[Phil]

1N pass 2D 2S
Pass pass x

The expected spade length for x is closest to:

0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5

[rmnka447]

I would think that this double is a balance of power double presumably showing ♠ shortness and at least 7-8 HCP.

[neilkaz]

rmnka447, on 2016-July-25, 14:23, said:

I would think that this double is a balance of power double presumably showing ♠ shortness and at least 7-8 HCP.

I would assume the same.

[Fluffy]

2-3

[Zelandakh]

Using an optional double in combination with transfer rebids makes a lot of sense here. Optional is probably more useful than takeout even without the transfer rebids although that structure has some issues that need to be sorted out as you need a way of bidding 3♥ competitively as well as constructively.

[apollo1201]

X shows some values but allows partner to convert it to penalties so shouldnt be too unbalanced and too short in S. I guess 2533 is ideal.
15(43) is more risky (unless we're happy defending 2SX), and 35(32) also because partner is less likely to transform and might escape to your 2-cd minor...

[Phil]

I think 2-3 is right. If partner had a giant spade stack, he might have whipped 2S already.

[Jinksy]

apollo1201, on 2016-July-26, 15:03, said:

X shows some values but allows partner to convert it to penalties so shouldnt be too unbalanced and too short in S. I guess 2533 is ideal.
15(43) is more risky (unless we're happy defending 2SX), and 35(32) also because partner is less likely to transform and might escape to your 2-cd minor...

It looks more competitive to me. I wouldn't expect P to pass unless he had an unusually good DOR (defence-offence ratio ).

[Phil]

Qtx Kxx akxxx qx. Would you pass at MPs?

[shyams]

https://translate.go...t-text=&act=url

Google translate works well enough!

Linking back because the other thread is a Chinese version of this original post.

[helene_t]

Phil, on 2016-July-26, 15:34, said:

I think 2-3 is right. If partner had a giant spade stack, he might have whipped 2S already.

But maybe we don't play double by opener as penalty?

[Phil]

helene_t, on 2016-July-27, 05:18, said:

But maybe we don't play double by opener as penalty?

Possible I guess but not mainstream.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2016-July-26, 15:34, said:

I think 2-3 is right. If partner had a giant spade stack, he might have whipped 2S already.

I am mostly worried that doubling them with 4-1 spades can hardly be right.

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2016-July-27, 07:12, said:

Possible I guess but not mainstream.

I would have thought that a competitive double (basically 3 hearts and an interest in competing) was at least as popular as pure penalty here.

[Jinksy]

Phil, on 2016-July-26, 16:05, said:

Qtx Kxx akxxx qx. Would you pass at MPs?

I rarely play MPs, but my instinct is to bid if they're NV, since taking them one off is unlikely to score well. Less sure what I'd do when they're vul.

(But I'm a conservative SOB in the constructive auction, and wouldn't have opened that a 15-17 NT)

[vegar56]

Phil, on 2016-July-25, 13:07, said:

1N pass 2D 2S
Pass pass x

The expected spade length for x is closest to:

0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5

2♦ = transfer to ♥ ?

[Fluffy]

vegar56, on 2016-July-29, 05:50, said:

2♦ = transfer to ♥ ?

yes

[gnasher]

Opener assumes 2-5 in the majors and bids accordingly. Responder might have more spades, but that's his business.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2016-July-31, 21:25, said:

Opener assumes 2-5 in the majors and bids accordingly. Responder might have more spades, but that's his business.

I agree. This is what Opener will assume when making the initial decision on whether to defend 2♠x.

A more interesting question, worth discussing in any regular partnership, is what Responder's bids of 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ mean instead of double. There is more than one plausible way to play, but as usual the most important thing is to be on the same wavelength as partner.

[Phil]

Jinksy, on 2016-July-27, 13:01, said:

I rarely play MPs, but my instinct is to bid if they're NV, since taking them one off is unlikely to score well. Less sure what I'd do when they're vul.

(But I'm a conservative SOB in the constructive auction, and wouldn't have opened that a 15-17 NT)

It was the first round of the finals of the LM Pairs. Pard held this hand but we hadn't explicitly discussed x.

I had xx QTxxx xx AKxx. Declarer had AKJxxx AJ8x void Jxx. It takes a club lead followed by a spade shift to beat it but partner naturally led a high diamond.