will pass out 1S
rather than trying for game, then either this hand needs to keep the
bidding alive, or else partner needs to try again.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Travis Crump

Post by ais523
This is a sequence which my current partnership seems to be on shaky
ground about, and it isn't clear that it's fixable in a natural system.
So I was wondering how other people treated it.
The sequence in question is when LHO opens, partner doubles, and RHO
bids, e.g.
(1C), X, (1S)
Without RHO's bid, it's easy to distinguish a minimum response to the
takeout double from an invite (via jumping if necessary).
Once RHO bids, though, things get harder. Suppose I have hearts and a
spade shortage. I might want to compete to 2H, because letting the
opponents play in 1S is almost certainly a bad idea (they'll make it). I
might also want to invite in hearts; it's quite possible that I'll hold
a good hand on this sequence (especially if the opponents play 1S as
nonforcing, which is rare but not unheard of). Without the intervening
1S bid, the invite would be 2H, but that's no longer possible.
It strikes me that this dilemma might be solved with an artificial use
of the double (the natural meaning would be "choose between the unbid
suits", but that maybe isn't so useful in this situation), or perhaps
with an artificial use of the lower cue 2C (which would work here but
not in all sequences, e.g. (1S), X, (2D) leaves you with no useful
cue bid because 2S is too high). Is there any standard solution to
disambiguating bids in this sequence? I don't really want to invent
something nonstandard if I don't have to.

I wouldn't be concerned with the opponents playing 1S. Most people
nowadays play 1S as forcing, and even if not partner can take another
bid if they have extras. If partner doesn't have extras and we have a
minimum, the opponents have near to at least game values.
I also don't see the problem in bidding 2H on a 5 or 6 count when you'd
usually require 8 or 9. A 4-10 point 2H is still a narrower range than a
0-8 1H.

But how do your partnership play spades after opener takes 1S out?

Carl