BBO Discussion Forums: No good bid? - BBO Discussion Forums

in standard 3♦ is an underbid
You are supposed to be game forcing with this hand.
and 3♦ is not forcing at all.

I bid 3♣

If partner has his 2nd chair dbl., we belong in a game. Therefore, I agree that the only reasonable call is 3c.

Any number of ♦ is wrong, so the choice is between responsive X, assuming it doesn't guarantee both majors, and 3♣.

3♣ is forcing to agreement and yes, I may miss 3NT, but at least I will have come close to describing my hand.

X followed by 3♦ is at best ambiguous. I think I could have 4 cards in the unbid major (even if it is ♠) and longer ♦ with only invitational or competitive values. If I had equal lengths, I could bid 2♠ over 2♥. That means I may have to follow X with 3♣ which is still ambiguous. Maybe I am saving my ♦ suit for the post-mortem.

disagree

3c cuebid=gf

If you have one major and less than gf, bid the major.

mike777, on 2015-March-12, 21:28, said:

When a minor suit is agreed you can play that auctions that would normally be game-forcing are only forcing to 3NT or 4 of the agreed minor. That is a matter of agreement.

If I have a hand with 4 cards in one major and a longer unbid minor then there are situations when I want to take the responsive X route because neither 2M nor 3M is right. If I have an a hand that is GF if we have a major suit fit but might not be if we have a minor suit fit and I don't know if 3NT is playable then why should I have to bid 5m when we might be able to figure that it is a favorite to go down?

You raise an important point. Reading the WC books over the years it seems top level bridge just bid the darn game even if they cannot be sure it is a favorite to make. OTOH it is clear many here on the forums prefer to be able to stop on a dime in 4minor. It is an interesting discussion.

IF as in your example we have one major and long minor. You say we have game if major fit. Well we have a major fit. Start with 3c and then decide whether you prefer to sit in 3nt or pull to major.

On this auction if pard makes a takeout double and we have one major in your example we will always have a gf hand in the major. Granted it may be a 4-3 fit and tht is ok.

Looking again at the OP it seems we need to decide if we have a gf hand or not.

My notes tell me a double of 1c can be as few as 11 hcp if 4-4 in the majors, stronger if we only have a 3 card major.


I could understand a 3d response but still prefer a 3c gf response.

Will bid 3♣, I think all sequences beginning with double are likely to get us into trouble. I feel like the only downside is that we might miss 4♥ when it's right, but I think that will be difficult to find, partner will need so pretty chunky hearts.

gnasher, on 2015-March-12, 07:17, said:

What about dbl-2M-3♦?

I believe most experts would treat this sequence as stronger (in HCP) than an immediate 3♦.
I am not sure I want to force to an 11 trick game. Certainly not via a direct 3♣ bid.

Anyway I would be surprised if the vast majority of an expert panel like MSC of the Bridge World would not start with a responsive DBL nowadays.
A modern responsive DBL over a minor guarantees both majors only if the hand is modest. Otherwise it tends to shows a strong hand with no clear direction.

Rainer Herrmann

rhm, on 2015-March-23, 04:26, said:

For me, dbl - 2S - 3D shows hearts and diamonds, NF. How else would you show a 2=4=5=2 decent (but not game forcing) hand.

By the way, why do you think that saying you believe the 'vast majority of an expert panel would dbl' is any more or less convincing than simply saying you think double is correct?

rhm, on 2015-March-23, 04:26, said:

I've never been on the BW MSC, tho friends, partners and teammates have, so I may be incorrect, but I do disagree with you. I agree with Frances.

Maybe the problem should be submitted to the BW

However, I cancelled my subscription when I retired from playing. So someone else needs to do it.

FrancesHinden, on 2015-March-23, 12:01, said:

I would simply bid hearts (keeping the diamonds in reserve) when I can not force to game and not stress diamonds when my partner makes a takeout double of a minor.
Little point in reaching the three level voluntarily in hearts when I can not force to game.

With regard to the last point there was a prior discussion in this thread what a responsive double showed or not showed.
That is just my impression what the MSC in the US would do with this hand. They would start with a DBL. Of course my assessment could be wrong.

Rainer Herrmann

It seems to me that playing a double here to promise 4-4 in the majors makes one the member of a lunatic cult.

Why on earth would one wish to place such a bizarre restriction on the most economical call?

PhilKing, on 2015-March-23, 12:45, said:

Well, if you read the history of virtually any convention, you would see that very few are played these days as their inventors and early adopters intended. For example, such a list would definitely include:

a) stayman
b) negative doubles
c) drury (didn't promise a fit when 1st invented!)


Even conventions that have largely retained their meaning have evolved in significant ways. Weak Two Bids were just coming into vogue in the late 1950's and early 1960's. BW reports on Bermuda Bowls back then would make the current player laugh at the hand types that were opened, by world class players, back then.

The point is that it is easy to mock how some people play conventions if one is ignorant of the history. Responsive doubles of minor suit raises were classically played as promising both majors because it was felt that one would usually/always bid the single major if held, because traditional takeout doubles of 1m always had either a big hand or both majors, and none of this 4333 14 count stuff.

When I was learning to play, there was a lot of support in the literature about passing in 2nd seat with balanced 13-14 counts, rather than entering the auction via a double. In that context, the responsive double as promising both majors made a lot of sense.

Nowadays, it is considered routine to double with at least mildly offshape minimum opening hands, and so the responsive double should, in such a partnership, become more flexible.

That doesn't make it the correct call on the OP hand. I am with Frances, if I understand her correctly, in that while the double should deliver (at least) 2 suits, it doesn't mean that doubling then bidding the minor should be forcing.

My main point, however, is that it is erroneous to criticize bidding ideas without understanding the context. There are still some players who would not double in the modern style, and for those players, using the responsive double to promise both majors is sensible, not bizarre. You make well take issue with the takeout double style, but that is another topic entirely.

3♣ is the right call. Double promises two suits. After 3♣ partner should bid 3NT with a club stop in preference to showing a 4-card major.

Aardv, on 2015-March-23, 17:47, said:

Many would bid 3♣ with 5-5 in the majors.
Why DBL should show two suits but 3♣ only strength escapes me.
Sensible agreements make bids, which consume bidding space (3♣) specific and cheap bids (DBL) less so.

Rainer Herrmann

rhm, on 2015-March-24, 09:15, said:

wow

Firstly we have PK deploring the fact that anyone would use double to promise specifically the majors (I agree with that criticism, but have pointed out why it was at one time standard to play it that way) and now we have you suggesting we reserve the only clearly forcing call for 5-5 majors! I guess you and PK won't be compatible partners

Since the cue unambiguously shows a BIG HAND, which no other call shows, it is probably most efficient to use it for that purpose: a big hand, more description to follow.

Mike, what I assume Rainer means is that 3♣ is initially pick a major but that the message of a major 2-suiter can be cancelled later on rare occasions. Much as a cue is used in some other condensed auctions. This seems like a perfectly sensible approach to me.

Do you want to be able to play in 3NT with say QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax opposite xx AQx AKxxx 10xx? If so, one of double and 3♣ has to ask the initial doubler to bid NT if possible as his first priority.

Aardv, on 2015-March-24, 11:07, said:

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