[pclayton]

BebopKid, on Jan 23 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

In my understanding, a double denies a 5-card suit. With ♦ being my longest suit, I would tend to let my partner play with a 7-card fit at 2♠.

North's bidding would seem odd to me.

I'll remember that when I pick up a 21 pounder and a 6 bagger.

Maybe this is a 2♠ call in your book?

[the hog]

Hmm I wonder how those who think 2S is nf would bid the following:

KJxxx
AKxx
x
Qxx

Would you not X first as you have 3 spots to play with nice Hs? Would you X 2C or would you bid 2S now that pd has shown values with his 1NT bid?

A very easy rule to remember is that after 2 doubles, a suit bid is 100% forcing. This is an analogous principle to you Xing a NT for penalty, your side makes a second X and then takes a bid. This is forcing. Aka Bridge 101.

Roland, the only thing I can say to you is that you must play against some pretty weird opponents if you get penalty Xs of 2C here. Too much on-line bridge and not enough ftf I think!

This leads to the next point: your "penalty X" of 2C, if you ever have such a beast against sensible opponents, will be picked up by a t/o X made by your partner. So opener's 2S bid will never be a 4 card suit as suggested by a couple of posters. You might easily hit a 4-2 fit; who says partner has 3 spades? Bidding 2S on a 4414???? Spare me! Seriously, when I read some of these posts, the bidding is sometimes so far removed from what I or my partners would bid at the table, that I really wonder if we are playing the same game.

Also as a final comment, would anyone seriously bid 1NT holding the following garbage?
♠Qxx
♥Axx
D Jxx
♣xxxx

[mikeh]

1N is a constructive call: the actual hand was a minimum. Thus North knows, immediately, that he has the values for game: i don't think that he should even be thinking of slam: give S softer ♦ wastage and slam becomes highly unlikely. BTW, S does not show a ♥ stopper for 1N: N's double ostensibly shows some ♥ length/strength so S's bid focuses on shape, overall values, and ♦ stopper(s).

I hate the double of 2♣... I thoroughly detest it.

Double is the bid I'd make with AJ10x AKxx Jx AKx: that's a double of 2♣ on this auction... encouraging partner to take a piece of 2♦.

As it is, I surely am not going to be happy if partner doubles 2♦, nor am I going to be very happy defending 2♣ x'd when partner has KQx Jxx Kxxx xx: if I lead 3 rounds of trump, declarer wins on board and hooks a ♦ and drives out the K. Meanwhile I was cold for 4♠, vulnerable at imps.

Why not just bid your hand?

The point is that we are going to game, and advancer has denied a 4 card ♠ suit... altho he might have xxxx as an example and prefer to bid 1N with xxxx Qx KQ10x Qxx.. looks like 1N to me.

So let partner in on the secret: 2♦ will do that unambiguously.

Whether 2♠, over 2♣, is forcing depends on the answer to the question: over 1♦ is double permissible on a hand such as KJxxx AKxx x Qxx?

If the answer is 'yes', then 2♠ over 1♣ cannot be forcing.

If the answer is no... if one would always systemically bid 1♠, intending, if appropriate, to get the other suits in later via double of ♦s or a bid of 2♥, then 2♠ can be played as forcing...

Which is right? It depends Another instance of needing to be in tune with partner.

As it happens, N had an easy, clear call over 2♣ and should have known that his actual sequence carried a strong possibility of confusion setting in.

So N 100%...

[mike777]

Heck I just overcall 1s and hope I get to some game.

[HeartA]

I completely agree with what Mike (mikeh) says.

[Codo]

cherdano, on Jan 24 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

Codo, on Jan 23 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

IF you have a strong hand with spades, why do you double 2 Club?

You have the following possibilities to show strong hands:
2 ♦ 2 ♥ 2 ♠ 2 NT 3♣ 3 ♦ and so on...
Which reason do you have to play X as strong and not as penalty?
But if you have a hand where you have a normal take out double, it would be really nice to show, that you can beat 2 Club by several tricks....

So, the second double does not show a strong hand and that is why 2 Spade is non forcing...

For me, double-then-bid-a-new-suit is always stronger than directly bidding the suit, with the only exception of a negative double and a later bid of a major. I really don't see why this auction should be an exception here. I also think Han's 4135 hand is impossible, there is no point in bidding more after partner has twice shown a lack of interest in competing and opponents have had a non-fit auction.

I know that you did not meant it that way, but thanks for support.

Double then a new suit shows a strong hand. This is exactly, why I blelive, that a direct 2 ♠ bid after their 2 Club had shown a strong hand. You doubled first and then bid a suit.
And there is another tool to show strong hands, the cuebid. IF you want to you can use the jump cuebid too. So for what hands exactly do you need the second double?

[Codo]

Quote

Hmm I wonder how those who think 2S is nf would bid the following:

KJxxx
AKxx
x
Qxx

Would you not X first as you have 3 spots to play with nice Hs? Would you X 2C or would you bid 2S now that pd has shown values with his 1NT bid?

1. You can have the best of both worlds: Bidding 2 ♠ with this hand and 2 ♦ with the actual very strong hand. But this is not fool proove at all. Arendt f.e would take double and new suit always as very strong, so with him you better pass 2 Club now. And I guess he is not alone with this opinion.

2. I am not sure, that playing 2 Spade is superior to defending 2 Club (or 2 Diamond), but this is another question. Esspecially when you look at the two spades pd will have in some of your scenarios.

Quote

A very easy rule to remember is that after 2 doubles, a suit bid is 100% forcing.  This is an analogous principle to you Xing a NT for penalty, your side makes a second X and then takes a bid. This is forcing. Aka Bridge 101.

Hi Ron, I know, that you play this game thinking and not following some blind rules.
But if you wish to have easy rules, how about this: An even easier rule to remember is: Cuebids are forcing.
You have a very cheap forcing bid avaiable, so why on earth do you need to double again with the given hand to show strength? This is pointless. I have very few possibilities to double my opps for penalty at a low level. Mostly after we open and redoubled. But another very common treatment is to double them when they bid one of the suits me and/or my partner had shown already. F.E.
(1 Heart) x (1 Spade) X
I guess most people play this double as penalty, don´t you? And the current bidding is an analogous: I had shown some clubs and so has my pd. Why shouldn´t I double be for penalties now?

Quote

  Seriously, when I read some of these posts, the bidding is sometimes so far removed from what I or my partners would bid at the table, that I really wonder if we are playing the same game.

Yes you are so right on this.... But you must confess, that the people who don´t double 2 ♣ will reach game, with any given mho. You won´t reach it with some of us...

[the hog]

Hi Roland,
What you and I think all the other posters, even Mikeh seem to forget is that if rho bids over partner's 1NT response, the pass is 100% forcing. The reason is that 1NT is constructive. That gives you an extra option to think about.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2007, 02:27 PM, said:

Hi Roland,
What you and I think all the other posters, even Mikeh seem to forget is that if rho bids over partner's 1NT response, the pass is 100% forcing. The reason is that 1NT is constructive. That gives you an extra option to think about.

If even pass is forcing, than dbl must be penalty.

[mikeh]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

Hi Roland,
What you and I think all the other posters, even Mikeh seem to forget is that if rho bids over partner's 1NT response, the pass is 100% forcing. The reason is that 1NT is constructive. That gives you an extra option to think about.

I didn't 'forget it': I just don't agree with it.

1N is constructive: it is not the least bit forcing.

Consider: if opener passed 1N, is that forcing on doubler? Not a chance!

So if the 1N did not, in and of itself, create a force, how on earth do we allow opener's bid to create one for us? What if we hod a 4=4=2=3 12 count, for example.... what are we to bid?

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

Hi Roland,
What you and I think all the other posters, even Mikeh seem to forget is that if rho bids over partner's 1NT response, the pass is 100% forcing. The reason is that 1NT is constructive. That gives you an extra option to think about.

I will survey my club (which is not a bad club) about that exact auction and whether it is forcing. It is my belief, in a land where I've seen people make the initial X on an 11 count and bid 1NT in competition with a 7 count, that it is not.

It's certainly possible that I am confused, and saw bad bidding (or or people playing their opponents rather than the cards). It's also possible that either in this region or this country people simply X more freely and support with less. I'm am curious to see the result. I suppose we could survey here as well, but to me that's less useful.

Again, the auction would be:

1♦ X 1♥ 1NT
2♣ P P ?

Forced to bid or not?

[the hog]

mikeh, on Jan 25 2007, 01:14 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

Hi Roland,
What you and I think all the other posters, even Mikeh seem to forget is that if rho bids over partner's 1NT response, the pass is 100% forcing. The reason is that 1NT is constructive. That gives you an extra option to think about.

I didn't 'forget it': I just don't agree with it.

1N is constructive: it is not the least bit forcing.

Consider: if opener passed 1N, is that forcing on doubler? Not a chance!

So if the 1N did not, in and of itself, create a force, how on earth do we allow opener's bid to create one for us? What if we hod a 4=4=2=3 12 count, for example.... what are we to bid?

Mike and JT,
I am not going to belabour this point any longer, as I suspect from many posts here that there is a vast gulf between Antipodes and US bidding particularly in competitive situations.

The only point I wish to make is this. Mike, you also said that the 1NT bid was constructive; fine I agree totally with that, and that is how we play it - up to a grotty 11 in fact. I never said the 1NT bid would be forcing if rho had not intervened btw. However, if it is constructive I cannot see how a pass over rho's bid cannot be forcing to 2S or 3C or X opps, or even 2H if lho is a jokester.

[HeartA]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

However, if it is constructive I cannot see how a pass over rho's bid cannot be forcing to 2S or 3C or X opps, or even 2H if lho is a jokester.

I don't agree. If I have 12-13 (or 14) HCP and right shape 4441 or 4432 (short in opp's opening suit), dbl is no-brainer, isn't it? After can my pass be forcing facing pd's 8 (could be 7, up to 10) hcp?