[Hanoi5]

♠J7xxx
♥A9
♦QJ
♣KJxx

All white:

1♣-X-Pa-???

2♠? 2♣?

[Fluffy]

3♠ for me (5 card invitational), values too soft for forcing to game

[phil_20686]

What ever you do to show an invitational with 5 spades.

I'm not sure fluffy's response is std is it? I thought 3S should be a weakish weak 2 type hand opposite a take out double at the one level.

[MrAce]

Definetely 2♣ for me;

If pd has only 3♠ i want to be in 3 NT more than 4♠. This hand is screaming for NT contract with 5-3 ♠ fit. By inviting and showing 5♠ we can never play 3NT.

If he bids 2♦ or 2♥ i am bidding 3NT (if u think it worths less than this we can bid 2 nt)

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-20, 14:39, said:

What ever you do to show an invitational with 5 spades.

I'm not sure fluffy's response is std is it? I thought 3S should be a weakish weak 2 type hand opposite a take out double at the one level.

I think Fluffy's response is relatively common..invitational with 5 spades. I just happen to agree with Mr Ace that this is not the time to use it.

[mike777]

2s max for me


9-11 and 4 -5 spds

if you prefer cue...ok no problem,

[gwnn]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-20, 14:39, said:

I'm not sure fluffy's response is std is it? I thought 3S should be a weakish weak 2 type hand opposite a take out double at the one level.

I thought so too but there was a thread where people were divided 50-50 between our interpretation and fluffy's. If anything, Fluffy's treatment was more popular.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2011-November-20, 23:25, said:

Definetely 2♣ for me;

By inviting and showing 5♠ we can never play 3NT.

Why? We bid 2S, partner with values for game and 3 spades cues 3C. We can ignore the 5th spade and bid 3NT now if we want to. It is easy enough to treat this hand as an invite with 4 spades is it not? Fluffy could also (by bidding 2S). In either case it seems obvious to bid 2S rather than 2C (if you want to treat the spade suit as 4 cards) unless you are using the system fred posted in the other thread. So this basically just comes down to a choice of cue bid styles under the premise that you started with.

[Fluffy]

the advantage of the system is not to go to the 3 level without a fit

[mikeh]

I confess I have never really understood why 3♠ shows an invitational hand, as opposed to my preference, which is that it shows 6+ spades in a weakish hand.

We can always cue with a hand that is invitational in strength, and then bid spades, twice if need be...this never gets us beyond 3♠ (unless we have gone to game voluntarily) and so shows the hand perfectly, at least in comparison to the immediate jump method. Since those who play 3♠ as invitational can't show the 6 card suit with weakish values...they have to either overbid by blasting game or underbid by bidding 1 or 2♠.....I don't understand the approach. Why not use a method that improves one's ability to show different hand types when doing so carries no real systemic cost?

Even if I were talked into playing that 3♠ showed invitational values, I wouldn't dream of that here. I would cuebid and then bid spades. I like the style wherein after a cuebid all changes of suit by either partner are F1 until a game is bid...we can get out below game only when either a suit is raised or rebid.

Btw, the original question was 2♠ or 2♣. 2♠ is not merely wrong but fundamentally wrong. It is not even invitational....it is 'constructive'....and we are about a K higher than we need be for 2♠...and we should be able to refine our responses to a takeout double of 1♣ better than that.

[aguahombre]

Maybe with the given hand, we aren't sure that spades would be the right strain even if doubler has four pieces; and perhaps it is a hand where we believe our side is the correct side to declare from.

Does a third choice here of 2N as an advance to the t/o double have any support?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-November-21, 10:10, said:

We can always cue with a hand that is invitational in strength, and then bid spades, twice if need be

So you play

---

as non-forcing? What do you do with AKT9xx Kx Kxx xx ?

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-21, 10:26, said:

Does a third choice here of 2N as an advance to the t/o double have any support?

I hope not. I don't think we should ever conceal a five-card major in response to a takeout double.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2011-November-21, 11:18, said:

So you play

---

as non-forcing? What do you do with AKT9xx Kx Kxx xx ?

I concede that the approach is not without potential difficulties, but the example you gave was not one of them.

If I held the hand you posited, on the auction you gave, I would either bid 4♠ or, if I felt the slam potential was too good for that, I would cue 3♦ over 2N...partner will own to 3 card support, and if he doesn't have 3 card support, then he has a powerful one suiter in hearts for his original double and I'll head towards but not force to slam in hearts. My partners don't make a takeout double of 1♦ with a minimum range hand and only 2 cards in an unbid major, and I suspect yours don't, either.

One point not so far canvassed is whether over 2♦, on your auction, doubler should jump to 3♥ with the power hand and suit, thus getting it off his chest immediately, or should he content himself with 2♥, hoping to catch up later.

If he'd jump to 3♥ with say xx AQJ9xx AJx Ax (and overcall 1♥ with a weaker hand and the same general hand-type), then his actual sequence virtually eliminates slam and I'd just bid 4♠

Edit: I hadn't seen the other thread and wrote the above before clicking on your hand. That was an informative thread, and shows why Fred and Justin are the two highest-regarded posters on the fora. Had I held the hand Justin had, I would also have planned to cue then jump, so I answered your post too quickly....I wouldn't have bid 2♠ over 2♥....I would have bid 3♠ to set trump and suggest some (to me, here I am closer to Fred than to Justin I think) slam interest.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-November-21, 11:26, said:

Had I held the hand Justin had, I would also have planned to cue then jump, so I answered your post too quickly....I wouldn't have bid 2♠ over 2♥....I would have bid 3♠ to set trump and suggest some (to me, here I am closer to Fred than to Justin I think) slam interest.

What if the majors were reversed? After dbl-2♦;2♠, don't you now need 3♥ for both the one-suited slam try and the 5-card invitation?

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2011-November-21, 12:47, said:

What if the majors were reversed? After dbl-2♦;2♠, don't you now need 3♥ for both the one-suited slam try and the 5-card invitation?

You raise one of the problem areas for my preferred approach to bidding. It is common in NA, as Fred suggested in the other thread, to use the cue as forcing to suit agreement. This means that the sequence you now give, of doubler bidding 2♠ and advancer bidding 3♥, is forcing, since suit agreement hasn't yet been achieved.

This is perhaps an argument that 3♥ over a t.o. double of a minor could be natural and invitational with 5+, and that 3♠ could be the weakish 6+ card suit. I have never heard of anyone playing this way, but it does seem to avoid the problem you now pose.

As it is, for me 3♥ is forcing, and I suppose that I am overbidding. Style matters......to me, the further away from classic shape I am as doubler, the stronger I will be in hcp. So 4=3=2=4 will have a minimum strength a tad above what I would need for 4=4=2=3 and another tad above what I would need for 4=4=1=4, assuming I was doubling 1♦.

That reduces tho doesn't eliminate the overbid problem when advancer has hearts and doubler bids 2♠ over the cuebid.

[MrAce]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-21, 06:20, said:

Why? We bid 2S, partner with values for game and 3 spades cues 3C. We can ignore the 5th spade and bid 3NT now if we want to. It is easy enough to treat this hand as an invite with 4 spades is it not? Fluffy could also (by bidding 2S). In either case it seems obvious to bid 2S rather than 2C (if you want to treat the spade suit as 4 cards) unless you are using the system fred posted in the other thread. So this basically just comes down to a choice of cue bid styles under the premise that you started with.

Actually MikeH replied to your question imo. But to me this hand is not 2♠. If i ever bid 2♠ with 12 hcp (i dont think i ever will) it definetely wont have 5 card ♠. It doesnt matter how flawed my hcps are, imo 12 hcp is way too much to invite at imps. I prefer this type of 23-24 hcp to a 26 hcp game where opponents were silent and i had very little information about their hands.

-I know opponent's hands, i know who has what and who doesnt.
-I know defense has little to none communication and my hand says the guy on lead(opener) has one of the worst hands to lead from vs game especially 3NT.

Also, about how Fred is using responses to DBL. Dont think that what he uses is very custom and rare. It is actually very common among top players. Not that i am a top player but the way i respond is very close as far as i read his post, and this has been like this for more than 20 years. You may have different approach to respond to DBL, and i respect to whatever you choose for yourself. AKxxx x xxx xxxx is a 2♠ bid for me had pd doubled 1♣

As most of you know from my past posts that except a few ones, i dont even find invitation bids scientific and i listed my reasons before. Especially rich invitation bids.

@Andy : If our goal is to find 5-3♠ by showing a 5♠ and focus on only ♠ games at bridge, i could agree with your statement about we have to do it. Our goal should be to find best spot for us regardless of common principles. This hand when i look at it, is screaming that using common principles not only we wont be able to play our best game, but also we will not even be able to express it to pd.

Someone maybe too orthodox and can not sleep well that night without showing his 5 card ♠, i on the other hand, prefer to find a 5-4 ♠ fit without showing anything and if i cant find 5-4 choose 3NT over 4♠ on anyday with this hand. I know i am minority on this (if not alone)

[ggwhiz]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-20, 14:33, said:

3♠ for me (5 card invitational), values too soft for forcing to game

Me too. Sure 3nt might make but pard should be gun shy forever if we gf on these cards.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2011-November-21, 17:45, said:

@Andy : If our goal is to find 5-3♠ by showing a 5♠ and focus on only ♠ games at bridge, i could agree with your statement about we have to do it. Our goal should be to find best spot for us regardless of common principles. This hand when i look at it, is screaming that using common principles not only we wont be able to play our best game, but also we will not even be able to express it to pd.

I didn't mean that we have to show that we have five of them - I can understand treating this as a 4224 shape. I was replying to a post that suggested concealing the fact that we have any kind of spade suit.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2011-November-21, 18:31, said:

I didn't mean that we have to show that we have five of them - I can understand treating this as a 4224 shape. I was replying to a post that suggested concealing the fact that we have any kind of spade suit.

Ok my bad then, owe you a beer