[ArtK78]

I have to admit I am very old school, but double followed by a cue bid indicates to me the old rockcrusher game forcing direct cue bid.

So I like Rainer's 3♦ call. It shows great support for diamonds, a very strong hand, but not game forcing. Partner will bid on with almost any excuse.

[mikeh]

Seems to me, with all respect to rhm, that this is a straightforward value bid of 1N, showing 19-20, a balanced hand and a club stopper. Seems to match what we have. Surely that was our plan over 1M.

As for all this fear of this playing from the wrong side, that presupposes that the opps can hurt us in clubs AND that LHO will lead clubs and that positionally playing from the other side will both be better and feasible.

We have a number of hints that this is probably not going to happen.

Firstly, our diamond length suggests that partner is not very long there. And we know he lacks any 4 card major...he'd never bid 1♦ with a 4 card major. This means that he probably has some club length. That, in turn, suggests that opener's clubs are probably not long enough to hurt us or that, if they are, responder will choose to lead one of the majors. Indeed, if opener has 5 clubs, I'd expect responder to hold no more than xxx and often to hold a 5 card or longer major and to lead that suit. We know that opener's club suit is probably more than 3 cards long, but his partner doesn't, and we have rebid 1N! I think that the 3♦ bidders are assuming that the opps always do the right thing, while the 1N bidders make it more difficult for them to work out what that 'right thing' is.

Meanwhile, by bidding 3♦, we are gambling that we can only make 3N when partner has a club stopper. In addition, we are gambling that we can make 2 more tricks in diamonds than we can in notrump. We won't fare well in a mp field for +110 when 120 was available.


I was going to suggest that opposite a mediocre hand such as xxx Qx Axxx xxxx, we'd want to be in 3N not 3♦, but I'd be cherry picking. There are undoubtedly many hands where 1N works badly and 3♦ fares better. But I think that those who bid 3♦ are guilty of something that I often do: I think they are over-thinking the problem.

[gwnn]

mikeh you are ignoring the more important question: Do you have an agreement over what 3C means by doubler?

[mikeh]

gwnn, on 2012-December-03, 11:13, said:

mikeh you are ignoring the more important question: Do you have an agreement over what 3C means by doubler?

I always ignore questions to which I have no answer

In fact, I don't think I have ever discussed with with anyone, partner, teammate, opp, kib, etc. If my partner did it to me, I'd look at my club length. If unexpectedly short, I'd take it as natural since I'd expect the opps to have bid more than 1♣, by the time he got to bid 3♣, if they held 11 clubs. I'd take it as a splinter otherwise.

IOW, I would NOT take it as stopper ask. 2♣ fills that role, for all practical purposes. Not that 2♣ IS a stopper ask, just that we'd tend to bid 2N over 2♣ if we held a stopper.

[MrAce]

I would bid 1 NT

To me 2♣ (cue after dbl over pds simple response) shows a giant, just like Art.

If i had to choose anything else than 1NT, that would be 3♦, not 2♣.