Awkward response to negative double

[helene_t]

1♦-(2♣)-x-(pass)

?

 

KQx-KJx-KJxx-xxx

 

Playing 5-card majors, strong notrump. Assume forcing freebids if it matters.

[LBengtsson]

If you play strong NT with 5M and this bidding sequence, partner should realise that you might have this 3343 (weak NT) hand. That's why players prefer a 1♣ opening here. 2♦ is a false bid, promising 5+ ♦. 2♥ is better response to the neg X imo as you've been forced to bid, and partner should not expect 4♥ here. (Though one for partnership discussion and agreement.)

 

Btw The negative X bidder does not promise 4M in either ♥/♠ but a hand with values to bid, but with no obvious bid.

[DavidKok]

Another day another problem over either 1♦-(P)-2♣ or 1♦-(2♣). I would introduce artificial responses over both.

[helene_t]

Another day another problem over either 1♦-(P)-2♣ or 1♦-(2♣). I would introduce artificial responses over both.

Yup. For example, Han Peters suggested that dbl shows 4+ spades (with hearts and diamond tolerance but less than 4 spades he bids 2♦) and then you don't have this problem.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=skq8hkj9dkj75c953&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1D(3+ !D)2CD(Neg)P?)]200|300|

Helene_T 'Playing 5-card majors, strong notrump. Assume forcing freebids if it matters.

 

IMO, here 2♦ = ART Catchall. Might be 2 or 3 cards. Denies 4 card M.

To avoid devising a weirder structure :([/hv]