[pescetom]

MP

---

What does East's 2♠ mean in your partnership and what do you bid now?

[DavidKok]

It asks for a spade stopper/better description of the hand. You have one and should bid 2NT (and I would have bid 1NT after the double).

[Douglas43]

I agree with DavidKok as to the meaning of 2S, although I am happy enough with 2C on your second turn

[nige1]

pescetom ' MP.
a. What does East's 2♠ mean in your partnership and
b. what do you bid now?'
+++++++++++++++++++
a. 2♠ is a UCB with extra values e.g: showing a ♣ fit; or asking for a ♠ stop.
b. I rank
1. 2NT= NAT probably wrong-siding but difficult to think of an alternative.
2. 3♣ = NAT or even better STOP 3♣ because we are probably too high.

---

[mikeh]

It establishes a game force. It denies 5+ hearts (he would have bid 2H over 1S with a good hand with 5+ hearts). Don’t read anything more into the bid. He may have clubs. He may have diamonds. He may have only one spade stopper and would like you to have one as well, before committing to 3N. He may have slam ambitions.

Many years ago, it was common to play something called a Western Cuebid, in which such a cue specifically asked for a stopper. That was never universal and I doubt that many good players use it anymore. It’s unnecessary.

Opener is expected to make the cheapest natural bid, to await clarification from responder as to his hand type.

Here, 2N is both cheap and natural.

I would have bid 1N last round.

Don’t worry about wrong-siding. RHO did not raise spades and LHO, who bid spades, will be on lead. You are not wrong-siding anything, but you may be misleading partner, who is entitled to think you have shape on this auction, since you bid 2C.

Ask yourself this: had the auction gone 1C (P) 1H (P) would you have bid 2C?

No, you’d have bid 1N

It is common (but not universal) these days, at least at the expert level) to bid 1N, even in the posted auction, without promising a stopper, the idea being that you show your general hand type and work out the stopper issue later if responder forces. So they run 5 spades v 1N....hopefully you take 7 tricks next.

But even if you don’t play that style (and I don’t), here you have a balanced minimum with a stopper. 1N was, imo, clear.

[pescetom]

Thanks to those who replied so far.
Will leave it open until tomorrow so others may reply.
Just two quick comments for now.

DavidKok, on 2021-January-12, 08:01, said:

It asks for a spade stopper/better description of the hand. You have one and should bid 2NT (and I would have bid 1NT after the double).

I preferred clubs as it showed disinterest in hearts and might be a better place to die. But several other tables did bid 1NT.

nige1, on 2021-January-12, 09:51, said:

1. 2NT= NAT but probably wrong-siding but difficult to think of an alternative.

Why probably wrong-siding? Not much to conceal, but it puts 1♠ on lead which should help I would have thought.

[At time of writing have not read mikeh yet]

[Cyberyeti]

I think 2N is clear here.

I find Mike's perspective interesting.

On the other side of the pond I think the first double says "I have 4 hearts", in the UK I think it's more like "I have 4 hearts and 4 clubs" so it doesn't hurt to bid 2♣ first time (of course you may not ctually have those holdings, but that's what partner pictures).

I also certainly don't play 2♠ FG, it's F1 for us. What is partner supposed to do with 11-12 with a dubious spade holding and 4 hearts ?

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-12, 11:11, said:

I find Mike's perspective interesting.

On the other side of the pond I think the first double says "I have 4 hearts", in the UK I think it's more like "I have 4 hearts and 4 clubs" so it doesn't hurt to bid 2♣ first time (of course you may not ctually have those holdings, but that's what partner pictures).

Pretty much what I was about to reply too. To be honest it's more like "I have 4 hearts and should have 4 clubs", but in any case a 2♣ rebid is nominally a raise of a known suit after the double and not promising more than 4 cards as we play it. But even so I concede there is still a strong case for 1NT.

[Stephen Tu]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-12, 11:11, said:

On the other side of the pond I think the first double says "I have 4 hearts", in the UK I think it's more like "I have 4 hearts and 4 clubs" so it doesn't hurt to bid 2♣ first time

As an American that seems really weird to me. What do you do with say 3433 and values? Bid 1nt and bury the hearts? Bid 1nt without a spade stopper? With x44x do you raise diamonds and bury the hearts?
Feels restrictive to me. American way seems more hands are biddable, and still find clubs if opener is unbalanced with both minors.

[Cyberyeti]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-January-12, 11:58, said:

As an American that seems really weird to me. What do you do with say 3433 and values? Bid 1nt and bury the hearts? Bid 1nt without a spade stopper? With x44x do you raise diamonds and bury the hearts?
Feels restrictive to me. American way seems more hands are biddable, and still find clubs if opener is unbalanced with both minors.

No, you double with the 3433, as I said you picture 44 when replying, partner may not actually have it.

We do raise the diamonds as we play inverted not denying 4M so we'll usually find a heart fit, if <10 points we have to X, but removing 2♣ to 2♦ is not a problem, also remember this hand is a pass or 1N opener here, not 1♦ which shows more diamonds or more points unless some 4441.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-12, 12:53, said:

No, you double with the 3433, as I said you picture 44 when replying, partner may not actually have it.

We do raise the diamonds as we play inverted not denying 4M so we'll usually find a heart fit, if <10 points we have to X, but removing 2♣ to 2♦ is not a problem, also remember this hand is a pass or 1N opener here, not 1♦ which shows more diamonds or more points unless some 4441.

Raising diamonds, inverted, after a 1S overcall while holding a 4 card heart suit seems extraordinary to me, and not in a good way.

It's fine if 4th seat is sworn to passing the 2D call, but where I come from, opponents tend to bid a lot, with a fit, so you risk having the auction go something like this: 1D (1S) 2D (3S) and now you have to sort out whether a heart fit exists, as well as sorting out whether you have the values to play at the 4 level or higher.

Even if 2D is announced as gf, which at least allows some flexibility over 3S, you'll have trouble, and of course if the inverted raise only forces to the 3-level (as in limit or better) then your problems are insoluble.

Opener, for example, may have a hand that is improved by knowing of a heart fit, but has no reason to expect one after the inverted raise. Opener may have a decent hand with no clear direction and thus doubles 3S....but why that double should show or deny hearts is beyond me...whichever way you go, the other hand type becomes a problem.

As for the premise that a double promises both unbid suits, this was common when I started playing in the early 1970s. Indeed, my then-partner and I encountered raised eyebrows and some caustic comments (probably in part due to our youth!) when we announced that our doubles were only promising the unbid major(s). We were told, in no uncertain terms, that a double after 1m (1M) should always promise either both unbids or the other major and real support for opener.

We weren't very good then, and certainly I knew far less about bidding theory than I now do, but I'm pleased to say that what was then viewed as a bizarre treatment has become standard in NA circles (not, in any way, because of us...to make sure no-one thinks I'm claiming credit!)

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-12, 11:11, said:

in the UK I think it's more like "I have 4 hearts and 4 clubs"

For every 5card major pair (or 4-card-up-the-line such as Scottish Acol or Danish standard) it really should just show four hearts. I can't believe it matters what country you are in (except maybe for some recent converts to 5cM who still play some 4cM treatments).

[Cyberyeti]

I think if you play NA methods you can't play 2♦ inverted as we do, here it's always 4+♦ and 5+ unless 4441 or 15+ (and hence GF), and that gives some extra safety.

We actually open a diamond rather than anything else with any hand with 4 diamonds and no other suits longer than 4.

[DavidKok]

I strongly disagree that you should worry about wrong-siding the contract. If partner has something like ♠Qx or Jxx they should not bid 2♠, but perhaps try something like 3♦ or 3♥ depending on agreements (would 2♥ instead of X have been forcing?), allowing you to ask for half a guard with 3♠. Or to put it differently: partner asked, you answered. If that ends up being wrong the fault lies either with the bidding system or with partner, and trying to improve on your system or cover for partners alleged mistakes at the table always ends in a disaster.

[pescetom]

Thanks for the further discussion.
First I guess I owe some comic relief in return, so here is the actual hand and full auction.

---

Ironically it turned out that 4♦ was the double dummy PAR score for the board, as 3NT is down on a spades lead. But of course most chose hearts and so we got a deserved bottom.

Partner intended 2♠ as a stopper ask, but I took it as a generic force without direction (and likely to be self-forcing but not unconditionally to game, knowing the player). I figured that 3♥ would ask for a half stop and 3♠ probably for a stop, so maybe he had spades stopped and was looking for something else (which I don't have). At least over 3♦ he could still move towards 3NT if that was his intention. But logically enough he raised diamonds.

It was a late night game and neither of us were at our best. In the light of day I concede that 2NT looks clear. But I saw that there are also some system issues here, hence the post. I didn't expect the discussion about 2♣, but that is an additional benefit.

Common agreements here on negative double are in line with what Mikeh describes from the previous century - I was taught that way less than a decade ago. But I have to agree that the arguments in favour of promising clubs do not seem compelling. Unlike Cyberyeti we do not play either weak NT or inverted 2♦, so at first sight it would be quite painless to switch to the american approach in this respect. In reality we are already half way there, as we would not bury the hearts in Stephen's examples, and that raises a disclosure issue too. I'll discuss it with my regular partner and see.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2021-January-13, 10:42, said:

Common agreements here on negative double are in line with what Mikeh describes from the previous century - I was taught that way less than a decade ago. But I have to agree that the arguments in favour of promising clubs do not seem compelling. Unlike Cyberyeti we do not play either weak NT or inverted 2♦, so at first sight it would be quite painless to switch to the american approach in this respect. In reality we are already half way there, as we would not bury the hearts in Stephen's examples, and that raises a disclosure issue too. I'll discuss it with my regular partner and see.

I'm not sure what E does over 2N, it looks like partner may have only one spade stop and that may not be enough (with a double stop W might well have bid 1N first time).

Part of the reason you got a bottom could be that not only do you have to lead a spade, you have to play a heart after declarer ducks twice so some tables could conceivably have played 3 spades.