[benlessard]

Pass by opener denies having 3S like 98% of the times however if you have 2335 shapes and partner reopen with a double do you bid 2H or 2S ?

With no discussion would 2H by responder be forcing ?
What about 3S ? Is X and 3S forcing ?

IMO My style is to be able to invite and stop at 2M if possible. So what seems natural for me is...

2H is non forcing (To inv you have to X first)
3H or 3S are GF (since I can double and bid 2S/3S to inv)
3C is a competitive while X and 3C a bit stronger)
3D direct is GF with a clubs
X and 3D GF with 4H or 5 decent spades

[SteveMoe]

Benoit, I like the approach you propose and have several questions.

I am curious about the hand types with which Responder should Double.
With your approach, certain invitational hands and GF hands double first. The question I have is does responder also double 1) to protect opener's penalty pass of 2♦? or 2) Does responder also double as Balance of Power/Cards?
BoP/Cards doubles would show 11/12+ HCP and on this auction a shape something like ♠AKxxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxx ♣xx.

Change this to ♠AKxxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣QJx and I'd like to bid 3♦ as a stopper inquiry not necessarily showing ♣ support, though a Double might be possible here if T/O instead...

It would seem that treating the double as "takeout" showing 0-2 ♦ cards we might find partner passing with say ♦K109x and 14 HCP when we are due a game - this might be unwise red vs white.

Does this approach give up on penalty options at the 2-level?

In the same vein, how would we play 2N by responder - a balanced invitation to 3N or 2 places to play? ♠ & ♥/♣ invitational?

To the OP questions:
Pass by opener denies having 3S like 98% of the times however if you have 2335 shapes and partner reopen with a double do you bid 2H or 2S ? 2♠ shows exactly 2 cards.

With no discussion would 2H by responder be forcing ? No. I like the idea that responder has to double or bid at the 3-level to force.
What about 3S ? Invitational (all responder's jump rebids are invitational 6+ cards) but I can work with Forcing here. would bid 3♦ to force.
Is X and 3S forcing? Without your approach I would have interpreted this as Forcing and 5=4 in the majors. I assume that 3♥ rebid by responder is GF with 5=5 Majors...

[benlessard]

Note that this way is natural for me only because in the partnership (not my reg) we play

1C--1S
2C--???

2D as many invitationnals hands (this allow to inv and stop in 2M)
2M= non F
2Nt= GF at least 3 clubs
3C= courtesy raise
3M=GF

when they bid 2D its seems nice that 3H is GF with 55 and with 54&64 you double first. Also the 3D is free cue for GF with clubs.

[JLOGIC]

You have it right except 3D can be a GF one suiter in spades (You wouldn't want to double with say AKQxxxx Kxxx --- Kx), and a direct 3S is invitational.

Double and 3S is forcing but you can't always afford to double. I see no reason for a direct 3S to be forcing, you have to have some bid for an invitational hand with long spades.

With 2335 I would choose between bidding 2S and 3C over the reopening X, I would never bid 2H and would usually bid 2S.

[benlessard]

With 1345 and 4 bad diamonds would you bid 2H ? If not it mean that 2H by opener show four H 100% of the times something wich I didnt tought. Yesterday screw up

9x
AKJx
Txx
Axxx

AKTxx
xxxx
KQx
x

we are somewhat sound opener (we pass a majority of 11 count) so my hand is probably a GF for us.

3H by me would probably show 5/5 so Ive double and my partner responded 2H. I screw up by bidding
3D--3S
3nt--pass.

But once partner bid 3S hes showing 4H for sure. Since East was ruffing with a natural trumps tricks 4H is always better than 3NT.

Quote

You have it right except 3D can be a GF one suiter in spades (You wouldn't want to double with say AKQxxxx Kxxx --- Kx), and a direct 3S is invitational.

However I think its better (but not standard) to play X and spades as invitationnal and 3S as GF, being able to X and bid 2S/3S give you the chance to sometimes stop in 2S. Also GF hands with spades where your too afraid to double are simply in 3S, you avoid 3D--3NT where opener has 2S and a D stopper and 4S is likely to be better than 3NT. You lose however on INV S hands that are too afraid to double but these are less frequent so it look like a win-win situation for keeping the X for mostly inv hands.

edited PS Do you sometimes pass rather than making a support double with a crappy hand ?

[lalldonn]

I have never come across the idea that 2335 could bid 2♥ on this auction. It seems very strange to me and I'm not sure of the possible gain. 2♠ on a doubleton is pretty normal once you have not made a support double and partner reopened.

[PhilKing]

I think you should be looking for a more generic solution to situations such as this.

Mine would start with "double (t/o) promises reasonable defence and sets up a force when doubler bids again". In this situation you define double followed by 3♠ as weaker than 3♠ direct. That is certainly non-standard, which is fine as long as you have equivalent positions where you use the same principle, but the appearance is one of someone who is trying to redesign the wheel in order to go down a particular alleyway.

Second would be "cue can be any GF that does not want partner to sit for penalties". Then partner always has the option of leaving in the double with no clear bid.

By doubling on all your good and medium multi-directional hands, but never on shapely ones, makes it easier for partner to pass on 1345 hands with four average diamonds, for instance, so you will never have to bid a suicidal three-card suit ...