[mgoetze]

(1♣) - 1♥ - (2♣) - X

I think almost everyone will agree that this is not a penalty double. What does/should it show though? 2 hearts? The pointy suits? All of the above?

Is it even important for advancer to show spades here? How often should 1♥ be overcalled with 4-5 in the majors?

[rhm]

Mainly the unbid suits, ideally 5 spades and 4+ diamonds.
I rarely overcall with 5 hearts and 4 spades.

Rainer Herrmann

[blackshoe]

If I had the right strength with 5♥ and 4♠ I'd double, and if partner bids 2♦, I'd bid 2♥, showing my hand type.

The double in the op should be takeout. I don't think I'd insist on 5 spades.

[mikeh]

This is a responsive double. If my reading is correct, and I have read a LOT of older bridge books and magazines, the original responsive double arose after 3rd chair raised opener after 2nd chair had doubled, but this got extended fairly early to this situation: partner overcalls and responder raises. Our double is takeout.

I think it likely that Rainer's suggestion that it show 5 spades is a minority position.

I don't think it to be standard that the overcall denies 4 spades, and indeed I don't think Rainer suggests that it does. We all (other than cyberyeti) have lower minimum requirements for an overcall than for a double. I can't imagine passing 1♣ with, say, Jxxx AKJxx xx xx, and I also can't see doubling with that hand.

Restricting the double to 5 spades means that we are giving up on too many partscore contests for my liking. In addition, I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to play a moysian at the 2 level if the 3 card spade suit has short(ish) clubs. Again, restricting the double to 5+ spades takes that out of play.

The double is not a game try...advancer is (relatively) unlimited but overcaller will take the doubler for competitive values only, pending further bidding. Thus we need to be able to use it flexibly.

[kuhchung]

4+♠, 2-♥, 4+♦, 3-♣, 8+ TP

[whereagles]

well, take-outish shape.. likely 4-4 in unbid suits, although 4234/5233 (bad spades) wouldn't shock me.

[akwoo]

Depending on what hands you want to include in 3♣, there's definitely a case for throwing some strong hands with clear direction into the double. For example, one might want to play 3♣ as purely asking for a stopper, in which case invitational heart hands should go into the double (but game forcing ones don't need to be). Also, very strong diamond one-suiters might have to start with a double here.

But overcaller should assume 4-4 in unbid suits and willingness to play anywhere at the 2-level, usually with 4234 or 5233 (bad spades) (or 5332 or 4333 with 3 small hearts) a less likely possibility. Advancer can always correct this initial expectation with a further bid if they have some strong freak.

EDIT: That's what I meant...

[mgoetze]

akwoo, on 2014-September-28, 17:34, said:

Depending on what hands you want to include in 3♣, there's definitely a case for throwing some strong hands with clear direction into the double. For example, one might want to play 3♣ as purely asking for a stopper, in which case invitational heart hands should go into the double (but game forcing ones don't need to be). Also, very strong diamond one-suiters might have to start with a double here.

To me it is rather obvious that 3♣ should be a heart raise (and I even play 2NT as a heart raise as well). For better or worse, my agreements currently have 2♦ as forcing, so I needn't worry about those hands.

[barmar]

For most players this is a responsive double.

However, some years ago a partner taught me what I think is a more useful use of this double. It's called "Cue Bid Double". It shows a good heart raise, like what a 3♣ bid would if you weren't using this convention (the name refers to the fact that it takes the place of a cue bid). The benefit over an actual cue bid is that if partner overcalled with only 7-9 HCP, you're not forcing to the 3 level when the opponents have the majority of the strength.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2014-September-28, 19:54, said:

For most players this is a responsive double.

However, some years ago a partner taught me what I think is a more useful use of this double. It's called "Cue Bid Double". It shows a good heart raise, like what a 3♣ bid would if you weren't using this convention (the name refers to the fact that it takes the place of a cue bid). The benefit over an actual cue bid is that if partner overcalled with only 7-9 HCP, you're not forcing to the 3 level when the opponents have the majority of the strength.

All of what you said is great, except now you have 3 ways of raising hearts and no way to bid hands with values that can not pass and no heart fit.

[benlessard]

In some cases its true that the X is more useful as a good raise than as a t-out, most of the time 2 way is even better. In the op example i prefer plain responsive since 2D could be the winning spot.

Unfortunatly there is not a lot on theory on those things. Something like..

1H-(1S)-3H-??

here you could use X as
1- To play 3S
2- to compete to 4m or both minors.

a direct 3S/4m is forward going, 3NT is to play. X and 3NT is both minors standard responsive X.

1D-(1H)-2D-??

I think it could be playable to play that X is to compete (could be weakish with 3H or responsive) while all the other bids are forward going and show values. I wouldnt play 2H as a precise limit but more like 8 to bad 12.

[mcphee]

Mike says it well. The double implies 2 places to play and spades is one of them. As the range of the overcall (for me)is quite wide, in terms of values, I would have approximately 8+. Almost always 2 cards in partners suit.

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2014-September-29, 01:46, said:

All of what you said is great, except now you have 3 ways of raising hearts and no way to bid hands with values that can not pass and no heart fit.

The responsive double often forces to the 3 level, despite having no expectation of a fit. So I just give up on that possibility.

The cue bid is no longer a heart raise, it doesn't really have a specific meaning (if partner bids it, it probably means he forgot about the convention). So there are only 2 ways to raise hearts.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2014-September-29, 09:42, said:

The responsive double often forces to the 3 level, despite having no expectation of a fit. So I just give up on that possibility.

The cue bid is no longer a heart raise, it doesn't really have a specific meaning (if partner bids it, it probably means he forgot about the convention). So there are only 2 ways to raise hearts.

Every auction has to be defined in itself imo. For example the auction in OP does not force you to 3 level at all. Trying to make a formula that works for all auctions does not work. A pdship should either discuss all these positions or try to work it by logic if they are good. For example in the given auction I do not believe a good player would bid 3♣ with a balanced 3 card fit and 10-11 or bad 12 hcp. 2♥ is enough. Make it 4 card fit and things change. Or make it 12+ and/or unbalanced, you have to risk 3 level.
Giving up on hands with 12 hcp or so, with no fit is not going to end up happy either. You are now very vulnerable to be robbed on day light. There is a good chance they will happily play 2♣ unless you agree that overcaller will double regardless of his strength. This has its own problems including how to respond to that dbl. But if pd has stiff, it will come 3♣ in front of you sometimes. Now you just postponed your problem which came back at you a level higher. Letting them play at 2 level or even 3 level when they have a fit, and competing only when we have a fit in overcall suit and passing the rest does not seem a winning strategy to me.
And cue bid has to have a meaning. I can't believe a pdship would simply ignore this very important tool and assign no specific meaning to it. I thought you had 3 way to raise hearts. I do not like it, but even that seems much better than having 2 ways of raise and no meaning assigned to a cue.

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2014-September-29, 12:24, said:

Every auction has to be defined in itself imo. For example the auction in OP does not force you to 3 level at all.

True, when opener's suit is clubs, responsive double doesn't force to the 3 level. In all other cases, it does if partner prefers your minor. And with (1♥) - 1♠ - (2♥) - X, it always forces to the 3 level. That's why I said "often forces to the 3 level".

I've considered making the double be responsive when it's possible to pick a suit on the 2 level, and showing support in other cases. But that adds more complexity than we want to deal with.

Quote

And cue bid has to have a meaning. I can't believe a pdship would simply ignore this very important tool and assign no specific meaning to it. I thought you had 3 way to raise hearts. I do not like it, but even that seems much better than having 2 ways of raise and no meaning assigned to a cue.

I agree, it should mean something. We just haven't come up with a good use for it. One possibility would be for the double to show 3-card support, and the cue bid to show 4, since the LOTT gives us safety at the 3 level. But I'm not sure the complexity is worth it.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2014-September-29, 12:24, said:

For example in the given auction I do not believe a good player would bid 3♣ with a balanced 3 card fit and 10-11 or bad 12 hcp. 2♥ is enough. Make it 4 card fit and things change. Or make it 12+ and/or unbalanced, you have to risk 3 level.

Speaking for the "not so good" players: With the flat 10-count, I agree. With more and a 3-fit, I strongly disagree. Partner's 8-9 point overcalls will take care of themselves within the Law when we have a fit.

IMO, it is best to pretend your partner opened the bidding with 1H (and you have been given extra knowledge about their minor suit fit as a mere bonus). You have more than two ways to raise hearts (raise, cue, splinter, jump raise to 3 or four) and should use the appropriate one as if partner had an 11+ opening bid.

They have given you a responsive double which can be used much the same as a negative double would have been used if partner had opened. They have given you 2NT for some other meaning of your choice. Whether 2NT should be natural and invitational despite the opponents' alleged club fit, or a takeout with wilder distribution for the other two suits than a responsive double would indicate, is up to the partnership.

As a side matter, using 2NT as a mixed 4-card raise or somesuch raise seems to be a bad idea because it is below their suit and gives them tools. Using 3D as an artificial mixed 4-card raise seems better. 2D as a one-round force after this club raise is fine.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-29, 13:05, said:

Speaking for the "not so good" players: With the flat 10-count, I agree. With more and a 3-fit, I strongly disagree. Partner's 8-9 point overcalls will take care of themselves within the Law when we have a fit.

Aguaman...if you are going to talk about the law, at least have a little clue about what it actually is. Law has nothing to do with hcps to start with. 3 card fit is not good for 3 level. It is only good if you can not play at 2 level and they are about to play at 2 level an 8 card fit. In example, you are OK to bid 3♥ with only 8 card fit IF they are about to play 2♠. Even this is debatable depending on vulnerability and scoring.

I don't really mind how strong or weak you prefer your cue. But I think you need some more reading to do about so called "The Law" if you are really thinking that it will take care of your bids.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2014-September-29, 13:52, said:

Aguaman...if you are going to talk about the law, at least have a little clue about what it actually is. Law has nothing to do with hcps to start with. 3 card fit is not good for 3 level. It is only good if you can not play at 2 level and they are about to play at 2 level an 8 card fit. In example, you are OK to bid 3♥ with only 8 card fit IF they are about to play 2♠. Even this is debatable depending on vulnerability and scoring.

I don't really mind how strong or weak you prefer your cue. But I think you need some more reading to do about so called "The Law" if you are really thinking that it will take care of your bids.

You misunderstood the context of my law reference. I was merely saying that when we have a fit, the possibility overcaller might be short a King from an opening bid is something best ignored when describing our own degree of support. But, that's o.k. dig away at what I might or might not have a clue about.

It is 50/50 whether I am clueless at any given time, so if it gains you to point it out, fine. Amazing to jump on one word which might have been used too loosely. The real point was whether advancer with a fit should downgrade all his raises to allow for a light overcall or just proceed as if partner opened, and I vote the second choice. However, without a known fit advancer should downgrade.