[Gerben42]

This sequence shows distribution and no intent of doubling opponents. It could be a weakish hand but may still have some extras with 5 - 5 distribution or so.

[jtfanclub]

DWM, on May 24 2007, 06:49 AM, said:

I thought the singleton ♥ plus the 6th ♣ with 3 of the top 5 made this hand worth the free bid.

In my less than expert opinion, a pass here shows either interest in partner doubling for penalties or a balanced hand (which usually go together- if you're balanced, you probably don't mind a penalty double).

2♣ here therefore shows a hand too weak to force to game across a balanced 10 count (say, up to 15 or 16 hcp) a club suit, and an unbalanced hand.

This certainly qualifies.

[Chamaco]

jtfanclub, on May 24 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

In my less than expert opinion, a pass here shows either interest in partner doubling for penalties or a balanced hand (which usually go together- if you're balanced, you probably don't mind a penalty double).   

2♣ here therefore shows a hand too weak to force to game across a balanced 10 count (say, up to 15 or 16 hcp) a club suit, and an unbalanced hand.

This certainly qualifies.

I am not expert either, but I think that 2m certainly denies interest in penalizing opps; yet, there are QUITE A FEW STRONG (GF or better) hands that would not be interested in doubling because the Offence/Defence ratio suggests that buying the contract will fare better, independently from the hcp content.

Hence, I'd think that 2m shows just a shapely hand, but does not limit the strength of opener

One example would be: void-AKQxx-AJTxx-xxx

1H-(DBL)-RDBL-1S
?

In this case (where, opposite even a minimum redouble, I personally want to be in game- however, if it's too light for your taste, just change the diamond J with the diamond Q), I think it is highly inefficient to be obliged to jump to 3 dianmonds to keep the GF, because we have less room to checkback for club stoppers.

And, holding a void in opps suit, I want to introduce my assets ASAP, and not pass (which should show tolerance for the penalty of opps contract - e.g. a moderately defensive hand) , because the later competition will be harder to contest if I do not show immediately my high ODR (e.g. pard will assume that I have a more defensive hand, and take the wrong dcision- or, WORSE, I'll have to decide at the 4-5 level whether introducng my second suit)

Much more linear is - to me - to be able to bid 2 diamonds while keeping the bidding forcing at least to 2NT

[cherdano]

I agree with Helene, 1♥ X XX 1♠ 2♦ is non-forcing. It suggests a minimal distributional opener.

Mauro with your hand I would jump to 3♦, why not show that you have a powerful 5-5 in one bid?

[mike777]

cherdano, on May 24 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

I agree with Helene, 1♥ X XX 1♠ 2♦ is non-forcing. It suggests a minimal distributional opener.

Mauro with your hand I would jump to 3♦, why not show that you have a powerful 5-5 in one bid?

xx by responder must promise a rebid 100% of the time short of game or doubling the opponents. OTOH use xx sparingly, not with all or almost all ten hcp hands.

If opener is that weak, do not open a one level bid.

[jtfanclub]

Chamaco, on May 24 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

One example would be: void-AKQxx-AJTxx-xxx

1H-(DBL)-RDBL-1S
?

Absolutely, you don't want to pass with this hand.

The options are, in my mind:

NO: PASS- Balanced or with spades, any count (forcing)
NO: 1NT- Minimum balanced, spade stop or half-stop, but doesn't want the penalty X.
NO: 2♣- Two suiter, up to about 15 hcp.
YES: 2♦- Two suiter, up to about 15 hcp.
NO: 2♥- 6 hearts with a singleton or 7 hearts, up to about 15 hcp
YES: 2♠- Extra strength, usually spade shortness.
NO: 2NT: Extra strength, spades stopped, usually balanced.
NO: 3♣- Strong two-suiter, implies no pointy suit stoppers.
YES: 3♦- Strong two-suiter, implies no black suit stoppers.
NO: 3♥- Extra heart length, 16+ hcp
NO: 3♠- Extra strength, every suit stopped except spades, balanced-ish (the opposite of 2NT)
NO: 3NT: Balanced, all suits stopped.

Let's suppose partner's hand is Axxx xx Kxx Kxxx. Minimum count, minimum shape, good controls. I'd redouble with this, but nothing weaker.

If you bid 2♦, your partner may pass this hand. If you bid 3♦, partner's likely response will be 3NT. Wanna play in 3NT across this? Well, take away the J or T of diamonds, and it doesn't look good. As it is, I'll take my chances at 3NT, sure. So I'd rather bid 3♦ than 2. But the hand really is that close to a 2♦ bid.

But I would probably just bid 2♠. I want to get that shortness of my chest quickly, in case we're looking at slam.

[mike777]

"Let's suppose partner's hand is Axxx xx Kxx Kxxx. Minimum count, minimum shape, good controls. I'd redouble with this, but nothing weaker."


I just respond one spade with this hand, not xx.

[goobers]

I agree with xx with the above hand. I have no particular interest in declaring spades, and we may pick up a juicy penalty.

[mike777]

goobers, on May 24 2007, 01:20 PM, said:

I agree with xx with the above hand. I have no particular interest in declaring spades, and we may pick up a juicy penalty.

You also just made a simple auction pretty complicated. xx is going to be quite wide ranging in terms of support and other suits. If you think the gain outways confusing the rest of the auction, go for it.

I vote to try and not make problems for partner if possible.

[goobers]

I don't see why my xx causes confusion. I tell partner that I don't have primary support.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on May 24 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

I vote to try and not make problems for partner if possible.

xxx
AKxxx
AKJx
x

Over 1♥-X-1♠-P, I'm supposed to bid...what, exactly?

Over 1♥-X-XX-P, I have an easy pass.

1♠ shows 7+. XX shows 10+. 1♠ should show interest in playing in spades, except that if you have interest in playing in spades with that, I have a bridge to sell you, so apparently it doesn't show much of anything.

What hand do you think there is where using up extra bids to limit your hand less is worth it? What hand has so much trouble responding to XX which has no trouble responding to 1♠?