No good bid?

[mikeh]

What about dbl-2M-3♦?

 

I believe most experts would treat this sequence as stronger (in HCP) than an immediate 3♦.

I am not sure I want to force to an 11 trick game. Certainly not via a direct 3♣ bid.

 

Anyway I would be surprised if the vast majority of an expert panel like MSC of the Bridge World would not start with a responsive DBL nowadays.

A modern responsive DBL over a minor guarantees both majors only if the hand is modest. Otherwise it tends to shows a strong hand with no clear direction.

 

Rainer Herrmann

I've never been on the BW MSC, tho friends, partners and teammates have, so I may be incorrect, but I do disagree with you. I agree with Frances.

 

Maybe the problem should be submitted to the BW :D

 

However, I cancelled my subscription when I retired from playing. So someone else needs to do it.

[rhm]

For me, dbl - 2S - 3D shows hearts and diamonds, NF. How else would you show a 2=4=5=2 decent (but not game forcing) hand.

 

By the way, why do you think that saying you believe the 'vast majority of an expert panel would dbl' is any more or less convincing than simply saying you think double is correct?

I would simply bid hearts (keeping the diamonds in reserve) when I can not force to game and not stress diamonds when my partner makes a takeout double of a minor.

Little point in reaching the three level voluntarily in hearts when I can not force to game.

 

With regard to the last point there was a prior discussion in this thread what a responsive double showed or not showed.

That is just my impression what the MSC in the US would do with this hand. They would start with a DBL. Of course my assessment could be wrong.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

It seems to me that playing a double here to promise 4-4 in the majors makes one the member of a lunatic cult.

 

Why on earth would one wish to place such a bizarre restriction on the most economical call?

[mikeh]

It seems to me that playing a double here to promise 4-4 in the majors makes one the member of a lunatic cult.

 

Why on earth would one wish to place such a bizarre restriction on the most economical call?

Well, if you read the history of virtually any convention, you would see that very few are played these days as their inventors and early adopters intended. For example, such a list would definitely include:

 

a) stayman

b) negative doubles

c) drury (didn't promise a fit when 1st invented!)

 

 

Even conventions that have largely retained their meaning have evolved in significant ways. Weak Two Bids were just coming into vogue in the late 1950's and early 1960's. BW reports on Bermuda Bowls back then would make the current player laugh at the hand types that were opened, by world class players, back then.

 

The point is that it is easy to mock how some people play conventions if one is ignorant of the history. Responsive doubles of minor suit raises were classically played as promising both majors because it was felt that one would usually/always bid the single major if held, because traditional takeout doubles of 1m always had either a big hand or both majors, and none of this 4333 14 count stuff.

 

When I was learning to play, there was a lot of support in the literature about passing in 2nd seat with balanced 13-14 counts, rather than entering the auction via a double. In that context, the responsive double as promising both majors made a lot of sense.

 

Nowadays, it is considered routine to double with at least mildly offshape minimum opening hands, and so the responsive double should, in such a partnership, become more flexible.

 

That doesn't make it the correct call on the OP hand. I am with Frances, if I understand her correctly, in that while the double should deliver (at least) 2 suits, it doesn't mean that doubling then bidding the minor should be forcing.

 

My main point, however, is that it is erroneous to criticize bidding ideas without understanding the context. There are still some players who would not double in the modern style, and for those players, using the responsive double to promise both majors is sensible, not bizarre. You make well take issue with the takeout double style, but that is another topic entirely.

[Aardv]

3♣ is the right call. Double promises two suits. After 3♣ partner should bid 3NT with a club stop in preference to showing a 4-card major.

[rhm]

3♣ is the right call. Double promises two suits. After 3♣ partner should bid 3NT with a club stop in preference to showing a 4-card major.

Many would bid 3♣ with 5-5 in the majors.

Why DBL should show two suits but 3♣ only strength escapes me.

Sensible agreements make bids, which consume bidding space (3♣) specific and cheap bids (DBL) less so.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

Many would bid 3♣ with 5-5 in the majors.

Why DBL should show two suits but 3♣ only strength escapes me.

Sensible agreements make bids, which consume bidding space (3♣) specific and cheap bids (DBL) less so.

 

Rainer Herrmann

wow

 

Firstly we have PK deploring the fact that anyone would use double to promise specifically the majors (I agree with that criticism, but have pointed out why it was at one time standard to play it that way) and now we have you suggesting we reserve the only clearly forcing call for 5-5 majors! I guess you and PK won't be compatible partners :D

 

Since the cue unambiguously shows a BIG HAND, which no other call shows, it is probably most efficient to use it for that purpose: a big hand, more description to follow.

[Zelandakh]

Mike, what I assume Rainer means is that 3♣ is initially pick a major but that the message of a major 2-suiter can be cancelled later on rare occasions. Much as a cue is used in some other condensed auctions. This seems like a perfectly sensible approach to me.

[Aardv]

Do you want to be able to play in 3NT with say QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax opposite xx AQx AKxxx 10xx? If so, one of double and 3♣ has to ask the initial doubler to bid NT if possible as his first priority.

[Zelandakh]

Do you want to be able to play in 3NT with say QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax opposite xx AQx AKxxx 10xx? If so, one of double and 3♣ has to ask the initial doubler to bid NT if possible as his first priority.

Why is that you think a double followed by 3♣ the following round cannot be used for this purpose?

[Aardv]

Why is that you think a double followed by 3♣ the following round cannot be used for this purpose?

 

It could, but it's inferior to ask the initial doubler to start bidding his majors on a hand that doesn't want to know about them. It's better to use double then cue for a forcing two-suiter.

[Zelandakh]

It could, but it's inferior to ask the initial doubler to start bidding his majors on a hand that doesn't want to know about them. It's better to use double then cue for a forcing two-suiter.

Is it? Is this not a perfect way to handle a hand with one major that wants to play in 4M opposite a fit but 3NT without a fit and with a stopper? The approach allows for this hand as well as a wide variety of others to be handled. The only time you are signficantly disadvantaged is holding the major 2-suiter when partner has a 4 card major, as the fit is found a level higher. Meanwhile, how are you checking for both a major fit and a stopper if the only stopper ask is a direct 3♣?

 

From a theory point of view, it is often better to combine hands that need to find out similar information together. That the stopper ask has some cross-over with hands holding a 4 card major makes the efficiency not worse and potentially significantly better. Writng that something is inferior does not make it so - you also have to provide evidence.

[Aardv]

Is it? Is this not a perfect way to handle a hand with one major that wants to play in 4M opposite a fit but 3NT without a fit and with a stopper? The approach allows for this hand as well as a wide variety of others to be handled. The only time you are signficantly disadvantaged is holding the major 2-suiter when partner has a 4 card major, as the fit is found a level higher. Meanwhile, how are you checking for both a major fit and a stopper if the only stopper ask is a direct 3♣?

 

From a theory point of view, it is often better to combine hands that need to find out similar information together. That the stopper ask has some cross-over with hands holding a 4 card major makes the efficiency not worse and potentially significantly better. Writng that something is inferior does not make it so - you also have to provide evidence.

 

Well, nothing is perfect and perhaps I was too dogmatic.

 

But if I understand you correctly, you want to double then cue both with the hand in the OP and with one 4-card major in a balanced hand without a stopper. In that case, how is the original doubler to know what to do after the cue bid with the ordinary-looking hand I mentioned - QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax ?

[Zelandakh]

But if I understand you correctly, you want to double then cue both with the hand in the OP and with one 4-card major in a balanced hand without a stopper. In that case, how is the original doubler to know what to do after the cue bid with the ordinary-looking hand I mentioned - QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax ?

Not sure I follow. They show a 4 card major. Then partner can ask for the stopper by bidding 3♣. You are losing the ability to use this to set hearts (or spades on another hand) as was previously mentioned, which is potentially inconvenient on those occasions when you want to go slamming.

[mike777]

btw just wanted to add this, granted this is old fashion bidding from Al Roth. He does not play responsive doubles after a t/o x, only on after an overcall. Double here would be penalty.

 

Again on this hand I would bid a gf 3c, we are vul.

[PhilKing]

I have to admit, I quite like the Cyberyeti 2NT showing an unidentified GF one suiter.

[jallerton]

Not sure I follow. They show a 4 card major. Then partner can ask for the stopper by bidding 3♣. You are losing the ability to use this to set hearts (or spades on another hand) as was previously mentioned, which is potentially inconvenient on those occasions when you want to go slamming.

 

I agree with Aardv. Double followed by 3♣ asks partner to make a sensible call, generally this will mean bidding another suit because the first suit suggested did not find favour. After 1♣-dbl-2♣-dbl-Pass-2♥-Pass, to reserve 3♣ for slam tries in hearts when the doubler is limited by the failure to jump is making very poor use of the available bidding space.

[jallerton]

I have to admit, I quite like the Cyberyeti 2NT showing an unidentified GF one suiter.

 

It's even better to bid 3♣ on these hands: sometimes the Cyberyeti method will wrong side NT. 2NT could be used to show a decent hand suggesting that the partnership tries for game in NT declared by the 2NT bidder.

[PhilKing]

It's even better to bid 3♣ on these hands: sometimes the Cyberyeti method will wrong side NT. 2NT could be used to show a decent hand suggesting that the partnership tries for game in NT declared by the 2NT bidder.

 

I doubt it wrong sides it very often. If we end in 3NT, perhaps we have the stop, and perhaps the relevant card is (shock), in the hand s of he opening bidder. In principle, the strong hand should be on lead versus 3NT. Meanwhile, we get to use the cue as a very distributional hand. This can be crucial if the next hand is planning a jump.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with Aardv. <and> After 1♣-dbl-2♣-dbl-Pass-2♥-Pass, to reserve 3♣ for slam tries in hearts when the doubler is limited by the failure to jump is making very poor use of the available bidding space.

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me. I am not sure what I wrote that suggested this was the usage I thought was best within the context being discussed. Indeed, I thought I had specifically pointed out that was not the best usage - it had been suggested further upthread. And given that we have this X + cue sequence available to gather extra information, do we really need a direct cue for a similar purpose?

[jallerton]

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me. I am not sure what I wrote that suggested this was the usage I thought was best within the context being discussed. Indeed, I thought I had specifically pointed out that was not the best usage - it had been suggested further upthread. And given that we have this X + cue sequence available to gather extra information, do we really need a direct cue for a similar purpose?

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but how do you propose the doubler bids on Aardv's example hand (both 4-card majors plus a club stop)? If he bids 2♥ over the responsive double, what does he bid on the next round over your 3♣ cue? How do you investigate both the 4-4 ♠ fit and the club stop?

[Zelandakh]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but how do you propose the doubler bids on Aardv's example hand (both 4-card majors plus a club stop)? If he bids 2♥ over the responsive double, what does he bid on the next round over your 3♣ cue? How do you investigate both the 4-4 ♠ fit and the club stop?

You show the stop. If partner doubled looking for a spade fit they could have bid some number of spades over 2♥, no?

[jallerton]

Well, over 2♥, 2♠ is just a weakish hand competing with 4 spades and 4+ diamonds. We could jump to 3♠ over 2♥, but (i) it takes up a lot of room and (ii) are we sure that partner will interpret it as forcing rather then invitational?

[Zelandakh]

Well, over 2♥, 2♠ is just a weakish hand competing with 4 spades and 4+ diamonds. We could jump to 3♠ over 2♥, but (i) it takes up a lot of room and (ii) are we sure that partner will interpret it as forcing rather then invitational?

It takes up a lot of room but not more room than the proposed alternative of bidding 3♣ followed by 3♠.

[Vampyr]

c) drury (didn't promise a fit when 1st invented!)

 

I still play that.