[RSClyde]

You just need an agreement here:
If double says I have both majors specifically, then this is a clear 2S.
If double shows 2 places to play then you go up the line so a clear 2S.
If double says "I have no idea what to do but don't want to pass" then 3C is right.
But it's hard to believe that the 3rd is the right agreement.

[PhilKing]

Hanoi5, on 2013-November-13, 07:17, said:

Then I guess no responsive double should have been made but 3♣?

♠QT8
♥Jxx
♦J7x
♣AJxx

I have no idea why several posters agree this is a 3♣ bid. It's just a pass. Partner is still there.

[RSClyde]

PhilKing, on 2013-November-14, 04:24, said:

I have no idea why several posters agree this is a 3♣ bid. It's just a pass. Partner is still there.

Depends on style. For us a second double shows a real hand: partner could have a minimum and not be able to reenter. But he doesn't make a takeout double without club support and he'd virtually never have a 5 card major (unless he's going to bid again). Letting them play 2♦ (likely if you pass) sounds like a poor choice. So given our TOD parameters, there's only one alternative, so what am I waiting for?

[rhm]

mike777, on 2013-November-12, 21:32, said:

3c

pard might be 3=3=3=4 with values

Axx,,Axx.xxx.AXXX?

ArtK78, on 2013-November-13, 08:02, said:

I would bid 3♣. If partner had 4 spades he would bid them. He should have something like 3334 with some values.

rmnka447, on 2013-November-13, 16:56, said:

I would bid 3 ♣. I believe partner would bid a 4 card major when holding one rather than make a responsive double.

If partner has only 3 ♠, then playing a 7 card fit would probably not be good. A forcing defense would cause you to take ruffs in the long trump hand.

So I'd opt to play in a likely 8 card ♣ fit.

Obviously this discussion is rather confused and not for the first time. There seems to be different opinions what a responsive double means or shows.

So I will espouse what my logic is:

For me a responsive double means partner has enough values to compete at the level raised, but is uncertain as to strain.

From this I draw the following Bridge conclusions:

Over a major suit raise a responsive double tends to deny four cards in the unbid major, because partner would not be uncertain about strain. Partner may have equal length in the minors.
Over a minor suit raise partner often has both majors, but instead of guessing which major to bid he asks takeout doubler to choose the major where he has at least four cards. If he held only one major he would not be uncertain as to strain.
If he has no major he would usually bid the unbid minor since again he should not be uncertain about strain.

Partner may possibly have something else in mind with more than minimum values for a responsive double but then we will hear from him again.
I am not against making a responsive double over 2♦ with 3=3=3=4 and a weak four card club suit and just enough to compete, but this is just one specific distribution where I could possible end up in a major 4-3 fit one level lower than in a minor 5-4 fit one level higher.
In this particular case I would prefer playing the minor, but it is no big deal.
It is much more important to cater for the case where partner is 4-4 or longer in the majors and it is also much more frequent not least because there are many more distributions partner can have than just one specific one.
If partner is 3=3=3=4, it is possible but unlikely the bidding would go that way, because opponents have 7 cards in hearts and 6 cards in spades.
When partner has both majors opponents have less cards in the majors and much more reason to raise their minor aggressively.
I rather follow PhilKing's logic and pass with 3=3=3=4 and dubious values rather than giving up the responsive double when I hold both majors with no support for the unbid minor. He is right, the bidding is not over yet if you Pass with this distribution.

Feel free to explain what is wrong with this logic behind responsive doubles or why you think a different logic is superior.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-13, 11:55, said:

Have you never doubled 1♦ with a 4=3=3=3 hand, Fluffy? Or with a weak 5 card spade suit?

Not with 5 spades, I overcall 10xxxx when my hand is good. It might be possible only with 5413 with weak spades.

4333 is possible with a bit extras.

Both options are possible but I wouldn't bet on them, they are more like exceptions.