[Little Kid]

Vul vs NV partner deals and opens:

1♦- (X)- XX -(1♥)
2♦-(2♥)- 2♠-(Pass)
4♦-(Pass)-?

[aguahombre]

good question. redouble, then 2S is GF, so 4D is an unneccesary jump and should mean something. I just don't know what.

[kenrexford]

Partner doesn't have four spades, but unnecessary jumps usually show fits. So, I'd expect three spades and a picture bid. Maybe something like:

♠KQx ♥xx ♦AKJ10xx ♣xx?

[helene_t]

Agree with Ken.

[aguahombre]

Sounds reasonable, except the part where opener bid 2D. I don't bid in front of a redoubling partner with a hand that strong. 2D would show length and weakness, in my world.

[gwnn]

I don't understand xx then 2S. Apparently I had an EPIC PENALTY PASS of clubs? huh.

I mean double of 2H would have been penalties so...

[aguahombre]

redouble then new suit is GF with more than 4 of the suit bid. Opener, after redouble, tends to stay out of redoubler's way unless weak and shapely until the nature of the redouble is disclosed.

With the picture bid hand Ken showed, I would pass, then make the picture bid (4d) after 2S.

[gnasher]

Would a modern responder ever have five spades here? I know I wouldn't. A hand that wanted to make a forcing bid in spades could have done so at the one level, rather than arranging to start the auction one level higher.

This 2♠ bid is presumably a strong four-card suit in a hand that now knows it doesn't want to defend 2♥, because of the new information that opener had a 2♦ bid over 1♥. Perhaps something like KQJx Axx Kx xxxx would do? (Although personally I'd just bid 1♠ with that too.)

Regarding opener's 4♦ bid, I don't think Ken's construction has enough shape. 3-7 seems more likely, though that begs the question why opener doesn't splinter.

[MarkDean]

Agree with gnasher.

[MFA]

I agree mostly with gnasher, although I guess partner could have 5 spades after all with a hand otherwise suitable for XX. The vuln is wrong for that though, but still 5 spades is possible.
--
I general I think there is too much focus on partner showing very minimum for such a 2♦ bid. This is at low level and I think orientation is more important than having 10, 11, 12, 13 or even 14 points. If opener really has diamonds he bids diamonds. Pass then pull should show a more flexible hand - not just the same hand and a tad stronger.
In that context, a reasonably good 7-3 seems very appropriate.

[gszeszycki]

1♦- (X)- XX -(1♥)
2♦-(2♥)- 2♠-(Pass)
4♦-(Pass)-?


openers 2d was highly descriptive warning of a hand too distributional to sit for a low level penalty x. The 2S bid (which in modern is a temporizing bid). With THREE
question suits (all except dia) the 2S bid merely warns opener that there is a problem suit (either clubs or hearts) for NT. Opener having NO STOPS in either hearts or clubs KNOWS NT IS WRONG. Opener also has no splinter to make (unless it is spades). The 4D bid merely states that MAYBE we can make 5d even though 3n is out of reach. such a hand might look like

KQ
xx
AKJxxxx
xx

[aguahombre]

So, following the modern style, which is mostly to ignore the minor suit double unless there is a problem hand which can only start with a redouble, we come to this:

Redoubler does not have 4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, or five clubs. Redouble implies no fit, and responder has game values.

Therefore, pretty much the only hand responder can have on this auction (hearts bid and raised by them) is AJX XXX XXX AKJX. This hand, without the double, would probably have blasted to a NT game, but chose to go scientific after the double.

Because opener, also a modernist, already knows this --4D is back to having no meaning. Opener should just place the contract.

[Bridge_Bain]

Most posts so far don’t feel that 2♠ promises 5 spades, so any concept of the 4♦ bid being a fit jump is out. If 2♠ did promise five spades, then a 3♥ cue and a pull to 4♠ gets the spade fit across along with “diamonds as a source of tricks”. Again, fit jump not needed. I would say the 4♦ bid sets diamonds as trump with no interest in NT or any other suit. If there was a bid between 4♦ and 5♦s, I would take it as a cue bid. Plus, 4♦ avoids the question of whether 2♠ actually created a GF and 3♦ is a complete “go away, P” bid (if playing with a random). Since opener did limit their hand, it is not 100% clear that 4♦ is actually forcing, though extremely invitational.

[rhm]

gnasher, on May 16 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

Would a modern responder ever have five spades here?  I know I wouldn't.  A hand that wanted to make a forcing bid in spades could have done so at the one level, rather than arranging to start the auction one level higher.

Is this treatment universal?
True 1♠ is a one round force nowadays over DBL.
But how do you develop a game forcing one-suiter where the suit is re-biddable but not good enough for jumping to game unsupported on the first or second round?
If opponents keep quiet after the DBL this might be difficult if you start with 1♠ over DBL.
What is wrong with RDBL and follow up bidding your suit if you want to force to game, particularly if your suit happens to be ♠?

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on May 17 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

So, following the modern style[....]:

Redoubler does not have 4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, or five clubs.  Redouble implies no fit, and responder has game values.

Responder could probably have 5+ clubs since 2♣ would be nonforcing for most.

Responder could possible have a fit since for some there is a gap between 2♦ and a constructive raise (2NT, 3♣, or whatever we play), which can be filled by redbl followed by bidding diamonds.

Responder certainly doesn't need game values although his 2♠ bid does show game values. If he doubles, passes or bids diamonds as his next turn he may have less than game values.

But indeed I think most wouldn't have a 5-card major.

[rhm]

helene_t, on May 17 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 17 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

So, following the modern style[....]:

Redoubler does not have 4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, or five clubs.  Redouble implies no fit, and responder has game values.

Responder could probably have 5+ clubs since 2♣ would be nonforcing for most.

Responder could possible have a fit since for some there is a gap between 2♦ and a constructive raise (2NT, 3♣, or whatever we play), which can be filled by redbl followed by bidding diamonds.

Responder certainly doesn't need game values although his 2♠ bid does show game values. If he doubles, passes or bids diamonds as his next turn he may have less than game values.

But indeed I think most wouldn't have a 5-card major.

So assume for example you hold with your partner opening 1♦:

♠ AKxxxx
♥ xxx
♦ xx
♣ AJ

Bidding starts

1♦ --(DBL) -- ??? --(Pass)
2♦ --(Pass) --???

How do you describe such a hand if RDBL denies a 5 card major?

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

the same way you would describe it without the double

[helene_t]

gwnn, on May 16 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

I don't understand xx then 2S. Apparently I had an EPIC PENALTY PASS of clubs? huh.

I mean double of 2H would have been penalties so...

If a direct 2♣ is NF then he may bid like this with a gf hand with four spades and five+ clubs.

I suppose he could also have a balanced hand four spades.

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on May 16 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

redouble then new suit is GF with more than 4 of the suit bid. Opener, after redouble, tends to stay out of redoubler's way unless weak and shapely until the nature of the redouble is disclosed.

With the picture bid hand Ken showed, I would pass, then make the picture bid (4d) after 2S.

This is not law, it is agreement and not everyone uses that agreement. IMO the 2♦ bid is just trying to show the nature of opener's hand before the opponents make that difficult and since opener bypassed ♠ I think the 2♠ call promises 5+

[pooltuna]

rhm, on May 17 2010, 04:35 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 17 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 17 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

So, following the modern style[....]:

Redoubler does not have 4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, or five clubs.  Redouble implies no fit, and responder has game values.

Responder could probably have 5+ clubs since 2♣ would be nonforcing for most.

Responder could possible have a fit since for some there is a gap between 2♦ and a constructive raise (2NT, 3♣, or whatever we play), which can be filled by redbl followed by bidding diamonds.

Responder certainly doesn't need game values although his 2♠ bid does show game values. If he doubles, passes or bids diamonds as his next turn he may have less than game values.

But indeed I think most wouldn't have a 5-card major.

So assume for example you hold with your partner opening 1♦:

♠ AKxxxx
♥ xxx
♦ xx
♣ AJ

Bidding starts

1♦ --(DBL) -- ??? --(Pass)
2♦ --(Pass) --???

How do you describe such a hand if RDBL denies a 5 card major?

Rainer Herrmann

I guess the NON-forcing 1♠ call has gone out of fashion. I prefer to play XX means it is our hand and shows invitation + values (where is not yet clear) while ANY call over the X is NON forcing.