[hanp]

If I could invite in notrump that would be something I could consider btw. But I can't.

Well, maybe I could double and bid 2NT over 2S (what's that?) but when partner bids 2S I no longer want to play notrump!

Playing 3S is not very appealing to me.

[Jlall]

I would double, planning on playing 3N unless we have a 5-4 spade fit.

Josh, what is your plan to invite? If it is going through some kind of transfer lebensohl, it seems crazy to me that you will play in three spades when partner is rejecting a spade invite. You might as well play 3N than play in a 5-2 spade fit at the 3 level. You might play 3S in a 5-3 as well when partner is rejecting, but I'd still rather be in NT myself.

If RHO passed and you told me you would stayman and then bid 2N I would be on board with that, but since playing 2N will not option if you show 5 spades, and since I think 2S is too much of an underbid, somethings gotta give.

You do have some options in playing below game if you start with X, like passing a 2N bid by partner or inviting over a 2S bid.

[jdonn]

I agree playing 3♠ opposite a rejection is unappealing. I still think based on values we are far from a game force. I absolutely believe Xspades then 3NT is more of an overbid than 2♠ now is an underbid.

[gnasher]

Suppose that I asked you to rank these hands

  J8754 K43 K4 J42
  KJ874 K43 54 J42
  J8754 K43 42 KJ4

in order of value.

Which would come last?

[kenrexford]

I also think that double is the winning call. You can usually get back to spades when this is right, and the defense is very good. I would love it if partner passes, and I can handle 2♠ (bid game) or any other call by partner easily (probably raise to 3NT). If partner bids 3♥, presumably a max without a heart stop, I suppose I bid 4♠.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Nov 19 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

You do have some options in playing below game if you start with X, like passing a 2N bid by partner or inviting over a 2S bid.

Do you play
  dbl (pass) 2NT
as showing a minimum? Here in rain-drenched England it's commonly played as scrambling, but even if it's natural it doesn't say anything about opener's range.

Doubling planning to pass any reply but 2♠ doesn't seem very different from bidding 2♠, which partner will raise with a maximum and 4-card support. Maybe double planning to pass 2NT but bid 3NT over 3♣ has some merit.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Nov 19 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Doubling planning to pass any reply but 2♠ doesn't seem very different from bidding 2♠, which partner will raise with a maximum and 4-card support.

That's a very good point. Note bidding 2♠ still gets to an occasional game, so at least you won't miss most of the very best games.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

gnasher, on Nov 19 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Doubling planning to pass any reply but 2♠ doesn't seem very different from bidding 2♠, which partner will raise with a maximum and 4-card support.

That's a very good point. Note bidding 2♠ still gets to an occasional game, so at least you won't miss most of the very best games.

Doubling is a lot different if there are three passes that follow and you get +800 or so.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Nov 19 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 19 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

You do have some options in playing below game if you start with X, like passing a 2N bid by partner or inviting over a 2S bid.

Do you play
  dbl (pass) 2NT
as showing a minimum? Here in rain-drenched England it's commonly played as scrambling, but even if it's natural it doesn't say anything about opener's range.

Doubling planning to pass any reply but 2♠ doesn't seem very different from bidding 2♠, which partner will raise with a maximum and 4-card support. Maybe double planning to pass 2NT but bid 3NT over 3♣ has some merit.

FWIW I was planning on bidding game regardless.

2N scrambling is fine, I was thinking it's natural because they have bid 2 of the suits already, but probably since its a precision 1D it should still be scrambling. If it's natural though I think it denies the nuts, I would always bid 3N with 18 or a good 17. I agree it doesn't necessarily show a hand that would reject a normal invite though.

My point was just that inviting is not really an option ever, except in some auctions if you start with a X. So even if one views this hand as not worth a GF, given that you have to GF or sign off almost always, I would think they would prefer to GF.

Just bidding 2S seems like a really big underbid to me after a 1N overcall.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Nov 19 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Suppose that I asked you to rank these hands

  J8754 K43 K4 J42
  KJ874 K43 54 J42
  J8754 K43 42 KJ4

in order of value.

Which would come last?

I believe it goes 2 3 1. The second has the best long suit, and the third has the KJ in combination instead of different suits.