[pescetom]

MP

---

And then there were panzerotti.

[jillybean]

2S it should show 6

edit: changing my bid to 2♦ and wishing I was playing transfers

[kerkido]

2♠ would be weaker in my book. Pass and pull partner's double to 2♠ to show a decent opener with 6 spades.

[jillybean]

XX shows 10+?

This is MP, I'd like to keep pass to warn partner we may only just have the balance of the points.

[DavidKok]

Just checking: had South bid 2♣ instead of redouble, that would have been forcing?

[apollo1201]

 DavidKok, on 2026-July-13, 01:16, said:

Just checking: had South bid 2♣ instead of redouble, that would have been forcing?

It traditionally shows a misfit for S and 6+ C suit with competitive strength to battle for the part score (while stronger hands go through XX). Around 7-10 HCPs. And definitely non forcing.

The hand is borderline between pass (and not sitting 2CX) and an immediate warning sign to partner with 2S (and maybe show D later). The honor structure with 2 A and a very robust S plus the fact that we have a real opening hand favor pass, I d say.

[DavidKok]

apollo1201, on 2026-July-13, 01:25, said:

It traditionally shows a misfit for S and 6+ C suit with competitive strength to battle for the part score (while stronger hands go through XX). Around 7-10 HCPs. And definitely non forcing.

I know this is a way people played it. Here is has become more popular to make the bid forcing instead, so that redouble shows a defensively oriented hand without very long side suits. That gives freedom for opener to take action when holding a (very) short suit - we know the opponents can likely play there.
If 2♣ would have been NF we now need to consider the possibility that partner has a strong hand with long clubs and was not allowed to bid them last round.

Shape is king. If XX can contain many shapes we're just making guesses.

[apollo1201]

 DavidKok, on 2026-July-13, 02:44, said:

I know this is a way people played it. Here is has become more popular to make the bid forcing instead, so that redouble shows a defensively oriented hand without very long side suits.

Where I live it has become fashionable to use transfers with both weak (to introduce the suit for a partscore battle) and stong hands so that XX is as you describe and then is clearly penalty oriented (the ideal being 10-11 points 4441, now they are in a really bad situation while we are not sure to make a game).
You can no longer enjoy a natural 1NT and as I play very rarely I do not invest as much as before on system improvement. There are many things I d like to play as I ve not changed anything since when I played more ie 10-20 yrs ago. At least this system with a random player at the club is ok. But is not up to date for competition and more serious stuff. 😰😰

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-July-12, 19:32, said:

XX shows 10+?

Yes, in probable misfit.

 DavidKok, on 2026-July-13, 01:16, said:

Just checking: had South bid 2♣ instead of redouble, that would have been forcing?

Nope, natural NF weaker than XX, as apollo described.

 jillybean, on 2026-July-12, 19:32, said:

This is MP, I'd like to keep pass to warn partner we may only just have the balance of the points.

Pass is forcing in our system, I don't think it says anything about strength.
But the recommendation is to give priority to Double of 2♣ with an appropriate hand.
I wasn't comfortable doing that on 6 spades and 3 weak hearts, despite the clubs void.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2026-July-13, 09:59, said:

Nope, natural NF weaker than XX, as apollo described.

Then it's just a blind guess. If partner has a strong hand with 5(+) clubs then we'll likely want to defend. If partner has something less than that a double is still possible.
I have frequently seen auctions (mostly at other tables) that started like this, followed by a 2♠ rebid to say 'I have a weak hand and nothing in clubs, please adjust your evaluation' and a prompt 3NT jump rebid 'Partner I had CLUBS, how DARE you, let me recover the sunk cost by bidding game'. This time I'll bite - double 2♣ (if you want a bridge excuse reason, we have up to three top tricks and might give partner some uppercut by pushing more spades through the takeout double) and if partner had a regular redouble hand we'll pay up to the methods.

The longer I play, the less tolerant I am of these 'I have points but I will not tell you my shape' methods, especially on competitive auctions. Though arguably I have gained some wisdom as well - they turn certain decisions into blind guessing games, so don't blame the person making the guess no matter the outcome.

[pescetom]

Thinking about it, Double and then 2♠ over a possible 2♥ describes the hand quite well anyway.

I would like to play transfers here.

[mikeh]

Playing standard, which I do not unless partner insists (any partner who insists is likely not very strong so it’s best to accommodate such partners), I’d bid 2S. If we don’t bid now, how on earth is partner to expect (a) a strong six card suit and (b) no desire to defend, both of which match my hand. I do like to describe my hand to partner in constructive auctions.

My own preference is to give up on a strength showing redouble. Yes, once in a while one can collect a number…more commonly after opening 1S than with other 1suit openings because they’re forced to the 2 level.

But in the meantime, we get to play a full range of transfers AND keep 1N as natural and constructive but nf…8-10 hcp, usually 2 in our major.

The scheme is:

All calls starting with redouble up to one below 2 of our suit (other than 1N)are transfers, with the last transfer (here, 2H) showing a constructive raise. An immediate 2S is just a noise, taking the 2 level away.

A transfer into a new suit is assumed, by opener, to show approximately a weak two in that suit, with fewer than 3 card support for opener, but Is unlimited…responder is assured of another chance to bid.

Sometimes partners want to keep the penalty oriented redouble and then we use 1N as clubs. This is ok over 1S (x) but over 1H, the transfers start at 1N and 1S is natural, F1.

The ability to distinguish the raises is a big winner.

[kerkido]

mikeh, on 2026-July-13, 11:25, said:

If we don’t bid now, how on earth is partner to expect (a) a strong six card suit and (b) no desire to defend, both of which match my hand. I do like to describe my hand to partner in constructive auctions.

Isn't that exactly what pass and pull shows in "standard", even if you don't like playing it?

[mikeh]

kerkido, on 2026-July-13, 17:40, said:

Isn't that exactly what pass and pull shows in "standard", even if you don't like playing it?

Not to me. Now, admittedly I haven’t played ‘standard’ with a good player in many years, but I’ve never understood why anyone would consider passing here, in the hope that partner gets a chance to and does double 2C and then we run. That makes no sense to me at all. I have a good hand…anyone who thinks this is a weak hand doesn’t have a clue about hand evaluation. 5 controls, a good 6 card suit, my side values in a suit of A10xx and a void. Why would anyone ever think that hoping to get a chance to bid a delayed 2S is the best way to let partner know what I’ve got…words fail me.

If it is indeed ‘standard’ then it’s just like most of ‘standard’ bidding…utterly inadequate. Just my opinion😀

[kerkido]

mikeh, on 2026-July-13, 18:15, said:

Now, admittedly I haven’t played ‘standard’ with a good player in many years, but I’ve never understood why anyone would consider passing here, in the hope that partner gets a chance to and does double 2C and then we run. That makes no sense to me at all. I have a good hand…anyone who thinks this is a weak hand doesn’t have a clue about hand evaluation.

This not being a weak hand is exactly the point. The way I was taught (and apollo above it seems), the xx is hoping to defend any time the opponents have a misfit, so most openers that *do* want to defend will be passing to see where the opponents run to - the pass is therefore very wide ranging. By "getting in the way of partner" and bidding 2♠ immediately, you're making it clear that you have a weak hand before they get excited (and jumping is still weak, but even more distribution). With better hands like this one you'll always be able to bid later, since pass is forcing.

Agreed xx as penalty isn't the best system, but when it is, that logic as taught always made sense to me.. and would always assume the OP is playing "standard" - maybe there are multiple versions of standard.

[mikeh]

kerkido, on 2026-July-13, 19:49, said:

This not being a weak hand is exactly the point. The way I was taught (and apollo above it seems), the xx is hoping to defend any time the opponents have a misfit, so most openers that *do* want to defend will be passing to see where the opponents run to - the pass is therefore very wide ranging. By "getting in the way of partner" and bidding 2♠ immediately, you're making it clear that you have a weak hand before they get excited (and jumping is still weak, but even more distribution). With better hands like this one you'll always be able to bid later, since pass is forcing.

Agreed xx as penalty isn't the best system, but when it is, that logic as taught always made sense to me.. and would always assume the OP is playing "standard" - maybe there are multiple versions of standard.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. I’m not sitting for a penalty double. I know that. By bidding 2S I’m telling partner that I have long spades and very short clubs. Guess what I have?

My point of is that passing implies a willingness to defend should partner have an appropriate, which most definitely does not require 5 strong clubs.

Since I have zero desire to defend a 2C contract when the opps have a 9 card fit, I bid. Not to announce ‘weakness’ but to inform partner about my hand. Odd, I know. Many posters here seem to think they can mastermind every hand, making all the decisions. Me? Bidding is a conversation and my partners have an equal say in our decision making. I describe my hand.

[kerkido]

I'm sorry, but if you have agreed that 2♠ shows a weak hand, then bidding 2♠ here because you prefer it to mean something else is what is utter nonsense. You clearly don't have that agreement, and dislike it, but it's a commonly taught one, so that's not relevant. How is bidding exactly as your agreement states to help partner know more about your hand "masterminding"?! True, it may take two bids to show a non-minimum, but you don't always have to describe your hand in a single bid..

[mikeh]

kerkido, on 2026-July-13, 22:07, said:

I'm sorry, but if you have agreed that 2♠ shows a weak hand, then bidding 2♠ here because you prefer it to mean something else is what is utter nonsense. You clearly don't have that agreement, and dislike it, but it's a commonly taught one, so that's not relevant. How is bidding exactly as your agreement states to help partner know more about your hand "masterminding"?! True, it may take two bids to show a non-minimum, but you don't always have to describe your hand in a single bid..

I appreciate the adoption of ‘nonsense’. Well played! But the fallacy of your last sentence lies in the implicit assumption that the takeout doubler is passing. I’d agree if you argued that doubler will often…usually, even….pass but what if he doesn’t? Now, no matter what partner does, I suspect you’d be better positioned had you bid 2S.

Btw,I haven’t checked your link but I’ve read many articles over the year by players who not known for winning much, giving lessons, including by writing articles. Your link may be completely authoritative or just expressing, as standard, something that is no more than one variant of standard. I am pretty certain that both my regular expert partners, with whom I play very different methods, would think my way was ‘standard’. I’ve played bridge in a lot of places…in clubs in 5 countries…and I don’t think you’d find anything other than ‘regional’ standards amongst the majority of players. So…my standard and yours differ. Isn’t the question then just ‘which is probably most effective? Pass and pull with weakness or pass and pull with a good(ish) hand?’ My experience is that bidding right away to show this sort of hand…this being towards the low end of the range….is more valuable than passing. Yours may differ…and I’m not being sarcastic😀

[pescetom]

Here is what was going on from both sides.

MP

---

Our actual auction was something like this, played too many other hands since to be exact.
I didn't like the methods, although we had a valid alternative to the RKCB by South.

Interested to know how it would have gone with your methods (West will bid 3♣ given a chance).

[jillybean]

North must bid again with that non minimum hand

---

Ignore this, I'm bidding both hands.