[mikeh]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-11, 19:54, said:

I almost hate to say this, since I'm probably just showing my own ignorance, but: If a double would be responsive, 3C to me would ask for a club stopper, showing by implication a diamond suit and opening values. I had thought this was a fairly widespread usage, like 5NT being a Grand Slam Force.

One of us is wrong about this. While it might be me (and I mean that...I am not just being clever) I think it is you. I suspect I have a few years and a few thousand hands of experience on you

One point you should consider is that one will rarely have a hand for your use of the cuebid, and doubler is usually NOT looking at a stopper anyway. Meanwhile, using the cue as a force, nature of hand to be clarified, caters to a number of hands otherwise difficult to describe.

[WesleyC]

My first instinct (based on an offshape t/o double style) is X followed by 3C and probably 3NT next, to suggest a strong flexible hand with a marginal club stopper.

However, having had this discussion, in situations like this where a low level responsive double is available to show both majors, the logical extension is that the 3C cuebid should be heavily orientated towards NT/Diamonds. If the T/O doubler is on the same page, and advances 3C with that in mind (bypassing a 4M to bid 3NT with [KQxx Kxxx Qxx Kx] for example), then it definitely feels like the best option.

Maybe change the topic to "One good bid?"

[mrdodgy]

3♣

[johnu]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-11, 19:54, said:

I almost hate to say this, since I'm probably just showing my own ignorance, but: If a double would be responsive, 3C to me would ask for a club stopper, showing by implication a diamond suit and opening values. I had thought this was a fairly widespread usage, like 5NT being a Grand Slam Force.

Using 3♣ to ask for a stopper is known as a western cue bid. I used to occasionally play club bridge with a friend and co-worker who played this with his wife for years in their somewhat home brewed system. Whenever we sat down to play, he would take out their convention card as a starting point and it had western cue bid prominently displayed. I always told him I didn't know how to play it but would study it for the next time we played.

[fourdad]

ahydra, on 2015-March-11, 07:03, said:

Responsive X here normally shows both majors, no? 3C direct, asking for a stop, seems right - 3NT rates to be the place to play.

ahydra

3♣ my vote as well

[helene_t]

Is a responsive double "forcing"? Yes I know doubler would pass with a 3334 19-count, but what about a 3343 15-count? I just wonder if we would sometimes bid 3♣ instead of making the responsive double out of fear that a double would be passed. In that case, we can't show our diamonds by bidding 3♣.

Anyway, with this hand I would like to play something artificial like lebensohl or w/e but absent such agreement I double and bid 3♦ next.

[ahydra]

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguy...siveDouble.html

If playing 3C as general force, what do you do over 3M from partner with this hand? Not saying it's wrong to bid 3C in that style, but it seems we could easily "end-bid" ourselves. 4D is a big misdescription, 3NT could be off 5 cashing clubs.

ahydra

ps. I find WesleyC's description of 10xx as a "marginal club stopper" somewhat dubious.

[WellSpyder]

I can post the full hand in due course if people are interested, but I thought it was more interesting as a general problem than in the context of a particular deal. I was actually the 2♣ bidder, so didn't have to face this problem. But I was sure that the 2♦ bid chosen at the table wasn't the answer! Not entirely surprisingly, it led to a missed game. I wasn't entirely sure what to suggest instead, though, since I also felt strongly that the hand was too good for 3♦ (though I see that isn't quite such a universal view as not bidding 2♦). I can see that using 2N as some sort of Lebensohl (or reverse Lebensohl) could be quite helpful here, but I must admit that I've never really thought about doing that over a minor, even though I do play 2N in this way with some partners when oppo have bid and raised a major over partner's TOx.

But it feels like the mainstream choice is between X and 3C. I suspect neither will leave you feel entirely comfortable about the continuing auction, but you have to choose something. As I read the responses here I was quite taken with wank's preference for X, simply to keep the auction low and to give you more chance of sorting out where you are going, but mikeh also seems to have good arguments for preferring 3C.....

[Trump Echo]

billw55, on 2015-March-11, 06:23, said:

I will try 3♦, showing extra strength and preference of strain.

I'm going with Bill.

[mikeh]

ahydra, on 2015-March-12, 04:53, said:

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguy...siveDouble.html

If playing 3C as general force, what do you do over 3M from partner with this hand? Not saying it's wrong to bid 3C in that style, but it seems we could easily "end-bid" ourselves. 4D is a big misdescription, 3NT could be off 5 cashing clubs.

ahydra

ps. I find WesleyC's description of 10xx as a "marginal club stopper" somewhat dubious.

Why is 3C then 4D a big misdescription? It shows an opening hand with 5+ diamonds, no 4 card support for partner, and no club stopper. Please explain how that isn't what we hold?

Compare that to double then 3D. That shows what? I know a lot of those opting for that sequence claim that it shows the same thing, but that is IMO a view based on what they'd like it to show rather than on what it does show. I would expert near-universal agreement amongst experts about 3C then diamonds and uncertainty about double then diamonds.

More to the point, 3C is clearly a big hand while double could and often would be made with a modest hand. Partner will bid up the line over 3C but will bid a major over double...definitely will and should bid 2H with 4441. Note that partner might be able to bid no trump over the strength showing 3C but is very unlikely to bid 2N over the double. He won't, after all, hold Helene's 19 count here unless the vul opps are psyching.

[gnasher]

ahydra, on 2015-March-12, 04:53, said:

Whether 3C = ask for a stop or general force does depend on how you play your rspX. By the sounds of it the experts here are playing X = just general values rather than specifically both majors. It's my preferred style too (pity partner won't play it), but AFAIK it's not "standard". See for example http://www.bridgeguy...siveDouble.html

I think that the "standard" meaning of a responsive double varies by location. In North America it shows 4-4 in the majors, but in the UK it is common to double with any two four-card suits.

One sequence that I think hasn't been mentioned is dbl-2M-3♣. I suppose the meaning of that depends on what the original responsive double promised, but if you're playing a flexible style of responsive double that seems better than a direct 3♣.

[Taiwan_up]

They have 25+pts with 12+pts of W and 13pts of E. W has 3+D for his dbl so E must try to find possible 4D. E can bid 3D to show good pts and 5+D so that W can decide his bids at 3D/4D/5D.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-March-12, 05:59, said:

Why is 3C then 4D a big misdescription? It shows an opening hand with 5+ diamonds, no 4 card support for partner, and no club stopper. Please explain how that isn't what we hold?

It's not a misdecription, you just can have missed the last making game too often, partner doesn't even need a full club stop, Jxx/Qx will do when opener has ♣AK/AQ/KQ/AJ/KJ (and his partner Hxxxx(x) and out which surely can't be an unlikely holding).

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-12, 07:39, said:

It's not a misdecription, you just can have missed the last making game too often, partner doesn't even need a full club stop, Jxx/Qx will do when opener has ♣AK/AQ/KQ/AJ/KJ (and his partner Hxxxx(x) and out which surely can't be an unlikely holding).

As someone who has long played that one opens 1C on doubletons, I can tell you what virtually every bridge player knows: opener will hold 3+ clubs FAR more often than he holds a doubleton. Add to that the fact that partner made a TAKEOUT double of 1C and it becomes simply idiotic to plan east's auction on the basis that it is 'likely' that opener has HH in clubs!

This kind of argument is what happens when you get someone who has made a poor choice, has been met with criticism, and can't admit to having been wrong. As it happens, it is exactly what one would expect here since afaik cyber has never, ever admitted that his posts are ever less than perfect.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2015-March-12, 07:17, said:

I think that the "standard" meaning of a responsive double varies by location. In North America it shows 4-4 in the majors, but in the UK it is common to double with any two four-card suits.

One sequence that I think hasn't been mentioned is dbl-2M-3♣. I suppose the meaning of that depends on what the original responsive double promised, but if you're playing a flexible style of responsive double that seems better than a direct 3♣.

I don't disagree with the notion that the responsive double need not promise both majors. It should, IMO, be taken as showing two (or 3) suits. Of course, that means at least one major, so if doubler has 4441, he should still bid 2h as pass or correct, since when advancer is invitational he is far more likely to invite (or bid) game in a major than in diamonds, plus if we are to play a 4-4 partial, surely we prefer the major most of the time?

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2015-March-12, 04:46, said:

Is a responsive double "forcing"? Yes I know doubler would pass with a 3334 19-count, but what about a 3343 15-count? I just wonder if we would sometimes bid 3♣ instead of making the responsive double out of fear that a double would be passed.

It seems to me that following this argument through to its logical conclusion might drive us towards taking the major 2-suiter out of X and moving it into 3♣. The general force without extreme club shortage can stay low with a double and gather information. The main argument against X seems to be a promise of both majors that is also a bit cyclic when the agreement also allows for GF hands without this shape.

On the main issue, I was actually a bit confused by Mike's first post on the subject and still am to be honest. It sounds like he suspects Doubler is minimum but will continue 3♦ or 3M after (1♣) - X - (2♣) - X; (P), which just seems weird to me. Most likely I am misreading it.

I would expect to be able to continue with 3 of minor opposite a minimum partner pretty much any time the opps do not preempt it. This is the whole advantage of doubling so making that auction start at the 3 level is obviously going to favour 3♣. Letting the double auction start at the 2 level instead seems to be more favourable, although I would expect it to be a wash much of the time.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-12, 08:24, said:

On the main issue, I was actually a bit confused by Mike's first post on the subject and still am to be honest. It sounds like he suspects Doubler is minimum but will continue 3♦ or 3M after (1♣) - X - (2♣) - X; (P), which just seems weird to me. Most likely I am misreading it.

I suspect you are misreading it.

I expect partner to be minimum because in my experience few players psyche in 1st seat when vulnerable, and even fewer psyche a short minor. We hold a good 13 count, with controls. RHO might be fooling around more than the other two players, but he rates to have a few hcp, so that doesn't leave a heck of a lot for partner. That slightly, imo, decreases the chance that partner is dangerously off shape. There may be players who routinely make a t.o. double opposite an unpassed hand with some 4333/4423 11, but they don't play with me, and I don't think that style is winning bridge.

It is against that backdrop that I chose and still choose to bid 3♣ over 2♣....I do not double intending to bid 3♣ next, since to me, and I think this is standard, if partner were to respond to my responsive double with 2M, then 3♣ is a gf raise of that suit.

I think that there is some interesting discussion to be had about what, in theory, a responsive double followed by 3♦ over 2M should mean. Maybe it should show this hand. However, one drawback that nobody has mentioned so far is the admittedly unlikely event of opener, with a shapely minimum, bidding 3♣ over the double. That is extremely unlikely on this hand, since we have 3 clubs, but when discussing theory, we need to cater to other hands of the same nature....if we held 3=3=5=2 or 3=3=6=1, then the odds of opener being able to bid 3♣ go up.....and now is P P 3♦ by us forcing? I don't think so...I'd think it was a 5 card diamonds suit and a 4 card major, good hand but not forcing.

This sort of issue complicates discussion of bidding when the discussion arises in the context of a single hand.

I think that some, tho not all, of the responsive doublers are staring too much at this precise hand and not thinking about what our bidding will mean to partner, while also, to some degree, making up hands for the opps that justify their thinking, rather than thinking about what the probabilities are. It is a very human failing and I have definitely done it myself, and I suppose I may even be doing it here without realizing it However, the fact that I am aware of this propensity leads me to believe that I haven't fallen victim to it this time.

[WellSpyder]

mikeh, on 2015-March-12, 09:05, said:

one drawback that nobody has mentioned so far is the admittedly unlikely event of opener, with a shapely minimum, bidding 3♣ over the double. That is extremely unlikely on this hand, since we have 3 clubs, but when discussing theory, we need to cater to other hands of the same nature....if we held 3=3=5=2 or 3=3=6=1, then the odds of opener being able to bid 3♣ go up.....and now is P P 3♦ by us forcing? I don't think so...I'd think it was a 5 card diamonds suit and a 4 card major, good hand but not forcing.

This sort of issue complicates discussion of bidding when the discussion arises in the context of a single hand.

Good point! And maybe a 3♣ bid isn't all that unlikely - it is what happened at the table when the hand under discussion chose the gross underbid of 2♦.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-March-12, 07:52, said:

As someone who has long played that one opens 1C on doubletons, I can tell you what virtually every bridge player knows: opener will hold 3+ clubs FAR more often than he holds a doubleton. Add to that the fact that partner made a TAKEOUT double of 1C and it becomes simply idiotic to plan east's auction on the basis that it is 'likely' that opener has HH in clubs!

This kind of argument is what happens when you get someone who has made a poor choice, has been met with criticism, and can't admit to having been wrong. As it happens, it is exactly what one would expect here since afaik cyber has never, ever admitted that his posts are ever less than perfect.

It's true that opener will hold 3+ most of the time, but I'm in the school that if I'm 4-4 in the majors with a minimum opening hand, I will make a ToX of a short club and I'm sure I'm not alone, so 3 clubs for partner is very possible, also N has raised 1♣ to 2, does he have a 4 card major ? very often not, I only have 5 in the majors so I would suggest it's not unlikely both opener and doubler are 4-4 in the majors which makes a 2 card club a lot more likely than normal.

I haven't made a poor choice in this case, I had no choice to make, I was able to bid my hand because my methods allow me to do so easily a level lower than yours, I don't have to decide whether X followed by 3♦ is forcing with diamonds or inv or to play with 5♦/4OM or what 1♣-X-2♣-X-P-2♥-P-2♠ means.

For me, 3♣-3♥-4♦ would be more consistent with Axxx, KQxx, A, xxxx

Edit: I would say that my methods in this auction are how they are for the sake of consistency with other auctions where they're a lot less unusual, we tend to work by a lot of blanket agreements not distinguishing between which suit is opened for a lot of them, this saves a lot of brainpower even if it means you have some slightly odd meanings like in this case.

[mike777]

Reading Lawrence's book on doubles it seems you start with a responsive x with 4-4 in the majors.(p.116)

A cuebid at the 3 level shows other hand types and is game forcing.(p.129)
If you play responsive doubles your cuebid denies having both majors. p130

After a 3c cuebid partner should think about bidding 3nt . p.131