[rmnka447]

Put me in the 2 ♦ cue bid camp. Since the hand has already passed, it's important to convey to partner that you hold as good a hand as you can hold given the auction so far. It may useful information for partner to have both in terms of moving forward toward game or potentially doubling later in the auction.

The hand is right on the cusp of being an opening bid. You have 2 QTs and a potential stopper/trick in opener's ♦ suit. If you simply bid 2 ♠, I don't think doubler will ever be able to envision you holding that much. So you may miss out on game opposite some nice 13/14 counts when partner just can't move for fear of your having an 8 or 9 count.

[kenberg]

To the question what would I bid, I am sure I would bid 2♠. Which is not the same as saying I am sure that is right. If I held the North hand and partner, bid 2♠, I hope I would bid 3♦. The logic would be something like this:

North's double: Please tell me about a major if you have one

South's 2♠: I have spades and a decent hand

North's 3♦ over the 2♠: We are going to game, I am still not sure about strain.

My thoughts are that the first double indicates that North is prepared for any likely response and then the 3♦ suggests that South continue on is spades if he has five but at least consider another strain if he does not.

I realize the hand makes 7♣ and for that matter as the cards lie makes 7♠ (not a contract I would like to be in). I doubt I get to 7♣ but I would not be surprised to find myself in 6 with this approach.

I read the forum to learn, and I am more than willing to consider the arguments in favor of South starting with 2♦. I recall an old comment by Terrence Reese however: Bridge is easier if the players bid the suits that they have instead of the suits that they don't have.

As long as partner and I are on the same page that the double shows support for the majors but not always 4-4 and the jump to 2♠ shows a good hand with spades but not always five, I think we land on our feet here. I'm just not good enough to get to the grand after they open, whatever my syste, but I think I get to 6.

[helene_t]

By an unpassed hand, playing standard methods, I believe 2♠ would be weaker than 2♦ followed by 2♠, but some play both as showing about 8-11 points, the difference being that the slow route is a hand like this one while the fast route shows a less flexible hand, i.e. almost always longer spades. So when I said it was a "style issue" I didn't mean whether you evaluate the hand as a light or a heavy invite, but whether you want the 2♠ bid to suggest a 5-card suit or not. As a passed hand I think that both should show up to a max passed hand, so the difference should be about hand type, not about strength.

Now I hope this clarification doesn't cause anyone to regret having upvoted my previous post

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2014-February-05, 07:00, said:

Now I hope this clarification doesn't cause anyone to regret having upvoted my previous post

I understood what you mean the first time perfectly.

[kenberg]

"Style" covers a lot of ground. Here on the I/A forum I expect that there are others who, like myself, value simplicity. For example, not having my 2♠ mean one thing if I am a passed hand, something else if I am not, does not simplify things. Simply as a factual matter I cannot recall that I ever discussed this distinction with any partner that I have ever had. It follows that even if I treat the two situations as different (and I acknowledge that they are), my partner may well not be aware of my views on this.

I try really hard to never make a take-oiy double when I have only two cards in one of the majors unless I am quite confident I can control the subsequent auction. Similarly, I am reluctant to respond 2♦ here when I have only two hearts. For all I know my lho will bid 3♦ over my 2♦. We are now at the three level and partner has no idea that if he has Kxx of spades, four hearts, and a 14 count, I might well have a play for 3♠ but any number of hearts is hopeless. Maybe we can sort it out, maybe we can't, but I like my chances better if I start with 2♠.

No doubt I would reconsider my call with an 11 count and a spade suit such as Qxxx. If partner has a 13 count and a 3=4=2=4 shape I may not enjoy playing in spades. But with my current four card holding I may be able to manage, at least if the spade holding is Kxx. So, for me, 2♠ says that I think I can probably make eight tricks with spades as trump. Far more often than not, I believe that this will be true with my 11 count and strong four card spade holding. When he has extras, we can sort it out on our way to game.


I don't intend this to hijack the current interesting discussion of the proper response to the double. But I have long thought that style issues should begin with "style for whom?" Meckwell, playing together at the highest levels for thirty some years, probably encounter few auctions that they have not discussed. We who play at a different level have the experience quite often, and bidding spades to show spades can work well.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2014-February-05, 12:05, said:

bidding spades to show spades can work well.

Found a new quote for my tagline.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-05, 17:17, said:

Found a new quote for my tagline.

My wife does not play bridge, but she has listened to enough from me so that she immediately opined that this approach will never fly.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2014-February-05, 21:07, said:

My wife does not play bridge, but she has listened to enough from me so that she immediately opined that this approach will never fly.

Bidding spades to show spades is ok; it is bidding clubs to show clubs that has no chance.

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2014-February-03, 08:25, said:

One would surely have ways to find majors after 2NT (e.g. Stayman), right? I don't like 2S, prefer a 5-card suit if I'm going to eat loads of room.

2NT denies a four card major in principle. I suppose doubler could bid the opps' suit and then you could bid spades which partner would take as a good 3-card suit or maybe a very bad 4-card suit, but mostly he will just raise to 3NT if he has values for it.

I think 2NT is really wrong with this hand. Your spades are decent and your diamond stopper is questionable.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2014-February-03, 11:18, said:

Style is definitely important.

Would we double with, say, AQx AJx xx Kxxxx?

I'd be very reluctant to overcall on Kxxxx. I'd be very reluctant to pass with 14 hcp, support for the unbid suits, and shortness in diamonds. So I think I'd be stuck with an uncomfortable but clear double.

Then partner impales me further on my self-selected hook by cue-bidding. Unless I decide that I am now bidding a 3 card major, and I really....really....don't like that idea, I am endplayed into bidding 3♣.

I certainly would not overcall 2♣ but passing is always an option with a weak NT. If I did double with this shape then I would bid a major over the cue bid, as icky as you find it. Even if that leaves us in a Moysian it might be our best game. It is a rare enough problem that I can live with the downside. If 3♣ can be bid on this hand then what can you do with a genuine double and bid hand though? It seems like that cannot now explicitly be shown below 3NT, which is also not ideal. Of course that is a rare problem too.

I actually wrote the paragraph above a couple of days ok but held off on posting to check the system document from a while back (5-10 years) where this style got developed. I learned something I had forgotten from that in that we played this "better major" 2M advance as not forcing and limited to a max of 15hcp, mostly because the minor suit cue bid could be made with quite a weak hand that was just looking for the best strain. All other bids showed a strong hand type. As I recall this structure was inspired by ideas of my partner at that time. But even in a context where the cue is forcing to suit agreement it still feels to me that the upside beats the downside. It is just rare that one has to make a minimum take out double of a 1m opening without a 4 card major.

[Fluffy]

kenberg, on 2014-February-04, 21:18, said:

To the question what would I bid, I am sure I would bid 2♠. Which is not the same as saying I am sure that is right. If I held the North hand and partner, bid 2♠, I hope I would bid 3♦. The logic would be something like this:

North's double: Please tell me about a major if you have one

South's 2♠: I have spades and a decent hand

North's 3♦ over the 2♠: We are going to game, I am still not sure about strain.

It is very clear that 3♣ >>>>>> 3♦, which sshows same strength but gives more room and shows where you live. Never ask when you can show.

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on 2014-February-06, 04:38, said:

It is very clear that 3♣ >>>>>> 3♦, which sshows same strength but gives more room and shows where you live. Never ask when you can show.

I'm not so sure. After the X-2♠, I would take 3♣ to mean, approximately, forget about what I siad with the double, I am telling you now that I am interested in pursuing clubs. While I don't think 2♠ hows five, it certainly doesn't deny five, and while North is looking at six clubs, but they are pretty shaggy.

Suppose it goes X-2♠-3♦-3NT. I am not at all sure I recommend that 3NT bid rather than 4♣, but suppose it happens. Now North thinks: Pard appears to lack a fifth spade or a fourth heart, so unless he has a real freak he has some clubs. I have six clubs and a diamond void. I think we play in clubs. 4♣.
As I say, I think it may be tough to sort this out to get to 7 although I guess it has a good play even if South's hearts are xxx. But after 3NT-4♣ I think they reach 6, and maybe 7. Similarly, if over 3♦ South bids 4♣ it should go well.


The reason that I think 4♣ is better than 3NT over 3♦ is that at this point South does not know North has a 17 count. Good hand yes, 17 count no. So East could have a few points. The opening lead against 3NT might well be a small diamond from AJxxx. Or some variant. On the auction so far, five diamons in the West hand seems highly likely.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2014-February-06, 04:38, said:

Never ask when you can show.

I disagree with the premise but not the result. I think it is almost always better to ask providing you know the answer(s) you will get are what you need to know. A great example of this is RKCB (ask) versus cue bids (show). The problem with 3♦ is that we cannot be so sure that the answer we get is going to be completely helpful so involving partner seems like it should work out better.

[mcphee]

When I saw this hand I felt it was rather clear 2D bid, I want to express that I hold maximum values for my passed hand. Why this bid should show both majors is impractical. Facing a dble this is a hand that may make 4S, and 3NT is not entirely out of the photo. A 2S jump would be my second choice.

[phil_20686]

kenberg, on 2014-February-06, 06:58, said:

I'm not so sure. After the X-2♠, I would take 3♣ to mean, approximately, forget about what I siad with the double, I am telling you now that I am interested in pursuing clubs. While I don't think 2♠ hows five, it certainly doesn't deny five, and while North is looking at six clubs, but they are pretty shaggy.

Suppose it goes X-2♠-3♦-3NT. I am not at all sure I recommend that 3NT bid rather than 4♣, but suppose it happens. Now North thinks: Pard appears to lack a fifth spade or a fourth heart, so unless he has a real freak he has some clubs. I have six clubs and a diamond void. I think we play in clubs. 4♣.
As I say, I think it may be tough to sort this out to get to 7 although I guess it has a good play even if South's hearts are xxx. But after 3NT-4♣ I think they reach 6, and maybe 7. Similarly, if over 3♦ South bids 4♣ it should go well.


The reason that I think 4♣ is better than 3NT over 3♦ is that at this point South does not know North has a 17 count. Good hand yes, 17 count no. So East could have a few points. The opening lead against 3NT might well be a small diamond from AJxxx. Or some variant. On the auction so far, five diamons in the West hand seems highly likely.

3C is right I think. It should just show a "strong flexible hand". After the 2S bid showing some values, it should be GF.