[olien]

I 100% agree with 1♥. It keeps the bidding low and makes allowances for partner's possible off-shape t/o doubles. I like my partner to be able to double with 4=4=3=2 or similar with less than adequate ♣ support.

I don't understand these people that would pass 1♠ because 2 might be too high. These are the same people that would bid 2♣ on the previous round to avoid "distorting" major suit length. Isn't 2♣ likely to propel one too high? Also, because RHO couldn't find a bid over the X, isn't it likely that partner has a strong hand? Say he has a balanced 19 count and I chose to bid 2♣, wouldn't I prefer to play 1NT instead of 2NT? We can't play 1NT after I respond 2♣. Also, say you X and bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♠, would you pass that also? If you would, then you're playing partner to have about 17-19 HCP that don't work opposite yours with inadequate distribution and expecting partner to leap to 3♠ to show that hand which really cramps the auction and can make judging the correct game (3NT or 4♠) more difficult.

With these flat hands that are weak I prefer to respond in a 3-card major to a 4-card minor to partner's takeout X. Get in - Get out works well for me and its much easier to get out after a 1♥ bid. It won't be the end of the world if we play a ♥ contract on a 4-3 fit since my QJx of ♥ will make the suit a bit more solid opposite partner's ♥ support. Also, partner shouldn't be leaping around with a 4-card ♥ fit and a hand that's unsure about playing 3NT or 4♥. Partner should give the courtesy of a cue-bid and then support to offer a choice of games.

I would give the courtesy raise from 1♠ to 2♠ because my X and bid style is very conservative (my 1-level overcalls are about 7-18 HCP, and I know this isn't "standard"). Also, its unlikely the opponents are going to let us play 1♠, and if they balance are we not going to compete to 2♠ then? For those who play that 1♥ is natural and denies having as many as 8 or 9 points, the raise to 2♠ should show about 4-7(8) HCP and partner can still make game tries opposite that, but if we had a full invite opposite the X and 1♠ bid, could we not just bid 3♠ over 1♠? The 1♥ bid has also left us better placed as after our raise to 2♠ partner will be able to judge that we probably have some ♥ values.

[whereagles]

awm, on 2011-May-15, 14:31, said:

I'd bid 2♠. Something like ♠AKxxxx ♥Kxx ♦x ♣AKx will offer good play for game, and I don't think that's even necessarily a maximum for partner's sequence.

You're right. That's WAY over a max. It's a 2♠ jump rebid over 1♥.

I'd just pass, since pard is much more likely to have instead

♠AKxxx
♥Kxx
♦Qx
♣AKx

[whereagles]

olien, on 2011-May-17, 16:39, said:

I don't understand these people that would pass 1♠ because 2 might be too high.

It's not that 2♠ might be too high. It's just that pard, who's aching to bid, will fire away at what might be a hopeless game at the slightest excuse. And 2♠ might just be the excuse we needs.

Sure, in the end one might point out he hasn't a game bid over 2♠, but it's at table where the battle are won.

I'm ok with 1♥, by the way. Can also live with 2♣. It doesn't matter much.

[rhm]

Hanoi5, on 2011-May-15, 14:32, said:

Is 2♣ better than 1♥?

Yes
Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Rainer, 2♣ is ok but in the long run I think 1♥ is slightly better.

The reason is our weak hand antecipates a strong rebid by doubler, in which case we're better placed if we bid 1♥. Doubler's eventual rebid of 2♠/2NT over a 2♣ advance becomes 1♠/1NT over a 1♥, a whole 1 level below.

Sure, opener might be strong with 4 hearts and raise our response. Or his take out dbl is min and he has 3 hearts only. But, as you know, it's very frequent that opener has only 3 clubs, in which case 1♥ surely plays better than 2♣.

[rhm]

olien, on 2011-May-17, 16:39, said:

I 100% agree with 1♥. It keeps the bidding low and makes allowances for partner's possible off-shape t/o doubles. I like my partner to be able to double with 4=4=3=2 or similar with less than adequate ♣ support.

Trouble with this attitude is that given your weakness partner is likely strong and the next what is likely to happen is that partner will jump in ♥ or will over-compete in ♥ when opener rebids his ♦s. Of course if you knew that partner will next bid ♠ you may be better of bidding your 3 card ♥ suit.

Quote

I don't understand these people that would pass 1♠ because 2 might be too high.

2♠ is not the problem. 4♠is. Doubler is probably only waiting to hear 3 card ♠ support

Quote

These are the same people that would bid 2♣ on the previous round to avoid "distorting" major suit length. Isn't 2♣ likely to propel one too high? Also, because RHO couldn't find a bid over the X, isn't it likely that partner has a strong hand?

That's one reason why I do not like a 1♥ bid. This will only work if partner does not have ♥s

Quote

Say he has a balanced 19 count and I chose to bid 2♣, wouldn't I prefer to play 1NT instead of 2NT? We can't play 1NT after I respond 2♣.

Again this works only if partner does not have 4 cards in ♥s. See where you end up if he does. At the table probably in 4♥s maybe doubled.

Quote

Also, say you X and bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♠, would you pass that also? If you would, then you're playing partner to have about 17-19 HCP that don't work opposite yours with inadequate distribution and expecting partner to leap to 3♠ to show that hand which really cramps the auction and can make judging the correct game (3NT or 4♠) more difficult.

I think the rule is quite simple. Assume you have a good six card suit and a good hand. If you would still double and then bid your suit with one of your small cards in your long suit somewhere else you are strong enough to jump in your suit.
So all the hands suggested here are strong enough to jump in the ♠ suit.
Could you go down if partner passes 3♠? Of course you can. But this requires a misfit in ♠ and a very weak hand for partner.

Quote

With these flat hands that are weak I prefer to respond in a 3-card major to a 4-card minor to partner's takeout X. Get in - Get out works well for me and its much easier to get out after a 1♥ bid.

This is wishful thinking. Try to get out quickly if doubler has support for ♥s, which you should assume. With a supposed fit in a major doubler gets usually much more excited than with a fit in a minor. You are much more likely to get out quickly if you respond in a minor. Your philosophy is right, your bid not.

Quote

It won't be the end of the world if we play a ♥ contract on a 4-3 fit since my QJx of ♥ will make the suit a bit more solid opposite partner's ♥ support. Also, partner shouldn't be leaping around with a 4-card ♥ fit and a hand that's unsure about playing 3NT or 4♥. Partner should give the courtesy of a cue-bid and then support to offer a choice of games.

I do not mind 4-3 fits but the conditions must be right, usually that the 3 card suit takes the tap. Here the conditions are wrong.
Standard is that your suggested bidding sequences tend to show doubler to have a strong hand with 3 card support in ♥s.
You will have trouble sorting out when

1) doubler has 3 cards in ♥
2) advancer has 3 cards in ♥
3) when both have 4 cards in ♥s (because both sides may worry that their partner does not have 4 cards)
4) when doubler is interested in more than game.

Also assume you respond with 1♥ and doubler does in deed next cuebid 2♦. I wonder what your rebid will be and what you would have done instead over the cuebid with a weak hand and 5 cards in ♥, 4-5 in the majors, 4 cards in ♥ and 5 cards in ♣ and how doubler will ever know anything for certain about your distribution.

But assume doubler would like to bid very delicately. This could work if opponents keep quiet. What if opener bids 3♦ next?. I bet even your partner would jump to 4♥ with a 19 count and 4 cards in ♥.
This is by far not the worst scenario I can imagine. Doubler will be strong when he voluntarily jumps to game in ♥ and you might escape undoubled.
But assume doubler has a 15 count and 4 cards in ♥? I bet he will stretch a little bit and compete and next hand will double. A telephone number against nothing. Is this far-fetched looking at this hand?

Quote

I would give the courtesy raise from 1♠ to 2♠ because my X and bid style is very conservative (my 1-level overcalls are about 7-18 HCP, and I know this isn't "standard").

Oh it is standard, except that distribution counts for something. With a good strong six card suit few people would wait for 19 HCP.

Quote

Also, its unlikely the opponents are going to let us play 1♠, and if they balance are we not going to compete to 2♠ then? For those who play that 1♥ is natural and denies having as many as 8 or 9 points, the raise to 2♠ should show about 4-7(8) HCP and partner can still make game tries opposite that, but if we had a full invite opposite the X and 1♠ bid, could we not just bid 3♠ over 1♠? The 1♥ bid has also left us better placed as after our raise to 2♠ partner will be able to judge that we probably have some ♥ values.

Trouble of the courtesy raise is that doubler will expect more and will not stop in 2♠ when this is the likely limit. This hand is just too flat. If 4♠ is a good contract, doubler has clearly underbid. Better to pass and to raise when opponents do not let you play 1♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

What would people play: 1d x p 1h p 1s p 2d as?

My meta agreements seem to indicate that this should be a "good" spade raise in the context of an initial 1H response. If this is the case, then the courtesy raise really hardly shows anything at all. I would have raised to 2S and I really dont think it shows much. Would even make the courtesy raise on Hx spades sometimes in these sequences: Kx Kxxx would certainly be enough imo.

[whereagles]

What would people play: 1d x p 1h p 1s p 2d as?

This doesn't come up often, so people probably don't really have agreements on it. As such, it should have the general meaning of a cue-bid: "good hand in context". Not necessarily with spade support, though. It may have, it may not.

[olien]

So, partner has a balanced 19 count or so with 4♥. Shouldn't he bid 1NT over 1♥? If he hears that I have values next, he can then revert to ♥. Its not the most difficult thing in the world. And the odds that after the auction goes (1♦)-X-(p)-1♥// (2♦-2♥ that they will manage to X us after responder failed to find a response over the X are pretty slim. You are thinking "worst case scenario" and I'm thinking "get me out of dodge." I'm not saying that partner will never raise ♥, but the odds that he bids 1NT or 1♠ over 1♥ seem a bit higher.

And I still wait for my 19 count unless I have EXCEPTIONAL distribution. I don't always get to continue the auction at a nice comfortable level. For some reason, it seems the opponents like to preempt, but I'm guessing they don't preempt against you?

And I'm glad to know your name since you repeat it at the conclusion of every single one of your posts.

[aguahombre]

Again, answers are dependent on style of the partnership.

If my pard has six spades and even just barely too much to overcall (too much to overcall is 18+ in our style), she will rebid 2S, not 1. So, 1S merely shows 5 and too strong to overcall. There are double/cue/spades and double/3S available to show monsters with long spades.

As to the 1H response itself, IMO it is unprepared. What if doubler cues? had I taken out the double with my 4-card suit, 2H would be easy. Having bid 1H, I have equally distorted options: rebid the 3-bagger or bid 3C now.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-May-18, 10:21

[awm]

My definitions for these bids are roughly:

Simple overcall is about 8-16. Sometimes lighter with a really good suit or extra shape. Sometimes heavier with a very flat hand.
Double then bid my suit is abut 17-21. The low end often has a six card suit, the high end usually doesn't.
Double then jump in my suit is forcing one round (or to game, whichever is lower). It shows the equivalent of a 2♣ opening.

Apparently some of the other people posting have different sets of definitions. Several have suggested that double-then-jump could be as light as 17 points with a six card suit, and at least one person suggested that double-then-bid could be as light as a 14-count. I suppose if these are your agreements, passing 1♠ looks a lot better to you than it does to me.

Despite holding a pretty bad hand, it's quite possible that we can take two tricks (a heart trick, and eliminating a spade loser from partner's hand by virtue of holding three card support). This is plenty for a raise in my style. If I had only doubleton spade I would pass. If my queen of hearts were a small heart I would also pass. However, many of the examples given where game makes opposite the actual hand fall into my double-then-1♠ range, and the examples where game is bad (like flat 19-count) are very minimum double-then-1♠ hands for me and would pass 2♠ (which generally makes).

OTOH, I do disagree with Owen about doubler rebidding 1NT with four card heart support; I would never do this.

[gwnn]

just to clarify awm:

what would you do with


AKxxxx
Ax
ATx
AQ

(the actual hand)?

[gnasher]

whereagles, on 2011-May-18, 04:03, said:

Rainer, 2♣ is ok but in the long run I think 1♥ is slightly better.

The reason is our weak hand antecipates a strong rebid by doubler, in which case we're better placed if we bid 1♥. Doubler's eventual rebid of 2♠/2NT over a 2♣ advance becomes 1♠/1NT over a 1♥, a whole 1 level below.

That's a reason for responding 2♣. If we respond 1♥ and partner cue-bids 2♦, we're stuck for a bid. If we respond 2♣ and partner bids 2♦, we can comfortably bid 2♥, without any ambiguity about our length.

If we bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♠, I don't see any particular problem - we just pass, expecting him to make it. I'd be very surprised if 1♠ is the last contract makeable by either side.

[awm]

gwnn, on 2011-May-18, 10:21, said:

just to clarify awm:

what would you do with


AKxxxx
Ax
ATx
AQ

(the actual hand)?

Double and jump I think. It's basically the same question for me as "would I open 2♣ with this hand?"

Take away the club queen and I would double and bid 1♠ though, and game still has a bit of play.

[OleBerg]

I might bid an automatic 2♣ at the table, but have no problems with 1♥.

After that, I'd definitely raise to 2♠, and school any intermidiate+ player, who didn't. By bidding 1♥ we tend to have denied more than 8 points. Now instead of cuebidding (approx. 5-8 points), we make a simple raise (approx. 3-5 points). It's really that simple.

[the hog]

rhm, on 2011-May-18, 03:44, said:

Yes
Rainer Herrmann

No

[straube]

I agree with 1H. We play dbl is for the majors and doesn't promise length in the unbid minor, so bidding 2C may find us in a 4-1 fit. This style also has the advantage in keeping the auction lower in case partner has a prepared 1S or 1N rebid.

If partner cues, we rebid 2S which shows 3/3 specifically and not 4/5.

After 1D dbl P 1H P 1S I like 2S.

[rhm]

straube, on 2011-May-18, 19:35, said:

I agree with 1H. We play dbl is for the majors and doesn't promise length in the unbid minor, so bidding 2C may find us in a 4-1 fit. This style also has the advantage in keeping the auction lower in case partner has a prepared 1S or 1N rebid.

If partner cues, we rebid 2S which shows 3/3 specifically and not 4/5.

After 1D dbl P 1H P 1S I like 2S.

You can play whatever you like even that a double is penalty or you can play that double means: partner please bid 1♥ no matter what your distribution is or you can play partner choose between the majors in response to my double unless you would have overcalled in an unbid minor.
However, if somebody else poses a question and does not alert to a nonstandard agreement about his use of the double, what sense does it make to capture the problem and change it completely around to suit your nonstandard agreements?

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

gnasher, on 2011-May-18, 10:49, said:

1. That's a reason for responding 2♣. If we respond 1♥ and partner cue-bids 2♦, we're stuck for a bid.

2. If we respond 2♣ and partner bids 2♦, we can comfortably bid 2♥, without any ambiguity about our length.

3. If we bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♠, I don't see any particular problem - we just pass, expecting him to make it. I'd be very surprised if 1♠ is the last contract makeable by either side.

1. Why? Just complete the hand description with 2NT. Pard won't have less than a behemoth, so 2NT should be safe. Heck, since I not totally broke I might even bid 3NT

2. Honestly, the only good thing I see about the 2♥ reply to the cue is that it keeps the bidding low

3. Agree. 2♠ isn't the problem. Giving pard some rope might be, though.

By the way, for the record I'm ok with 2♣. I just think 1♥ may have some advantages. And if we had, say, 3343 we'd have to bid 1♥ anyway. Or do you prefer to bid 2♣ on that as well? (I can fathom some would.. )

[gnasher]

whereagles, on 2011-May-19, 04:41, said:

1. Why? Just complete the hand description with 2NT. Pard won't have less than a behemoth, so 2NT should be safe. Heck, since I not totally broke I might even bid 3NT
2. Honestly, the only good thing I see about the 2♥ reply to the cue is that it keeps the bidding low

In your preferred style, you bid 1♥-2♦;2NT, which is ambiguous about heart length, ambiguous about diamond stoppers, and doesn't even mention your longest suit.

In my style, I bid 2♣-2♦;2♥, showing:
- Usually 4+ clubs
- Exactly three hearts, nearly always including an honour
- No diamond stop

In my style, 1♥-2♦;2NT promises a diamond stop and will nearly always (see below) have four hearts.

You don't have to agree that this is best, but can you really see no advantages to this style?

Quote

By the way, for the record I'm ok with 2♣. I just think 1♥ may have some advantages. And if we had, say, 3343 we'd have to bid 1♥ anyway. Or do you prefer to bid 2♣ on that as well? (I can fathom some would.. )

With 3343 and a very weak hand, yes I tend to bid 2♣, because when you know that partner is likely to take strong action it's best not to introduce ambiguity about the majors. With xxx QJx Jxxx xxx I would probably bid 1♥, but with xxx xxx Jxxx QJx I'd certainly bid 2♣.