[awm]

I'm sure without special agreements it's a strong hand with the minor. Obviously other agreements are possible (maybe even superior).

[ArtK78]

Without some special agreement to the contrary, the double followed by 2m must be stronger than a 2m overcall.

[pclayton]

I think this sequence is an exception to the normal "new suit after a double" routine.

I like making takeout doubles on 1=4=3=5 10-11 count. Do I have to sit by and watch pard struggle in 1N when 2m is going to be a a breeze? Or, we may have a fit in my fragment suit.

There are many ways to show a GOSH after 1N. 2 minor over 1N should be an exception to the regular rule in a good partnership.

[kenrexford]

IMO, the solution for auctions like this starts with reconstructing parallel auctions.

This auction parallels a canape auction of 1♥-1♠-1NT-P-2minor. In that sequence, I would take 2minor as non-forcing but potentially somewhat meaty. Call it "constructive" if you will.

Thus, I think this auction should show the same thing.

Now, obviously there are many differences between the two auctions, but the general philosophy seems similar enough.

[andy_h]

With no special agreements it's a strong minor hand. Maybe that can be used by 3m and 2m shows extras and allows more constructive bidding. But I wouldn't like it as a 'bail out' if I made a light T/O with (31)54, as we might not even have a fit and 1NT would be best.

[gnasher]

Where I come from (where SAYC and 2/1 are played mainly by tourists), without agreement it shows extras, but is non-forcing - something like a (41)(53) 15-count.

I think it's more useful as a correction of the contract.

[han]

I don't think it should. But I would assume so without prior discussion though.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes.

In theory, it would even be forcing to game,
as long as you only go via t/o with +17/18HCP.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[peachy]

I think it shows extras. Otherwise there would have been a 2m overcall instead of a TO Dbl. If "extras" now are "agreed as the default when no other agreements exist" and the 1NT advance was also standard 8--10-11 or so, logically the auction is now gameforcing.

[mikeh]

I have a specific agreement in my partnerships that this shows a weak hand... this is a far more useful treatment than using it as a strong hand.

For one thing, most of us tend to hold more weak hands than strong.

For another, most hands that are worth a (strong) 2 minor will be able to bid 2 or 3N, and those that are too strong for that, can cue-bid.

So on frequency and cost/benefit, weak prevails hands-down. However, undiscussed, I'd expect partner thought it was strong. BTW, I read the weak idea in a BW MSC, by Rubens I think.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 29 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

I have a specific agreement in my partnerships that this shows a weak hand... this is a far more useful treatment than using it as a strong hand.

For one thing, most of us tend to hold more weak hands than strong.

For another, most hands that are worth a (strong) 2 minor will be able to bid 2 or 3N, and those that are too strong for that, can cue-bid.

So on frequency and cost/benefit, weak prevails hands-down. However, undiscussed, I'd expect partner thought it was strong. BTW, I read the weak idea in a BW MSC, by Rubens I think.

By "weak," how weak? (Intended as drop dead or as NF but constructive?)

By "strong," how strong? (Intended as GF, or one-round force?)

[benlessard]

In MP i would think its GF because D is unlikely to be the best MP spot. With no discussion i would always assume that its strong and GF. In an regular partnership i can live with a 2D improve the contract with a (34)51 hand.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 29 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

I have a specific agreement in my partnerships that this shows a weak hand... this is a far more useful treatment than using it as a strong hand.

For one thing, most of us tend to hold more weak hands than strong.

For another, most hands that are worth a (strong) 2 minor will be able to bid 2 or 3N, and those that are too strong for that, can cue-bid.

So on frequency and cost/benefit, weak prevails hands-down. However, undiscussed, I'd expect partner thought it was strong. BTW, I read the weak idea in a BW MSC, by Rubens I think.

By "weak," how weak? (Intended as drop dead or as NF but constructive?)

By "strong," how strong? (Intended as GF, or one-round force?)

weak = weak (in context). Therefore PASS is the appropriate reaction, most of the time, and any 2N bidder or raiser should be shot as soon as the screen comes down (shooting through the screen is nowhere near as satisfying)






P.S. The reference to shooting is a JOKE.. please do not take it seriously... I realize that many Americans consider the use of firearms to be a constitutionally guaranteed right.. and one State has just passed a law that would allow a bridge player to carry a concealed semi-automatic weapon on his or her person during a tournament! The law isn't specific to bridge players, btw. It also applies to Directors

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Jul 3 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

P.S. The reference to shooting is a JOKE.. please do not take it seriously... I realize that many Americans consider the use of firearms to be a constitutionally guaranteed right.. and one State has just passed a law that would allow a bridge player to carry a concealed semi-automatic weapon on his or her person during a tournament! The law isn't specific to bridge players, btw. It also applies to Directors

Hany to hunt out those despicable cell phone users.