[RD350LC]

 Tramticket, on 2017-April-28, 13:04, said:

This is pretty much what I play with my most regular partner. On this occasion I was playing with less frequent partner - and I would not have been confident of how he would take a 2S bid.I guessed to bid 1NT, which worked OK on this occasion because partner took me out into his long heart suit, but I'm certainly seeing the attraction of a natural 2S.

Thank you all for your comments.

It is likely that I would bid 1NT. You definitely have a spade stopper, and 17 hcp. You can also handle any rebid that partner makes-including responding 2S to a Stayman inquiry.

[RD350LC]

 Tramticket, on 2017-April-28, 13:04, said:

This is pretty much what I play with my most regular partner. On this occasion I was playing with less frequent partner - and I would not have been confident of how he would take a 2S bid.I guessed to bid 1NT, which worked OK on this occasion because partner took me out into his long heart suit, but I'm certainly seeing the attraction of a natural 2S.

Thank you all for your comments.

It is likely that I would bid 1NT. You definitely have a spade stopper, and 17 hcp. You can also handle any rebid that partner makes-including responding 2S to a Stayman inquiry.

[MrAce]

2♠

[neilkaz]

 rmnka447, on 2017-April-29, 08:54, said:

2 ♠

2 ♠ should show a pretty good 6 vardf suit in this spot in the auction. That's exactly what you have.

Vulnerable, it also ought to show a very good hand as you know ♠ aren't breaking particularly well.

For me this is 2♠ WTP as I have agreed with PD's that this is natural when the opps have bid 2 suits and especially when the suit could be 4 cards.

[Caitlynne]

Assuming this is a standard auction (i.e., 1S does not promise 5+ spades), what is wrong with 2S? According to Goren, this shows a good 6 card spade suit and a pretty good hand ... which is what you have!

[PhilG007]

 Tramticket, on 2017-April-28, 09:03, said:

---

Teams (24 board match)

Pass? Or bid? If so, what?

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense. Overcalls are often dicey. THIS one,when you KNOW an opponent
is strong in your trump suit is just bizarre. It's one thing to have the misfortune to skid off the road;quite another
to accelerate deliberately into a tree(!) Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional
sense,and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given,
all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis

[1eyedjack]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-29, 13:38, said:

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense.

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-29, 13:38, said:

Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional sense, and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given, all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis

Accept that you are in a minority. You are entitled so to be. For the mainstream, there are a number of occasions where the norm is for a cue bid to be natural.

Using the active tense ("*I* would never do this or that") is fine. The passive tense ("This or that should only ever be done") smacks of mainstream advice that potentially runs counter to conventional wisdom, as here.

[Jinksy]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-April-29, 14:01, said:

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

Yup, I'm persuaded.

Also, why is PhilG007 unbanned? It's not like he's got any less trolly

[masse24]

 MrAce, on 2017-April-29, 11:49, said:

2♠

Is this the "Voice of Thunder" 2♠ I've heard so much about?

[PhilG007]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-April-29, 14:01, said:

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

Accept that you are in a minority. You are entitled so to be. For the mainstream, there are a number of occasions where the norm is for a cue bid to be natural.

Using the active tense ("*I* would never do this or that") is fine. The passive tense ("This or that should only ever be done") smacks of mainstream advice that potentially runs counter to conventional wisdom, as here.

So you still intend to bid 2♠ despite a stack of them being announced on your right(?) On thy head be it (!)

[PhilG007]

 Jinksy, on 2017-April-29, 16:21, said:

Yup, I'm persuaded.

Also, why is PhilG007 unbanned? It's not like he's got any less trolly

Easily persuaded,easily led The blind leading the blind (!)

[1eyedjack]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-30, 14:20, said:

So you still intend to bid 2♠ despite a stack of them being announced on your right(?) On thy head be it (!)

I don't think that he has announced anything more than 6542 in the suit. That hardly constitutes a "stack". Indeed your own holding tends to favour the odds that RHO's length is inherently unlikely to be significantly more than the minimum possible. Three factors favour bidding 2S:
(1) It may be your last chance to get this hand across without compromising safety
(2) it is vanishingly unlikely that the opponents are going to elect to play the hand in Spades
(3) if you get to buy it in Spades, at least you know where the opposing trumps are.

As to it being "on my head", I don't envisage any disaster befalling me for bidding 2S on this hand (unless of course a wheel comes off and partner places me with something completely different).

[PhilG007]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-April-30, 14:28, said:

I don't think that he has announced anything more than 6542 in the suit. That hardly constitutes a "stack". Indeed your own holding tends to favour the odds that RHO's length is inherently unlikely to be significantly more than the minimum possible. Three factors favour bidding 2S:
(1) It may be your last chance to get this hand across without compromising safety
(2) it is vanishingly unlikely that the opponents are going to elect to play the hand in Spades
(3) if you get to buy it in Spades, at least you know where the opposing trumps are.

As to it being "on my head", I don't envisage any disaster befalling me for bidding 2S on this hand (unless of course a wheel comes off and partner places me with something completely different).

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with
something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths
Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes

[1eyedjack]

If the question is what should an established competent partnership be playing by agreement, then the prospect of a wheel coming off does not really feature.

The prospect of a wheel coming off may feature if there is no express agreement and you have to resort "on the fly" to what you and your partner each consider to be a common standard, resulting in differing conclusions. That prospect is more pronounced if there is no common standard to cover the scenario, or if there are several of comparable popularity. I do not see that here.

That prospect is also more pronounced if your own perception of what is standard is way out of kilter with the mainstream population, which I personally think to be so in your case, but that is just an opinion.

If the question were what do you bid opposite a pickup partner on BBO then I have more sympathy with pass, although I don't consider that question to be of interest to me and I do not interpret that to be the purpose of this discussion.

[neilkaz]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-30, 15:01, said:

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with
something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths
Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes

As long as you agreement with PD is the same as I have which is that when the opps bid two suits both of which can be 4 card suits your bid of their suit is natural since you don't need millions of ways to show the other two suits, then why would the wheels come off? This is a very good 17 HCP and your AKJxxx sits over their ♠.

Now if playing with some random pick-up then the wheels might come off.

[Nabooba]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-30, 15:01, said:

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with
something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths
Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes

I do not understand this comment. You are not playing with a random pickup, you are playing in your normal partnership. If you have not discussed this then you are not serious about the game. This is a 2S bid.

[masse24]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-30, 15:01, said:

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" . . . it was something to do with being on different wavelengths

A frequent occurrence?

A possible solution might be to adhere to more standard bidding practices. You might consider it.

[miamijd]

 FelicityR, on 2017-April-28, 20:48, said:

In the absence of conventional agreements, there's (as far as I can see) no hurry to bid those ♠s. West's next call is probably either 1NT (12-14) or 2♣. There's just not enough high cards in the pack to foresee any other action. 2♠ on the second round by South would, I feel, be natural.

If West does (perhaps unbelievably) make any bid other than 1NT or 2♣ then partner has absolutely nothing, and the hand could be a serious misfit. Best to pass initially and see what happens first.

No hurry? Let's say West bids 2C and East raises to 3C. Now you have a bit of a problem, no?

[miamijd]

 PhilG007, on 2017-April-29, 13:38, said:

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense. Overcalls are often dicey. THIS one,when you KNOW an opponent
is strong in your trump suit is just bizarre. It's one thing to have the misfortune to skid off the road;quite another
to accelerate deliberately into a tree(!) Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional
sense,and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given,
all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis

OK, but what you would do and what 95%+ of experts would do here are diametrically opposed.

[RedSpawn]

 ggwhiz, on 2017-April-29, 08:12, said:

I don't know anyone (else?) that plays this. Partner bids 2♥ (or whatever) and my 2♠ cue is most often a stronger invite than a raise in HEARTS.

Marshal Miles talked Eddie Kantar into playing all doubles are either takeout or penalty, look at your hand to decide which. Alertable of course and I believe this treatment is too.

Kantar has a hilarious description of this experiment buried in the humour pages of his website including defending a 1 level contract doubled in the opponents 12 card fit before they abandoned this after 1 session.

My role at this point is to let my partner know I have 17-19 points and a very well defined spade suit. I am not seeing any other bidding structure that accomplishes this without the power double.

Also, I am not worried about who has the missing spades because the only ♠ I am interesting in getting is the missing Q10♠.

I have AKJ983♠, 17-18HCP, and two other suits under decent control. I am preferring a power double instead of a cue bid WHICH TAKES UP A WHOLE ROW of bidding for my partner to respond.

I want my partner to respond at the 2 level so I can collect intelligence on his hand shape and power before committing to the 2♠ bid.