[awm]

First seat, IMPs.

♠K
♥KJxx
♦T9x
♣AKQxx

The auction so far, playing 2/1 with strong notrump:

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♠(1)
PA - 3♦ - 3♥ - PA
??

(1) Limit raise or better of diamonds

[whereagles]

You have to bid over 2♠, in order to show you have more than a minimum opener. Dbl seems adequate.

Having passed, you can now show your good hand in context with 4♦. However, unless opps are joking, pard has merely some sort of distributional 5-5 and is unwilling to sell out, even though he's weakish. I don't think he can have AQ AQ in the majors, so I'm just going to bid 4♥ here and bury the (unlikely) slam.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2011-July-04, 13:49, said:

You have to bid over 2♠, in order to show you have more than a minimum opener. Dbl seems adequate.

I don't think double would have been right, even if we don't use support doubles in this situation to show 3-card spade support.

Pass on the second round is o.k. There are not enough points in the deck to worry about it.

Now that partner as bid again with 3H, opener has a mountain in context and must bid 4H. Maybe LT 4D is better, but I am not up to it.

[karlson]

4♥ seems normal to me.

[wank]

partner shouldn't take us for more than this given our pass over 2♠, so it seems churlish not to try 4♦ lest partner have something such as A, AQ, singleton. of course it would be foolish to go beyond game.

[whereagles]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-04, 15:46, said:

1. I don't think double would have been right, even if we don't use support doubles (...)

2. Pass on the second round is o.k. There are not enough points in the deck to worry about it.

1. Why would dbl not be right? We support hearts, clubs, extras.. seems quite ok to me. And please, let's stop this nonsense about support dbls. We got enough conventions of C/F/G lore already.

2. Sorry, but I think pass is a very serious timing error. You have to bid NOW, to show the competitive shape and extras. As it happened at table we were quite lucky because pard managed to scrap up a bid, but he imagine he had passed 3♦: we'd be totally in the dark as to what to do!!!

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2011-July-04, 17:31, said:

1. Why would dbl not be right? We support hearts, clubs, extras.. seems quite ok to me. And please, let's stop this nonsense about support dbls. We got enough conventions of C/F/G lore already.

I don't know what C/F/G means, and don't play support doubles either. But, enough people do that double is not an option to them. For the rest of us, I don't think double can mean exactly what we want it to mean, depending on what we hold at the time.

If you are comfortable with a double on the previous round, that is fine. I just don't happen to be, and don't know that a double would show that hand even if I agreed that I have significant extra strength.

[whereagles]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-04, 18:40, said:

1. I don't know what C/F/G means, and don't play support doubles either.

2. But, enough people do that double is not an option to them.

3. For the rest of us, I don't think double can mean exactly what we want it to mean, depending on what we hold at the time. (...) If you are comfortable with a double on the previous round, that is fine. I just don't happen to be, and don't know that a double would show that hand even if I agreed that I have significant extra strength.

1. Cap*******/Fla*****/Ger***. [*] = censored

2. So they're stuck. Serves them right for playing a convention that's totally unsuitable for usage in a 5-card majors scenario.

3. I don't want it to mean anything more than it's usual definition: support for unbid suits and a will to compete. I find it quite puzzling that you don't think our hand fills those requriements. But hey, to each his own kitchen...

[aguahombre]

Well, we agree that we don't like capp, Flannery, Gerber, and support doubles for our styles.
I could probably name a few more which old folks like me don't find good to use. Well, Gerber rarely, but ..... (Like 4-way xfers, 2-way NMF, J2n, and most "stolen bid" calls).

We just disagree on the value of the opening bid at the point where it comes around the second time.

[MrAce]

I agree with first pass and i would bid 4♦ now for the reasons that are already mentioned.

[pooltuna]

What action to take now depends on your negative double agreements in this auction. Specifically what is the upper limit of a 54xy hand for a negative X. Do you even make negative doubles with that holding? Does 3♥ in the OP's auction show a stopper or a suit?

[benlessard]

WTP 4C, 4C cant be natural here since i didnt bid 3C previously. Depending on your method partner show a specific number of cards in the M (I like to double 1D with 5S/5H so for me partner show 6S4H and slam is not out of reach.

[awm]

I guess this is a bit of a style question. It seems that if responder is 5/4 in the majors, he would probably double 3♦ (if a good hand) or pass 3♦ (otherwise) since coming in at the three-level with neither shape nor strength is ill-advised. So this sequence should be a 5/5 or 6/5 hand. The question is whether it's a good hand, a bad hand, or something in between. I don't think the fact that opponents "showed values" should have much effect here; people bid on junk all the time and if we give up showing good hands whenever the opponents showed values we will lose a lot of game swings.

So the question is, how do you bid a good 5+/5+ versus a bad one? Does one tend to double first and the other to bid the suits? Do you have to double 3♦ with the good hand and hope for the best? My view is that a bad hand might double 1♦ and then bid a suit at the three-level, and that the choice to bid 1♠ and follow with a heart bid should show real values, but obviously some play differently...

[semeai]

whereagles, on 2011-July-04, 17:31, said:

Why would dbl not be right? We support hearts, clubs, extras.. seems quite ok to me.

I would not take this double as any sort of takeout. The opponents have cuebid a suit partner originally bid. My default would be that doubling such a cuebid shows that suit, i.e. some spades here, but without the desire to bid 3S or higher. Ostensibly then it would be decent hands with 3 spades and maybe some very poor hands with 4 cards or maybe rarely some hands with 2 good spades. This wouldn't be a support double. Those stop at 2H typically. It just happens that the logical default for doubling a cuebid agrees here, though of course you're not denying 3 spades by passing.

It seems to me you came up with the meaning you'd like for double out of thin air somehow. Even if it is takeout of diamonds, which I already find strange given that the bid was a cuebid, wouldn't you expect at least 2 if not 3 spades for such a bid? Why would your partners take double as what you've described here? I'm not just being facetious: if you have a good answer, I'd be interested in it.

I admit this hand is stuck over 2S given "double shows spades" and I don't like to pass, but it's not that great that I feel terrible passing.

[semeai]

awm, on 2011-July-08, 20:21, said:

My view is that a bad hand might double 1♦ and then bid a suit at the three-level

I'd think this would show a 6-4 hand.

[whereagles]

semeai: well, it would be nice that pard takes this particular dbl as take out, but you're right that it might be understood as dbl of an artificial bid, in which case it shows spades.

If so, there are two plans available over 2♠: dbl anyway, and pull a spade bid to clubs OR bid 3♣, which should be constructive and showing a med hand (~15-17). Pass + dbl later won't send a wrong message about spades but it might make pard believe you are doubling for penalties. Anyway, this isn't easy.

[jdeegan]

I see this as a purely tactical problem. BTW what is the vul and who are the opps? If everybody has their bids, then pard is likely 5-5 in the majors with a moderate hand, so playing 4♥ looks like my objective. Missing six ♥ isn't on my radar unless the opps are non-vul vs vul desperados. What to do over 5♦, though? W/O some huge table feel, I think a stodgy 4♥ seems right.

[Phil]

Opening 1N is appealing, even though two of the suits are top heavy. I'd like to think if I were playing good/bad 2N, that I can't really have clubs and 4♣ would clearly agree hearts. This also allows a last train 4♦, which is what I would love to hear.

Maybe if we don't have that agreement that 4♣ should still be a cue, but I'm not sure it would be taken that way.

[inquiry]

I will bid 4♦ and pass if partner rebids 4♥. I have to be worth a slam try, and 4♦ seems to be it.