[WellSpyder]

---

Imps.
What call do you recommend? Oppo are playing 5-card majors with a 15-17 NT, and 1C could potentially be a 2-card suit if outside the 1NT range.

(I was going to include a poll, but couldn't decide what calls to include in it!)

[billw55]

I will try 3♦, showing extra strength and preference of strain.

[WesleyC]

I'd start with a responsive double, mostly in an attempt to keep the auction low. I'm planning to follow up with 3C over most continuations in an attempt to offer choice of games.

WesC

[wank]

much too strong for 3D. i double because it saves space compared to 3C.

cross posted with wesc. agree with him

[ahydra]

Responsive X here normally shows both majors, no? 3C direct, asking for a stop, seems right - 3NT rates to be the place to play.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

2N reverse lebensohl for me then 3♦ forcing with ♦.

[mikeh]

While adjective bridge can be very effective, suggesting that we suddenly adopt reverse lebensohl or use 3C to ask for a stopper won't usually work, since the authorities frown on telling partner, mid-auction, that our calls have an otherwise unknown meaning.

I don't like double. I expect partner to be on the minimum side, so he may well have classic shape and bid 3D, but over that I have to bid 4C or 5D. If he doesn't bid 3D, then I am stuck over 3M, since showing diamonds now may not be taken as forcing and may be taken as flexible...thus if he bids 3S, he should take my diamond bid as also showing hearts.

I am a simple man. I force to suit agreement via 3C. My subsequent diamond bid over 3M is then forcing and doesn't show or suggest a side-suit. If he bids 3D, then I pretty much have to set trump via 4C unless I want to give up on slam. My guess is that we are cold for 5D and may have a decent play for slam. I think I am worth one mild try if he bids diamonds first, but not if he bids a major.

My main worry here is that it is possible we belong in hearts, but there are limits to what we can do.

[wank]

when partner turns up with a 4423 shape are we all going to cry about his having too few diamonds to make a takeout double?

[mikeh]

wank, on 2015-March-11, 09:18, said:

when partner turns up with a 4423 shape are we all going to cry about his having too few diamonds to make a takeout double?

I wouldn't, but he shouldn't, imo, be making an offshape takeout double opposite an unpassed hand with minimal values.

We hold 13. RHO probably doesn't have 0 when vulnerable. LHO probably has a full opener OR a long club suit.

If LHO has a full opener, then partner will almost always be minimum, and hence will almost never be 4=4=2=3. If LHO has 4+ clubs, then partner will usually have a stiff.

How reliable these arguments are is a matter of style, not just for our side but also theirs. Your experience may differ, but these inferences will be strong for me.

Besides, please tell me how you intend to cater to 4=4=2=3 while also catering to AQxx Kxxx Qxxx x. I am not saying I reach slam opposite that hand, but I do know that aiming for a partscore on this auction, out of fear that the opps hold a 7 card fit, is absurd.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-March-11, 08:19, said:

While adjective bridge can be very effective, suggesting that we suddenly adopt reverse lebensohl or use 3C to ask for a stopper won't usually work, since the authorities frown on telling partner, mid-auction, that our calls have an otherwise unknown meaning.

No, but we have partnership agreements here, and I'd expect in a thread where it doesn't say this is a scratch partnership to be able to use them.

What do other people use 2N for here ?

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-11, 10:14, said:

No, but we have partnership agreements here, and I'd expect in a thread where it doesn't say this is a scratch partnership to be able to use them.

What do other people use 2N for here ?

The OP asked for recommendations, not for method but for what he ought to do in this situation. You continually claim, in these sorts of postings, that you have a specialized method that just so happens to at least appear to work on the hand in question.

It might be more useful if you were to answer the OP request....feeling free to add, if you felt it useful, that the OP might want to consider a systemic agreement that you have found to be of use.

My own agreement in this auction, in which opener could have a doubleton club, is to play 2N as natural.

I generally don't design my methods to cater to a 1st seat vulnerable psyche (especially of a short club, lol), so I generally don't need a gadget to show this sort of hand, especially when I have a cuebid available as a general force. Your experience presumably differs.....your vulnerable opponents psyche so often that you need both 2N and 3♣, as well as double.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-March-11, 10:33, said:

The OP asked for recommendations, not for method but for what he ought to do in this situation. You continually claim, in these sorts of postings, that you have a specialized method that just so happens to at least appear to work on the hand in question.

It might be more useful if you were to answer the OP request....feeling free to add, if you felt it useful, that the OP might want to consider a systemic agreement that you have found to be of use.

My own agreement in this auction, in which opener could have a doubleton club, is to play 2N as natural.

I generally don't design my methods to cater to a 1st seat vulnerable psyche (especially of a short club, lol), so I generally don't need a gadget to show this sort of hand, especially when I have a cuebid available as a general force. Your experience presumably differs.....your vulnerable opponents psyche so often that you need both 2N and 3♣, as well as double.

Nobody needs to have psyched here, I have 13 opener with 10-11, partner 11-12 responder 4-6 is entirely plausible, it looks like partner is minimum, so most likely has short clubs.

The chance of needing a natural 2N is quite low, 3♣ would tend to be 4-4 majors and decent, X would tend to keep diamonds in the equation and can be weaker IMO, for one suited hands you have 2X/3X/2N->3X for weak/inv/F. Your double and overcall style also makes some difference here.

[ggwhiz]

You do have a good bid if you have a defined partnership style.

In mine we would overcall a 4-card suit (or pass) before an off shape double and since pard is marked for a minimum that takes 3nt off the table barring perfect cards. 5♦ is odds against too but when I double 2♣ it is not responsive for us unless 2 unbid suits instead of 3. It just shows values with defensive leanings.

If partner bids over my double I'm only bidding 3♦ with this one but I'm cheering for a float.

[wank]

anyone who doesn't x 1c with akxx kjxx xx kxx should find a different game imo

[kuhchung]

since i don't play 2N reverse lebensohl or double showing a diamond 1 suiter, i'm just going to bid 3D

[mikeh]

wank, on 2015-March-11, 14:24, said:

anyone who doesn't x 1c with akxx kjxx xx kxx should find a different game imo

Anybody who assumes as East that partner has that holding should go to bed and stay there.

Have you any clue as to what that holding for partner requires of the opps to have done? While of course that sort of layout is 'possible', are you seriously suggesting that it is 'probable'? And please, please explain how you are going to cater both to that hand and AQxx Kxxx QJxx x?

It seems to me that you have fallen into the common trap of imagining a problem layout and then focusing on that layout without proper regard to the improbability of that layout, and the difficulties that you will have on far more common, usually mundane layouts by catering to your fears. IOW, you are talking yourself out of being sensible. I think we all do it...certainly I see myself doing it all too often, so I hope you won't take personal offence at what is merely an opinion.

[wank]

mikeh, on 2015-March-11, 15:22, said:

Have you any clue as to what that holding for partner requires of the opps to have done?

it requires lho to have opened a systemic 2 card club and rho to have raised to a presumbly systemic 2c on his 5 card support. as for how to cater for partner's various hand types, that's the tricky part, hence my desire to keep the bidding as low as possible.

[mikeh]

wank, on 2015-March-11, 15:24, said:

it requires lho to have opened a systemic 2 card club and rho to have raised to a systemic 2c on his 5 card support. as for how to cater for partner's various hand types, that's the tricky part, hence my desire to keep the bidding as low as possible.

I understand the desire to keep the bidding low.

However, when one makes a responsive double of 2♣, one doesn't promise a rebid. Indeed, in these auctions, it would be common for advancer to hold something like a 4=4=3=2/4=4=2=3 8 count or so.

That means that doubler will strain to bid his cheapest 4 card major, rather than his cheapest 4 card suit.

In turn that means that advancer can't distinguish a 2♥ call by doubler as being, say, your dreaded 4=4=2=3 or my more common 4=4=4=1.

In addition, while it may be convenient, when answering this problem, to assert that double followed by 3♦ is forcing, I would be very surprised if that view were remotely close to being universally understood in that way. I am not saying that there is no argument for saying it should be forcing, and not even saying that I wouldn't decide at the table that it was forcing. It is to say that after playing bridge for more than 40 years, including at various world championships and in several partnerships with beyond the average amounts of agreements, I have never discussed this auction of double then 3♦ with anyone.

Bitter experience has proven that just because I think an auction should have one meaning doesn't mean that another very strong expert has a different idea.

So I do think that you have created a problem for yourself, in your legitimate effort to get by this round. That is why I bid 3♣. Unlike the double, this promises another bid, so advancer will bid up the line, and not the cheaper major. I am not going to survive 4=4=2=3 very often, but then neither are you, and meanwhile, on the far more common layouts, I will reach game, and maybe even slam, more comfortably and probably more frequently, when right, than you are.

Note that this is far different from 1M x 2M x, where doubler should assume that the double is about the minors, on the reasonable basis that advancer will always bid the other major with length there. When their suit is a minor, double is usually about the majors.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 3 ♣ as a force showing a good hand. My hand is a full opener and the first priority is to let partner know the ballpark we are playing in -- minimum of game invitational between the two hands. We can figure out where to play next.

I don't like a responsive double because it advertises 4-4 in the majors which is exactly what I don't have. When you start drawing the wrong picture of your hand, it gets near impossible for partner to change that image in their mind.

One thing to consider -- even if partner has a minimum T/O double, partner's cards rate to be a little more than normal. Any tenaces partner has are behind the hand with the bulk of opponent's points.

Also, I just don't make off shape doubles nor expect that my partner's will.

[masonbarge]

mikeh, on 2015-March-11, 08:19, said:

While adjective bridge can be very effective, suggesting that we suddenly adopt reverse lebensohl or use 3C to ask for a stopper won't usually work, since the authorities frown on telling partner, mid-auction, that our calls have an otherwise unknown meaning.

I almost hate to say this, since I'm probably just showing my own ignorance, but: If a double would be responsive, 3C to me would ask for a club stopper, showing by implication a diamond suit and opening values. I had thought this was a fairly widespread usage, like 5NT being a Grand Slam Force.