Jinksy

[hv=pc=n&n=sq8643hkqj96dj98c&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=3cpp]133|200[/hv] IMP teams. If you double, what do you do over a) 3M by partner, b) 3N by partner?

We were actually doing this. But it apparently didn't work :\ Need more sleep next time.

So if we both have to bid according to the system we started out believing the hand was, how are we supposed to deal with marginal bids? Eg P 'shows' a min with my major, and I'm somewhere between bidding game and passing it out. It seems impossible to be honest even with yourself in such a position - far less for any director to judge that you weren't.

2♥ was intended as inv+ relay.

You mean two-way, or pick one and pass/bid with the other? If two-way, is the idea that if they raise diamonds to the 4 level you can X again for penalties or now bid 4♥ showing equal length?

I am well aware of that. I asked if the second X should show something more specific than 'no 5-card major and values', and you said it should be something less specific, then apparently excluded 5cMs from your hands which double and specified that majors should be approximately equal length. That means you're claiming it should be more specific - unless you're claiming that 5cM hands should be doubling as well. This is how I think people typically use the bid, but it seems like an odd agreement. 'Relative length' is of far less use to the doubler in judging whether to push on than absolute length. If advancer bids 3♠ and the original double was on KQxx AQxxx x Qxx (or whatever you think marginal to bid again), it's going to affect his hand evaluation quite differently if, for eg he can rely on you having 5 spades, than if you can have (or have specifically shown) 4 spades and a small doubleton (or worse) in hearts. Perhaps it's worth playing this way because the pressure not doing so puts on other hands is too high (which is what this thread is about), but 'so you can show relative length' is not a good reason.

That would be more specific. If you have a five-card major (and any values), you surely bid it unless you're playing something particularly sophisticated (or you're exceptionally strong). If both majors are supposed to be the same length, what do you do with eg KQx x AJTx QTxxx after (1♦) X (3♦)? What about with Kxxx Ax xxx KJTx? If you bid 3♠ on that, is there any point in Xing with eg Kxxx KJxx xxx Ax? P ideally wants to know what your spade holding is when you bid 3♠, not what your heart holding isn't.

Last night, my P opened 2♦, announced by me as 'weak to intermediate with five or more diamonds'. I responded 2♥, which P alerted. When LHO asked about the meaning of 2♥, my P looked uncomfortable and said 'I'll have to step away from the table to explain it to you' - which prompted me to remember we'd adopted the multi 2♦. Fortunately, my 2♥ was passed out, so I didn't have any ethical dilemma. But suppose P had corrected to 2♠, or the opps had acted and I'd had another call. What are my obligations now? Am I supposed to attempt to recreate a full auction faithfully, all the way to 7N (for a slightly extreme example) on the assumption that I would never have remembered our actual system? Or does one of us get forced to pass throughout? Or something else?

Do you have any suggestions for a better use of it?

(1m) X (3m) X Or should it be something more specific?

Does a natural 3N bid ever come up, btw? It feels like it's going to be super-rare that the hand won't play better in at least one possible major if responder has tolerance for either, or a long minor if he doesn't have tolerance for either.

What would double typically be after the opps bid? After 2♦ (2♥), X for TO seems a bit pointless (could be to minors I suppose, but I'm guessing there are better uses - outright penalty?).

The full hand is far too silly to demonstrate anything, but here it is for posterity: [hv=pc=n&s=skqt95h942dkt8ck8&w=shak876dq942ca632&n=shqt3dj7653cj9754&e=saj876432hj5dacqt&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2hppp]399|300[/hv] After getting the most tedious bunch of balanced crap I've ever had in a single session, I picked up the east hand and thought 'finally, I get some action'... Somehow our teammates managed to reach 5♦x. I was afraid to ask.

IMO west should have bid hearts at either his second or third call, depending on your X-then-bid style. What's the point of 4♦? It forces you to the four level anyway, and you wouldn't be doing it without the KH as insurance, so why not let P in on the secret?

But we're playing weak only multi, so this sounds irrelevant.

Why is this? Surely 90% of the time you'd prefer responder to declare? (the rest I'll digest later)

Thanks all. What about slower auctions, eg: 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2N Or similar, but instead of 2N, 3m (or 3M)? Also 2♦ 2N 3♣ 3♦/♠

I also don't have a strong feeling either way, but I would add one more for bidding: - 2H is moderately preemptive. It's conceivable they'll want to bid the minors.

One of my favourites of ours: 2N 3N 4D 4N 5N 6H 6H was =, and the only natural bid in the auction :)

[hv=pc=n&w=shak876dq942ca632&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s]133|200[/hv] IMP teams. No pressure... but a lot rides on this.

We're thinking of taking up a weak only multi 2D, but I've looked at half a dozen pages via Google and hit nothing designed for the weak only option (and the stuff for the normal multi doesn't seem terribly convincing). Is there an expert standard here? In particular, does responder have any sensible way of showing a long major of his own without gameforcing in the process?

Well for eg you might think E is favourite to have the KS for his spade length, and play ace and another spade after a heart lead to reduce the chance of a ruff. I don't think it's the right play, but 'easily' seems like an overbid.

Here's the full hand. You might not agree with N/S bidding, though I can imagine what they were both thinking (assuming I'm right about the 3♥ meaning). In some sense it was successful here - I led a heart, and many declarers went off in 4♠ (though deep finesse says the latter should make): [hv=pc=n&s=sjt8ha83da9864cq3&w=sk943h6d532ck9862&n=saq752hkq4dqj7ct7&e=s6hjt9752dktcaj54&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1s2h3hp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

This is what I would have assumed without discussion. As a general heuristic it feels like passed hands that suddenly come in at the 3-level or higher would be fit, though 2-level bids can probably get away with being a constructive max pass. I'd be curious if people can offer a good modification of the heuristic, or a clear reason about why it shouldn't apply here.

Weak NT, 10-13 point 2-bids, stronger 1-bids.