[gwnn]

AQxx
KJxx
Txx
Ax

1♦-X-p-1♠
2♦-?

all vul imps, of course you may object to the X also if you like.

[Sambolino]

probably depends on style whether 2s is courtesy or extras. but what's the difference, i'd bid 2s in both cases

[skjaeran]

2♠. It doesn't show extras for me, but I'd bid even if it did.

[pclayton]

I don't object to the double nor 2♠.

[cherdano]

Obvious 2♠.

[bid_em_up]

I pass.

I already stated that I had ~10-15 hcp with support for all other suits with the original double. That is still what I have.

Anything further is up to partner.

[han]

Obvious 2♠.

[peachy]

Clear 2S. In competition, no particular extras are promised, just 4-card support and sufficient hand otherwise that we shouldn't be going for a number. But this hand has slight extras anyway so even those who think they "have bid their hand" might act.

[P_Marlowe]

2S, ... and I dont like the t/o, but since
it worked out fine, ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

T/O double = obvious (I've been saying that a lot lately!)
Raise to 2♠ = I didn't used to do it but I was converted for good a few years ago. The purists can keep passing, and keep getting worse results.

[ArcLight]

jdonn, on Sep 18 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

T/O double = obvious (I've been saying that a lot lately!)
Raise to 2♠ = I didn't used to do it but I was converted for good a few years ago. The purists can keep passing, and keep getting worse results.

Josh,
What is wrong with passing, and seeing if pard can bid 2S with 5-8 HCP, as opposed to 0-3?

I guess the issue is will pard bid with 5-8..

[ArtK78]

I play that the 2♠ bid here shows 4 spades and no extras. A pass would deny 4 spades.

So, I have no problem with the 2♠ bid. Without this agreement, I would not bid 2♠ here even though it seems that most of the posters do so.

[helene_t]

ArcLight, on Sep 18 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

What is wrong with passing, and seeing if pard can bid 2S with 5-8 HCP, as opposed to 0-3?

I guess the issue is will pard bid with 5-8..

He might not. Since we haven't promised four spades, he would need a good four-bagger, or five, to bid them again.

Since he expects us to have less than three diamonds, he will try to find another bid, though. If he can't bid 2♠ he might bid 2♥ or double.

Then again, with five or six clubs he may bid 3♣, assuming we don't have four spades since we didn't raise.

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Sep 18 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

Then again, with five or six clubs he may bid 3♣, assuming we don't have four spades since we didn't raise.

This is the biggest risk I think.

[jdonn]

ArcLight, on Sep 18 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 18 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

T/O double = obvious (I've been saying that a lot lately!)
Raise to 2♠ = I didn't used to do it but I was converted for good a few years ago. The purists can keep passing, and keep getting worse results.

Josh,
What is wrong with passing, and seeing if pard can bid 2S with 5-8 HCP, as opposed to 0-3?

I guess the issue is will pard bid with 5-8..

It's not about points, he has to worry we only have three spades.

[kenrexford]

2♠

[brianshark]

Agree with 2♠. It's common to play it as a courtesy raise after interference, but extras without. You have an 8 card fit so show it. If you Dbl again, it sounds more like a 3-4-2-4 hand with extras that failed to find a fit the first time around.

[ahri]

2♠ quite easily

[Trinidad]

I don't like the double (but my partner does ). I think 2♠ is obvious and only says that I have four spades (and 10-17 HCP or so).

Rik

[xcurt]

2♠ is just obvious regardless of what it shows by agreement. Your side has 8 spades to (at least) the AQ. One of the bad guys has a 6-card diamond suit and it's breaking onside. If your partner is burying you for taking calls like this you need to discuss this stuff (and that Law thing) with him.