[hanp]

I would bid 2S. Somehow partner never has the 4441 shape I am hoping for.

[Codo]

I guess we have this discussion frequently and it is as fruitless as always.

Fi you play a style where 3 Spade shows 5 spades 8-11 (common in continental europe) you have no problem. (Frencvh style, I play this too, great stuff, but I would hate to debate this again with GWYNN or JOSE or anybody else...)

If you have a style where 2 Spade shows normally 5 spades with 8-11 you have no problem.

If you play another system, choose whatever shows this handtype.

If you have no bid for this hand type, change your system- this is a frequent handtype, you should be able to handle it.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Jan 17 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

Since when is 3♠ a stronger invitation than 2♠? It shows a different type of hand...

some of us are still rooted in the stone age

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jan 18 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

I think 3♠ is like a 2♠ bid but better.

Lawrence doesn't mention the sequence, so far as I can see. Crowhurst (in 1973) noted that traditionally it was a weak one-suiter, but recommended playing it as a stronger version of 2♠. Who else might have written about this sort of sequence?

There was a thread ages ago where Justin called this bid "preemptive" and Frances "invitational", although I think it seemed they didn't agree all that much on which hands would bid it (Justin's preemptive hands where still ok to get raised opposite a min with 4 trumps and controls). Maybe Csaba can find it...

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Jan 18 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Since when is 3♠ a stronger invitation than 2♠? It shows a different type of hand...

since I (and lots of europe teoreticians) have defined it as such

double jump = 5-7 and 6 cards OR 8-10 and 5 cards

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jan 18 2010, 11:39 AM, said:

well I just don't see why do I need to force to the 3 level if I have 5 cards and a decent hand.

It's the same as the reason that you play jumps to the three-level as invitational in other auctions (eg uncontested 1♦-1♠;3♠). By putting the top 1/3 of your invitational hands into 3♠, you reduce the upper limit of 2♠. That means that opposite a 2♠ bid partner has to move less often.

Playing 3♠ as invitational means that we get too high with a minimum double opposite a maximum invitation, but we stop in 2♠ with a medium double opposite a minimum invitation.

Whether it's right to do this depends upon how wide a range of invitational hands you have. The wider the range, the more reason there is to play 3♠ as a better version of 2♠.

Quote

Partner's spade expectancy is closer to 3 than 4 if we have 5 cards (unless partner doesn't like to double very often) so it's against the law.

That's a very decade-before-last argument. Do people still believe in this stuff?

[gwnn]

yes, sorry, is it really so outdated? I still believe this stuff. also I like to use the single raise on stronger hands and 3M conservatively. Not sure if it's because of the law.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jan 18 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

everyone thought I was insane when I suggested a simple jump to 2M should somehow show 5 cards. looks like because everyone always jumps to 3M? (plz don't take my post seriously, especially the everyone).

Yeah that seems to be what most experts in NL play nowadays (with four you cue then 2♠ which is NF, unlike the American style in which it would be f1 to suit agreement).

Anyway, it surprises me that anyone would consider anything other than 2♠ with this hand. Maybe I am not valuing the aces enough?

[Fluffy]

I'd say people is not valuing enough the 4th club, if you are bidding the same with a 4243 we have 1 or 2 more tricks than that.

[mcphee]

2S shows 8-10 with 4+ trumps, and it is common to see 3S to show a 6 bagger less than the 8-10 range. The problem is really based around what is expected of the hand that doubles for take out.

With a take of a minor suit a number of players uses jumps to 4C/D to indicate a good 4 of a major call using C to show H and D to show S. This allow a person to "take a shot" bouncing to game say with the same hand and 1 more trump and an ace less, the example hand 6-4 blacks and an ace less.

I like 2S this hand although if partner were to leap to 4 you can find some merit in that choice.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on Jan 18 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

Who else might have written about this sort of sequence?

Sally Brock in "Double Trouble" - she agrees with you as far as I remember.

[Jlall]

If partner has 4441 he is not going to pass 2S very often, only if he has a complete yarb. If partner has other shapes the hand is not that great.

[jjbrr]

I, apparently, never learned responses to T/O doubles correctly. This seems like an obvious 2♠, whereas 3♠ I learned as long spades and a weak hand.

I've never even heard of 3M showing a "strong invite," but that doesnt mean it doesn't exist, I suppose.

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Jan 19 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

I, apparently, never learned responses to T/O doubles correctly. This seems like an obvious 2♠, whereas 3♠ I learned as long spades and a weak hand.

I've never even heard of 3M showing a "strong invite," but that doesnt mean it doesn't exist, I suppose.

I had never heard of it pre-forums either. Not saying it doesn't exist obv, but I think it's a very rare interpretation in USA anyways which accounts for the differences in opinion when we have Europeans and North Americans discussing the meaning of it.

[Jlall]

cherdanno, on Jan 18 2010, 11:38 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 18 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

I think 3♠ is like a 2♠ bid but better.

Lawrence doesn't mention the sequence, so far as I can see.  Crowhurst (in 1973) noted that traditionally it was a weak one-suiter, but recommended playing it as a stronger version of 2♠.  Who else might have written about this sort of sequence?

There was a thread ages ago where Justin called this bid "preemptive" and Frances "invitational", although I think it seemed they didn't agree all that much on which hands would bid it (Justin's preemptive hands where still ok to get raised opposite a min with 4 trumps and controls). Maybe Csaba can find it...

yes, trumps, controls, shortness are all important for bidding game opposite a bid that shows a long suit + shape... I would certainly pass 3S with garbage hands that have extra HCP also like 4333 soft 15 counts playing the way I play.

Also I wish people would stop bidding as if partner had 4441 when he made a takeout double, if he is 4441 and you jump in a suit he will upgrade that strongly as extra values (4th trump and stiff that he never promised), and bid accordingly. He can bid his own 4441 for himself. Even if you are not into doubling with 4333 mins or really light hands, surely even the soundest of players on the forums will double with 3442 and a 12 count routinely.

[MarkDean]

Thanks for your replies.

On this particular hand, it does not matter what you do, partner is putting you in game as long as you show any signs of life (KTx KJTx AKQTx x).
It just made me realize there is sort of a hole for hands one feels are better than 2S, but not GF (I also learned that 3S shows a more shapely, somewhat preemptive hand)