[mfa1010]

---

Our system:

Double is for penalties/a strong hand. If they run we play takeout doubles.

2♣ is for majors. Partner can bid 2♦ to get our longest suit.

Edit: Forgot to specify that it was imps.

[wyman]

majors seems clear to me

[bigbenvic]

2♦ showing 5+♠ + 4+ other I like to use 2♣ as ♥ and other at least 5+/4+ and 2♥ and 2♠ as natural, usually 6 but can be a max with a good 5 card suit.

[mfa1010]

wyman, on 2014-January-14, 09:04, said:

majors seems clear to me

Why is that clear?

[GreenMan]

If you don't show Majors right away but double instead, then partner will have trouble envisioning this hand for you when the runouts and takeout doubling get under way, since you could have bid 2♣ and didn't.

[wyman]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 10:18, said:

Why is that clear?

Sorry. Maybe I misstated my case.

Majors is clear to me in that I am 100% sure it's the action I'd take at the table with this hand, and it wouldn't even occur to me to do anything else. This doesn't mean that there isn't a better action, but my reasoning was:

I don't think this hand is good enough to dbl, both because I'm not confident that we're beating 1N, and because we could easily have a game on in either major (though I have serious doubts that we will reach it). And the fact that partner can bid 2D is really great as well.

Moreover, presumably if we dbl, partner can run out to either minor, and we may play 2D-1 when we make 2S, or similar.

2S doesn't feel right to me, burying the hearts; I feel like I am bound to catch a 1=3=5=4 from partner if I do that.

I don't know. 2C just feels like it gives us the best chance to find a plus score.

That said, if your concern (which is valid) is that we're going to miss a red game, I'd still say that it's pretty unlikely, and the most likely game we'd get to is when partner has 4+ spades. I think we're worth 2N over 2C-2S, so this isn't a big deal to me.

edit: and pass seems bad because we end up defending 1N a lot of the time @50 per, when we have a good chance of making 2M. And if they run out to 3m, we have to dbl back in with a 2-card om, which also feels wrong (partner will assume in all likelihood that we dont have 4+/4+ in the majors since we didn't bid 2C, so we might even play in a particularly silly 4m in a 4-2 fit).

[Zelandakh]

I have a 2-suiter and not enough strength to double. I have a bid to show not only the precise 2 suits that I hold but also their respective lengths. How is this not clear?

If your concern is partner dropping us in 2M with game on then my answer would be either to gain some trust, since partner knows we can hold this hand, or, if that is not possible, to agree that 2NT over 2♦ shows a maximum, over which 3♣ is a re-ask for the longer major.

[neilkaz]

2♣ WTP?

[mfa1010]

The problem is missing vulnerable games.

2♣ does not announce a strong hand which X does. Getting in there with both majors is an attractive bid, and we are (should be) willing to do so even with risky values. It follows that we can expect partner to make a game try on his own only a very low percentage of the times where we have game.

We could bounce to the 3-level ourselves, of course, but there our partscore might easily go down the drain.

X could be seen as a compromise. Imo the hand is good enough, it is not that. After X'ing partner will know to get us to game with a good hand. If he doesn't have a good hand, we are still in contention, somebody often bids a 5-card minor, and we could make an ok takeout double of 2m, if it comes to that. If partner removes to 2♣, that is scrambling-like, and we could try 2♠. If partner removes to 2♦, it shows 5+♦ and we could pass. The partscore precision is obviously a bit lower.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-14, 11:24, said:

I have a 2-suiter and not enough strength to double. I have a bid to show not only the precise 2 suits that I hold but also their respective lengths. How is this not clear?

If your concern is partner dropping us in 2M with game on then my answer would be either to gain some trust, since partner knows we can hold this hand, or, if that is not possible, to agree that 2NT over 2♦ shows a maximum, over which 3♣ is a re-ask for the longer major.

Perhaps:
( 1NT ) - 2C! - ( p ) - 2D!= asking for clarification
( p ) - ??
......... 2H = minimum, equal or longer ♥
......... 2S = minimum, longer ♠
......... 2NT! = good hand, equal length majors
......... 3C! = good hand, longer ♥
......... 3D! = good hand, longer ♠

[wyman]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 12:32, said:

X could be seen as a compromise. Imo the hand is good enough, it is not that. After X'ing partner will know to get us to game with a good hand. If he doesn't have a good hand, we are still in contention, somebody often bids a 5-card minor, and we could make an ok takeout double of 2m, if it comes to that.

I'm more worried that partner with Qxxx / xxx / xx / Kxxx decides to pass, and declarer rings up 5 diamonds and the ace of hearts and maybe the spade king if we lead a spade. [note that we make 4S on the hook]. Even if we lead the heart, which is not totally obvious since presumably we are shooting for +300/+500 here, we only get +100, which is still losing the partscore battle (or maybe at the other table, it goes 2C-2S-2N-3C-4S, and we are bringing back 100 vs 620).

I agree that there's a decent chance that we miss a game here, but I think there's a lot of downside to doubling.

[PhilKing]

When we are vulnerable, or any time versus against a non-strong NT, I like to play 2♦ as a mild game try or better opposite our Landy 2♣.

This loses some accuracy on partscores, but I think is an overall gain, and makes this hand a "no brainer". If partner has a fit and two cover cards or more (which is probably enough for us to drive game), he bids 2♦ - and we still get to stop in (the wrong ) 2M when either of us has dreck.

[CSGibson]

I agree with Brian, I would bid 2♣ at the table, and would not give serious consideration to anything else. It helps that partner is a passed hand, removing a layer of hands that may make 4M - now we really want partner to have a good fit, which he may show anyway, since you did come in Red vs white.

[JLOGIC]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-14, 14:17, said:

I agree with Brian, I would bid 2♣ at the table, and would not give serious consideration to anything else. It helps that partner is a passed hand, removing a layer of hands that may make 4M - now we really want partner to have a good fit, which he may show anyway, since you did come in Red vs white.

Partner being a passed hand does not really matter when they show 15-17 and we have 15. I mean maybe if you open a lot of 11s you remove the hands where RHO has opened with 14 and LHO has 0 and partner has an 11 that he would have opened but it's pretty negligible.

[Lord Molyb]

If you don't show the majors but double instead it will always go
P - (1NT) - X - (XX) (runout to clubs)
P - (2♣) - X - P
2♦ - P - ??

[nigel_k]

This is a good hand, 17.2 on Kaplan/Rubens. I would double and lead a spade.

[CSGibson]

JLOGIC, on 2014-January-14, 14:24, said:

Partner being a passed hand does not really matter when they show 15-17 and we have 15. I mean maybe if you open a lot of 11s you remove the hands where RHO has opened with 14 and LHO has 0 and partner has an 11 that he would have opened but it's pretty negligible.

Slaps head (my own, not Justin's)

[Trinidad]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 12:32, said:

The problem is missing vulnerable games.

That's why you

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 12:32, said:

are (should be) aren't (shouldn't be) willing to bid 2♣ even with risky values.

when vulnerable at IMPs.

Of course, when you bid 2♣, you still have something reserve, but not as much as you suggest.

Rik

[mfa1010]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-January-14, 12:54, said:

Perhaps:
( 1NT ) - 2C! - ( p ) - 2D!= asking for clarification
( p ) - ??
......... 2H = minimum, equal or longer ♥
......... 2S = minimum, longer ♠
......... 2NT! = good hand, equal length majors
......... 3C! = good hand, longer ♥
......... 3D! = good hand, longer ♠

That will bounce us to the three level. 2♦ can be bid with 0 points and 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors just to find our best major.
If we decide that 2♦ can't be bid with a weak hand, we will have a problem with the weak hands with equal length.
Your suggestion is ok. But we must realize the downside to it.

wyman, on 2014-January-14, 13:07, said:

I'm more worried that partner with Qxxx / xxx / xx / Kxxx decides to pass, and declarer rings up 5 diamonds and the ace of hearts and maybe the spade king if we lead a spade. [note that we make 4S on the hook]. Even if we lead the heart, which is not totally obvious since presumably we are shooting for +300/+500 here, we only get +100, which is still losing the partscore battle (or maybe at the other table, it goes 2C-2S-2N-3C-4S, and we are bringing back 100 vs 620).

I agree that there's a decent chance that we miss a game here, but I think there's a lot of downside to doubling.

Yes, it is a problem with X. Our values are slow in a peculiar way, because the hearts need to knock out the ace to get any tricks, and spades are probably not ready to run. If we X it is probably best if someone bids. Against 1NTx I would lead a heart. The hearts must be established for the defence at some point. We can hope that partner can get in and lead a spade through.

PhilKing, on 2014-January-14, 13:30, said:

When we are vulnerable, or any time versus against a non-strong NT, I like to play 2♦ as a mild game try or better opposite our Landy 2♣.

This loses some accuracy on partscores, but I think is an overall gain, and makes this hand a "no brainer". If partner has a fit and two cover cards or more (which is probably enough for us to drive game), he bids 2♦ - and we still get to stop in (the wrong ) 2M when either of us has dreck.

Sounds like a good suggestion. We already play that after 1♣-2♣ michaels, but that promises 5-5 so it is more obvious to play it there.

Lord Molyb, on 2014-January-14, 14:27, said:

If you don't show the majors but double instead it will always go
P - (1NT) - X - (XX) (runout to clubs)
P - (2♣) - X - P
2♦ - P - ??

Not a problem, we could bid 2♠.

[mfa1010]

@ Rik

I'm confident that an aggressive style here is winning, so I'm not going to change that. Usually it is a partscore battle. But I think an aggressive style facilitates game bidding as well, because a minimum overcall might hit a big fit, where partner wouldn't come in himself.