[Apollo81]

all red MPs

♠KQxx
♥x
♦KQxx
♣KJxx



(1♥)-Dbl-(3♥)-Dbl
(pass)-???

[jtfanclub]

3♠. Must be a trick here. I have exactly what partner should expect.

[goobers]

I dunno, 4 of a minor? If partner had spades, he would've bid them.

[bid_em_up]

The trick is, it's stated that it is a responsive double. Partner should not have 4 spades, but instead should be something like 1-3-4-5 or 2-3-4-4. (If partner actually has 4 spades, they should bid 3S). I suppose he could be 3-2-4-4 as well, but this is less likely.

3S will be a losing call, in the long run as you cannot stand the likely force @ trick 2. Since I am holding the majority of the KQ's in the deck (and the club Q will most likely be finessable if needed), and yet partner has shown approximately 9-10 hcp for his X @ the three level, I will play him to hold two aces (and possibly the club Q as well). Without these, he can't have much of an X. The missing Ace will be onside, which should give us a reasonable play for 5 of a minor. Partner also should have discounted any heart values he may have since he is under the heart bidder, which makes it more likely that his values are working ones. The only possible values for this are two of the three side aces and possibly the club Q.

The problem is, if I just bid 4m now, partner will pass, unaware of the fact that our hand fits quite well with his and has improved somewhat with his responsive X.

If 4N at this point would be pick a minor (and I think it should be), thats my call. Otherwise, I think I'm stuck with 4H as my only forcing option at this point.

A distant 3rd choice is to leave the X in, as we should be taking 2 spades, along with 3 minor suit tricks.

[hatchett]

I would bid 3♠, my lowest 4 card suit . It's a matter for agreement whether at this level the double promies 4♠s but I prefer not so I can double on xxxx xxx Ax Axxx. Forcing to game is too rich and punsihes partner for acting.

[pclayton]

Conventionally, we bid 4 card suits up the line over a responsive x. Pard knows we probably dont have 5 spades for our double, and also knows we will be taking the tap.

Double at this level denies 5S but not 4. As well as this hand will play in a minor, its matchpoints, and we cant afford to miss a 4-4 fit. Furthermore, 4 of a minor denies 4 spades.

Passing doesnt have much appeal to me. Its a top or bottom proposition, but it could work out great if pard is a 3334 with 2 aces.

4 hearts is my choice at IMPs. Its very likely the cards we need onside are there, assuming we have exactly 2 losers off the top.

[inquiry]

I have played both ways.. the responsive double shows and the responsive double denies 4♠'s. A 3♠ bid does not end the auction, partner knows I have only 4♠. Why? with five spades I would have bid 1♠ unless I had an aweful lot of extra values, in which case I would bid more than a non-forcing 3♠ over the double. IF partner pulls to 4 of a minor, I will raise to five.

[hotShot]

jtfanclub, on Mar 9 2007, 10:11 PM, said:

3♠. Must be a trick here. I have exactly what partner should expect.

Yes you a are 4144 this time, but what would you bid with 3244?
If your agreement includes "off shape" dbl, than the responsive double should show 4♠ and tolerance for any minor. If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Mar 9 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

IF partner pulls to 4 of a minor, I will raise to five.

I'd like to hear your argument for raising the pull to 5. To me, I have what I promised (and no more) and I'm aceless, so I'm not eager to bid 5.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Mar 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Well, to me, 3♠ would then show no preference. Since I might X with 4-3-4-2, it would be a good idea to get my opinion with 5-4 in the minors. Since I'm 4-4, better to pass the ball back and let partner declare in our 9 card fit.

[the hog]

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 05:37 AM, said:

hotShot, on Mar 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Well, to me, 3♠ would then show no preference. Since I might X with 4-3-4-2, it would be a good idea to get my opinion with 5-4 in the minors. Since I'm 4-4, better to pass the ball back and let partner declare in our 9 card fit.

How can 3S show no preference when you might have a 5044 or a 5143 shape and you doubled because you have 3 places to play? And if you argue that you NEVER X with a 5 card S suit, what about
xxxxx void AKQJ Axxx

Ben and Phil, I don't believe either of you would bid 1S with this.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Mar 9 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

And if you argue that you NEVER X with a 5 card S suit, what about  xxxxx void AKQJ Axxx

4♥. (with a weaker hand I'd still bid 3♠).

With 5143, I'll bid the 4 card suit. Maybe it's a bad idea, but that's what I'd do. It may mean that we end up in a 4-4 minor instead of a 5-3 major, but if my 5 card suit is so bad that I don't want to overcall with it, the 4-4 minor may be the better place to paly.

[mikeh]

Redouble Shows the hand perfectly!

OK.. if that won't work (and I can see one obvious objection), then the answer is 'it depends'... it depends on our agreement... an agreement all established ppphips have or should have... but in a casual pickup expert ppship, I'd probably guess to bid 3♠... I would not expect 3♠ with Jxxx xxx AQxxx x: i'd expect double followed by pulling 4♣ to 4♦ if I didn't bid 3♠.

In other words, I'd expect a casual expert partner to allow my responsive double to hold 4♠s.

I will always be ok if he has fewer or more than 3♠s. The only time I'm in trouble is when he is 3=2 in the majors and the lack of the 4th ♥ from either opp suggests that maybe he isn't that shape... and if he is, I take a pitch on the second round of ♥s and hope to control the damage.

With fewer than 3♠s, I expect him to pull.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Mar 9 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 05:37 AM, said:

hotShot, on Mar 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Well, to me, 3♠ would then show no preference. Since I might X with 4-3-4-2, it would be a good idea to get my opinion with 5-4 in the minors. Since I'm 4-4, better to pass the ball back and let partner declare in our 9 card fit.

How can 3S show no preference when you might have a 5044 or a 5143 shape and you doubled because you have 3 places to play? And if you argue that you NEVER X with a 5 card S suit, what about
xxxxx void AKQJ Axxx

Ben and Phil, I don't believe either of you would bid 1S with this.

Of course not Ron, don't you realize that xxxxx is a "four card" suit.

[pclayton]

The_Hog, on Mar 9 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 05:37 AM, said:

hotShot, on Mar 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Well, to me, 3♠ would then show no preference. Since I might X with 4-3-4-2, it would be a good idea to get my opinion with 5-4 in the minors. Since I'm 4-4, better to pass the ball back and let partner declare in our 9 card fit.

How can 3S show no preference when you might have a 5044 or a 5143 shape and you doubled because you have 3 places to play? And if you argue that you NEVER X with a 5 card S suit, what about
xxxxx void AKQJ Axxx

Ben and Phil, I don't believe either of you would bid 1S with this.

Ron, I don't see you point.

Are you claiming that double by pard denies 4 spades? By the same reasoning, I wouldn't expect pard to necessarily trot out a weak 4 card spade suit here either.

Or (and) are you claiming that 3♠ by us promises 5; since the double ostensibly denied 4. If thats the case, I probably do have 'extra' values for my double, although it could be in the form of a heart void with a 5=0=4=4. With any 5=1=3-4, I would overcall, unless I had a lot extra.

3♠ has another side benefit; we may get to 3N if pard decided not to bid it the 1st time, but this is negligible we'd sit.

[han]

Arend convinced me to play (if I understood him, else please correct me) that the responsive double at the 3-level does not deny a 4-card spade suit. So I would bid 3S here, expecting partner to correct to 4C with a minimum and both minors.

[whereagles]

huh.. isn't pard's dbl responsive? 4♦ seems clear-cut, no?

[the hog]

pclayton, on Mar 10 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 9 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 05:37 AM, said:

hotShot, on Mar 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Well, to me, 3♠ would then show no preference. Since I might X with 4-3-4-2, it would be a good idea to get my opinion with 5-4 in the minors. Since I'm 4-4, better to pass the ball back and let partner declare in our 9 card fit.

How can 3S show no preference when you might have a 5044 or a 5143 shape and you doubled because you have 3 places to play? And if you argue that you NEVER X with a 5 card S suit, what about
xxxxx void AKQJ Axxx

Ben and Phil, I don't believe either of you would bid 1S with this.

Ron, I don't see you point.

Are you claiming that double by pard denies 4 spades? By the same reasoning, I wouldn't expect pard to necessarily trot out a weak 4 card spade suit here either.

Or (and) are you claiming that 3♠ by us promises 5; since the double ostensibly denied 4. If thats the case, I probably do have 'extra' values for my double, although it could be in the form of a heart void with a 5=0=4=4. With any 5=1=3-4, I would overcall, unless I had a lot extra.

3♠ has another side benefit; we may get to 3N if pard decided not to bid it the 1st time, but this is negligible we'd sit.

I was responding to 2 posts at once. The one by you and ben saying that you probably wouldn't have 5S for theinitial X is what prompted this comment.

[HeartA]

Without discussion, I would assume response dbl denies 4 ♠s. Even so, I don't 3S is that bad. pd would know I (usually) don't have 5 ♠s. Unless pd has a minimum hand and dbl is for competitive only, the bidding would not die at 3S.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

huh.. isn't pard's dbl responsive? 4♦ seems clear-cut, no?

A responsive double at the 3-level or higher does not deny a 4-card major for everyone (see Han's post above)