[Aardv]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 12:09, said:

Why is that you think a double followed by 3♣ the following round cannot be used for this purpose?

It could, but it's inferior to ask the initial doubler to start bidding his majors on a hand that doesn't want to know about them. It's better to use double then cue for a forcing two-suiter.

[Zelandakh]

Aardv, on 2015-March-25, 09:16, said:

It could, but it's inferior to ask the initial doubler to start bidding his majors on a hand that doesn't want to know about them. It's better to use double then cue for a forcing two-suiter.

Is it? Is this not a perfect way to handle a hand with one major that wants to play in 4M opposite a fit but 3NT without a fit and with a stopper? The approach allows for this hand as well as a wide variety of others to be handled. The only time you are signficantly disadvantaged is holding the major 2-suiter when partner has a 4 card major, as the fit is found a level higher. Meanwhile, how are you checking for both a major fit and a stopper if the only stopper ask is a direct 3♣?

From a theory point of view, it is often better to combine hands that need to find out similar information together. That the stopper ask has some cross-over with hands holding a 4 card major makes the efficiency not worse and potentially significantly better. Writng that something is inferior does not make it so - you also have to provide evidence.

[Aardv]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-25, 09:57, said:

Is it? Is this not a perfect way to handle a hand with one major that wants to play in 4M opposite a fit but 3NT without a fit and with a stopper? The approach allows for this hand as well as a wide variety of others to be handled. The only time you are signficantly disadvantaged is holding the major 2-suiter when partner has a 4 card major, as the fit is found a level higher. Meanwhile, how are you checking for both a major fit and a stopper if the only stopper ask is a direct 3♣?

From a theory point of view, it is often better to combine hands that need to find out similar information together. That the stopper ask has some cross-over with hands holding a 4 card major makes the efficiency not worse and potentially significantly better. Writng that something is inferior does not make it so - you also have to provide evidence.

Well, nothing is perfect and perhaps I was too dogmatic.

But if I understand you correctly, you want to double then cue both with the hand in the OP and with one 4-card major in a balanced hand without a stopper. In that case, how is the original doubler to know what to do after the cue bid with the ordinary-looking hand I mentioned - QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax ?

[Zelandakh]

Aardv, on 2015-March-25, 11:09, said:

But if I understand you correctly, you want to double then cue both with the hand in the OP and with one 4-card major in a balanced hand without a stopper. In that case, how is the original doubler to know what to do after the cue bid with the ordinary-looking hand I mentioned - QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax ?

Not sure I follow. They show a 4 card major. Then partner can ask for the stopper by bidding 3♣. You are losing the ability to use this to set hearts (or spades on another hand) as was previously mentioned, which is potentially inconvenient on those occasions when you want to go slamming.

[mike777]

btw just wanted to add this, granted this is old fashion bidding from Al Roth. He does not play responsive doubles after a t/o x, only on after an overcall. Double here would be penalty.

Again on this hand I would bid a gf 3c, we are vul.

[PhilKing]

I have to admit, I quite like the Cyberyeti 2NT showing an unidentified GF one suiter.

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-25, 11:56, said:

Not sure I follow. They show a 4 card major. Then partner can ask for the stopper by bidding 3♣. You are losing the ability to use this to set hearts (or spades on another hand) as was previously mentioned, which is potentially inconvenient on those occasions when you want to go slamming.

I agree with Aardv. Double followed by 3♣ asks partner to make a sensible call, generally this will mean bidding another suit because the first suit suggested did not find favour. After 1♣-dbl-2♣-dbl-Pass-2♥-Pass, to reserve 3♣ for slam tries in hearts when the doubler is limited by the failure to jump is making very poor use of the available bidding space.

[jallerton]

PhilKing, on 2015-March-25, 18:02, said:

I have to admit, I quite like the Cyberyeti 2NT showing an unidentified GF one suiter.

It's even better to bid 3♣ on these hands: sometimes the Cyberyeti method will wrong side NT. 2NT could be used to show a decent hand suggesting that the partnership tries for game in NT declared by the 2NT bidder.

[PhilKing]

jallerton, on 2015-March-26, 15:25, said:

It's even better to bid 3♣ on these hands: sometimes the Cyberyeti method will wrong side NT. 2NT could be used to show a decent hand suggesting that the partnership tries for game in NT declared by the 2NT bidder.

I doubt it wrong sides it very often. If we end in 3NT, perhaps we have the stop, and perhaps the relevant card is (shock), in the hand s of he opening bidder. In principle, the strong hand should be on lead versus 3NT. Meanwhile, we get to use the cue as a very distributional hand. This can be crucial if the next hand is planning a jump.

[Zelandakh]

jallerton, on 2015-March-26, 15:18, said:

I agree with Aardv. <and> After 1♣-dbl-2♣-dbl-Pass-2♥-Pass, to reserve 3♣ for slam tries in hearts when the doubler is limited by the failure to jump is making very poor use of the available bidding space.

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me. I am not sure what I wrote that suggested this was the usage I thought was best within the context being discussed. Indeed, I thought I had specifically pointed out that was not the best usage - it had been suggested further upthread. And given that we have this X + cue sequence available to gather extra information, do we really need a direct cue for a similar purpose?

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 19:17, said:

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me. I am not sure what I wrote that suggested this was the usage I thought was best within the context being discussed. Indeed, I thought I had specifically pointed out that was not the best usage - it had been suggested further upthread. And given that we have this X + cue sequence available to gather extra information, do we really need a direct cue for a similar purpose?

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but how do you propose the doubler bids on Aardv's example hand (both 4-card majors plus a club stop)? If he bids 2♥ over the responsive double, what does he bid on the next round over your 3♣ cue? How do you investigate both the 4-4 ♠ fit and the club stop?

[Zelandakh]

jallerton, on 2015-March-27, 11:00, said:

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but how do you propose the doubler bids on Aardv's example hand (both 4-card majors plus a club stop)? If he bids 2♥ over the responsive double, what does he bid on the next round over your 3♣ cue? How do you investigate both the 4-4 ♠ fit and the club stop?

You show the stop. If partner doubled looking for a spade fit they could have bid some number of spades over 2♥, no?

[jallerton]

Well, over 2♥, 2♠ is just a weakish hand competing with 4 spades and 4+ diamonds. We could jump to 3♠ over 2♥, but (i) it takes up a lot of room and (ii) are we sure that partner will interpret it as forcing rather then invitational?

[Zelandakh]

jallerton, on 2015-March-29, 02:55, said:

Well, over 2♥, 2♠ is just a weakish hand competing with 4 spades and 4+ diamonds. We could jump to 3♠ over 2♥, but (i) it takes up a lot of room and (ii) are we sure that partner will interpret it as forcing rather then invitational?

It takes up a lot of room but not more room than the proposed alternative of bidding 3♣ followed by 3♠.

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2015-March-23, 14:51, said:

c) drury (didn't promise a fit when 1st invented!)

I still play that.