[rduran1216]

2nd day of a 2 day swiss

---

agree with 3S,...what now?

[Free]

pass

[aguahombre]

No, and Pass. I don't know what you had available other than 3S, or whether you treated the hand as a game force, but we could have shown our two suits with invitational values, via double then 2S if their suit is hearts. We don't know their suit is hearts, and we might have had some fun if it were spades.

[dkham]

Happy with 3♠, definitely pass now. Opener only has two spades, and has suggested a heart stop by bidding 3NT (though he may have been a bit stuck for a bid).

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-09, 11:31, said:

No, and Pass. I don't know what you had available other than 3S, or whether you treated the hand as a game force, but we could have shown our two suits with invitational values, via double then 2S if their suit is hearts. We don't know their suit is hearts, and we might have had some fun if it were spades.

How likely is that given that our side has at least 7 cards in spades and they have at least 8 cards in hearts?
Without hindsight I would have been more worried that they have a cheap save in hearts against our likely spade game.

As the bidding went you now have no option. Your partner bid 3NT knowing that RHO is having long hearts and will usually lead them.
With a poor holding in hearts he might have raised even with a doubleton spade or bypassed 3NT. I do not consider 4♣ or 4♦ a cuebid agreeing spades in this context.
Opener often has hands where he neither fancies 3NT nor can raise spades. Your 3♠ implied that you did not fancy defending a heart contract.
Without double dummy leads given that your singleton is the queen of hearts, this will often create another stopper for your side, but will be worthless in a suit contract.
Looking for a high level ♦ contract is a very long shot now.

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

How likely is that given that our side has at least 7 cards in spades and they have at least 8 cards in hearts?
Without hindsight I would have been more worried that they have a cheap save in hearts against our likely spade game.
-- Rainer Herrmann

***
How likely is it that given 2D: MM and double
intends penalty against at least one major that
we won't find Sp:5-3 fit? AND keeping a rare
bonanza when they step into Spades.
I would hate the disaster of 4H failing against
their 5xH in 2D when we had a penalty vs 2S/3S.

[aguahombre]

rhm, on 2012-July-10, 04:09, said:

How likely is that given that our side has at least 7 cards in spades and they have at least 8 cards in hearts?
Without hindsight I would have been more worried that they have a cheap save in hearts against our likely spade game.

As the bidding went you now have no option. Your partner bid 3NT knowing that RHO is having long hearts and will usually lead them.
With a poor holding in hearts he might have raised even with a doubleton spade or bypassed 3NT. I do not consider 4♣ or 4♦ a cuebid agreeing spades in this context.
Opener often has hands where he neither fancies 3NT nor can raise spades. Your 3♠ implied that you did not fancy defending a heart contract.
Without double dummy leads given that your singleton is the queen of hearts, this will often create another stopper for your side, but will be worthless in a suit contract.
Looking for a high level ♦ contract is a very long shot now.

Rainer Herrmann

Not sure why you quoted my post in this reply. It doesn't have much to do with what I said.

[paulg]

Pass. Unless partner alerted three spades and described it as asking for a stop, when I expect South maintained that four diamonds was completely obvious.

[kenrexford]

The methods suck. When Two Diamonds shows either major, a negative double has less appeal, imo. I would rather play systems on, assuming Three Clubs as Puppet, and with double as a transfer to hearts. Tons easier to bid these hands that way.

An alternative would be criss-cross like. Two hearts as a spade transfer. Two spades as hearts and invitational plus. Double as negative. The theory there is that you never get to play Two Hearts anyway.

With the actual methods, you get to bid your weak heart hands more easily and to make a negative double, but your bidding with this hand type is hopelessly fraught with guesswork if not a fit.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-10, 05:23, said:

Not sure why you quoted my post in this reply. It doesn't have much to do with what I said.

What I wanted to say is that I deem it nearly a Bridge certainty that their suit is hearts and I see tactical advantages in not making it too easy for opponents to get together. I do not think it is winning Bridge to give opponents all the room they need to asses their fit.

I admit that 3♠ is not ideal either. I do not mind forcing to game, but the spade suit is a bit barren for 3♠ and diamonds are likely to fall by the wayside.

If you double and then bid 2♠ over 2♥, if that is an invite, it's only a weak invite.
Opener may come to the conclusion that you were interested in doubling them if they had bid spades, but now you are competing for the part-score.

Your options are limited when they interfere over your notrump.
I like to play Rubensol.

I would transfer into diamonds with 3♣ and then bid 3♠. Not ideal either.
This does not show the fifth spade, but it is clearly an invite and partner is unlikely to pass with less than 4 cards in spades, giving you a chance to rebid spades though I would pass 3NT. With 4 cards in spades opener will raise.

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

kenrexford, on 2012-July-10, 06:12, said:

An alternative would be criss-cross like. Two hearts as a spade transfer. Two spades as hearts and invitational plus. Double as negative. The theory there is that you never get to play Two Hearts anyway.

But you still want to be able to show them if you are less than invitational in case partner can compete.

[aguahombre]

O.k. What I was trying to describe is that this (showing one unknown major) situation is not the same as other auctions where a double might be best used as "negative", or part of a transfer scheme.

We have the ability to use the bid to our advantage. We don't have to bid at all if we have weakness and no long suit (heresy, I know), or we can just bid our weak hand with a major and use 2NT for weakness with a long minor.

We don't need a double to start a cooperative penalty sequence for one of their suits, because there is only one of their suits. Double can be used to show length in the suit doubled and at least invitational values.

In the given case, after we double to show diamond length we can bid spades to show spade length. The level at which we do that would depend to how we value our hand. I happen to think this hand is two-suited and invitational. Others think it is game forcing.

Everyone seems to agree that after the game-forcing 3S bid in the OP, we must pass now and forget the diamond suit. If I thought my hand was game-forcing, I could have doubled to show diamond length, and then jumped to 3S to show spade length.

[kenrexford]

lalldonn, on 2012-July-10, 10:21, said:

But you still want to be able to show them if you are less than invitational in case partner can compete.

True, which is why I prefer simple -- double is a transfer, 2♥ is a transfer, 2♠ is one or both minors (Opener bids 2NT to prefer diamonds), 3♣ is Puppet, 3♥/3♠ is 31/13 with 4-5/5-4 in the minors.

That structure, which parallels my regular structure, seems to work really well for me, because most hand types are easy to handle, and you get to check on stoppers.

The one obvious omission is the 3♦ call, which would normally show 5-5 in the majors. Although that is technically possible, that meaning seems dumb. I suppose you might play 3♦ as a heart transfer and reserve double as negative without terribly ruining the structure, but then you lose out on the heart competitive hands (or must gamble). I would instead prefer 3♦, if I could define this, as perhaps an immediate 3NT invite with a major-suit hole (3NT promising both stops) and asking for stops up-the-line.

[lalldonn]

Yes even though I don't play your exact system I agree with the general principle of leaving your system on over this 2♦ bid so long as it includes puppet stayman, which mine also does.

[benlessard]

I much prefer to keep the X of 2D for optimizing my opportunities of doubling them in 2M.

X = neg (invite with a long m or at least 3 in both M), further X are penalties.
2M to play
2Nt clubs weak or GF
3C D weak or GF
3D = H INV+
3H = S INV+
Pass and bid show some pts
-------------
Between X showing H or showing diamonds I prefer showing the diamonds because the frequency is going to be doubled.

[Zelandakh]

One option I could envisage here is to show hearts or a minor immediately but to leave spades in the double plus some hands that would rather find out which major Overcaller has before acting. The idea is that when we have hearts or a minor we need to act immediately to avoid getting preempted but if we hold spades then we do not need to fear the opponents' hearts. Something like:

X = spades, or hands that want to delay acting
2♥ = weak, natural
2♠ = range ask, or clubs
2NT = diamonds
3♣ = Puppet Stayman
3♦ = hearts, INV+
3M = splinter, GF
3NT = to play

No idea how that would in practise though.