[kenrexford]

1NT-P-4♦-X

The assumption was (and probably is CW) that a double here is a lead-director.

I could see a fairly strong argument that isolating this double as a means to show interest in one specific lead may be less useful than using this double to express some holding where partner is invited to bid, such as perhaps a spade-minor two-suiter. Same for a double of 4♥ Texas, except then a heart-minor two-suiter, of course.

Thoughts?

[bill1157]

So what would the invisible cue bid show here (1NT-(P)-4!d-(4!h)?

Bill

[kenrexford]

bill1157, on Feb 25 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

So what would the invisible cue bid show here (1NT-(P)-4!d-(4!h)?

Bill

More reason to bid. It might be a lot better to make the call that shows but does not commit rather than the call that shows AND commits.

[jdonn]

You don't find it at all risky to double 4♦ in front of a strong hand to possibly show spades and clubs?

[Fluffy]

4♥ shows spades and clubs (longer diamonds might also be possible), double then 4♠ shows spades and diamonds.

the advantage fo doubling 4♦ for a specific suit lead will be so more common than the other meanings that IMO its the only alternative.

[Phil]

I can see a reasonable argument that a double of a 4♥ Texas call is hearts + a minor, since:

A. We can't conveniently make a cue bid, and

B. Its inconceivable that this can get rewound, since we are actually holding the hearts

OTOH, doubling 4♦ as some kind of spade / minor two is batshit crazy, since

A. Opener can easily hold diamonds here and soon you are playing 20 diamonds; giving them a fielder's choice, and;

B. We have a cue bid available to show spades + a minor already

[TimG]

Phil, on Feb 25 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

OTOH, doubling 4♦ as some kind of spade / minor two is batshit crazy, since

A. Opener can easily hold diamonds here and soon you are playing 20 diamonds; giving them a fielder's choice, and;

B. We have a cue bid available to show spades + a minor already

We'd never be playing 20 diamonds, we'd be defending 20 diamonds. If that's our minor, that's quite likely OK by me. If it's not OK by me, maybe I shouldn't have been doubling in the first place.

Doubling 4D is no more committal than bidding 4H over 4D. Bidding 4H seems more committal, because now the opening side can defend if they want, not just in the case that they are also willing to play 4DX.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

You don't find it at all risky to double 4♦ in front of a strong hand to possibly show spades and clubs?

Well, I can solve that by making the double show diamonds and a rounded suit, or diamonds and spades specifically. That said, doubling 4♦ to show spades surely has more merit, because of the ability to bid at the same level for the sacrifice sought. Risk-benefit to showing just diamonds or spades plus either minor is a good secondary question.