BBO Discussion Forums: Into a quagmire - BBO Discussion Forums

Whether or not you agree with the opening, I have forced you to bid.
Now you have a second chance, please explain your choice if you chose to bid.

2♠ is automatic, no?

Partner's double makes it highly probable (almost certain) that our side has a spade fit. So I bid it.

nige1, on 2021-February-23, 13:42, said:

Options 2 thru 5 seem to be based on this being a 30 HCP pack (i.e. ♥ honours are discounted + partner has no wasted ♥ honours). Hopefully partner will know when it is right to raise us with such prime hands; I feel a 2-level bid is enough.

I do realise that I might be in the minority here but if I were West I would negative dbl even with a boring hand like ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦Qxx ♣Qxx

I assume that the double shows precisely 4 spades...note that this is common, and indeed 'standard' but not necessarily an optimal usage. There are better use, imo, for 1S than showing 5+ spades, but I digress, as I am wont to do... sorry


We have a good hand that has grown up...btw, I would definitely open, since I have an easy rebid over virtually any likely auction.

Yet, we have some warning signs ahead of us. We have only a 4-4 fit, and I have minimal high card values. Thus I won't get too excited...if we have game, I expect partner to be able to help out on the auction.

I definitely have to bid...I am very happy to bid but, even if I were not, I'd want to bid if only to let partner know we have a spade fit before South bumps the auction to the 3 or 4 level.

Had partner shown 5+ spades, I'd bid 3S and probably 3H if vulnerable at imps.

If we were red v white at imps, I could be talked into 3S...I have a sneaking admiration for 3H even here, but that isn't my style

Btw if South bids 4H and partner doubles, I will be nervous but think I have to pass. My partners usually hold something like xxxx AQ10x Qx Axx when they double 4H (well, that's what I hope they have!)

2♠ only. 2 control hand (ace = 1, king = 1/2) poor small cards in suits, no tenaces or 10s in hand. so me I am cautious.

2♠, if partner finds an invitational bid (not 3♠), then I'd bid 4♠.

Anything besides Open / 2S is nuts.

So, 2♠ seems pretty automatic.
Before you pull the 2♠ card, you wake up, realize that you are playing with MikeH and the double denies 4♠



How do you evaluate your hand now, and what is your bid?

There's a huge difference between "not promising" and "denying".

TylerE, on 2021-February-23, 16:21, said:

Yes, X denies 4♠

jillybean, on 2021-February-23, 16:23, said:

In that case your best move is to probably try to wake up a second time I have no idea how that definition is playable.

jillybean, on 2021-February-23, 16:03, said:

You’re in the wrong dream!

I play that double shows 4 or more spades. With 6+ and invitational values, we bid 2H so double is any hand with 4-5 spades or a less than invitational hand with 6+ spades.

We use 1S to show the ‘unbiddable hand’

For example, you pick up Kxx xxx xx AQxxx and partner opens 1D followed by a 1H overcall. You can’t bid notrump (or shouldn’t...imagine partner with the heart stopper,,,,and can’t raise or bid 1S. Yet passing leaves you in no-man’s land. If LHO raises hearts, partner needs a good hand to act. And if LHO passes and partner reopens with a double, you have to jump to 3C, which may not work well.

Note that in my original post I referred to not playing that double promised precisely 4 spades, not that it denied at least 4 spades...in fact, for me, it shows 4 or more.

However, I answered in the context of a standard double, showing precisely 4 spades

Btw, I know a pair, both grand life masters, who do play that double denies as many as 4 spades, bidding 1S with 4 or more. It’s quite playable: after all, 1D P 1S is 4 or more, so I don’t see the theoretical issue

In the normal case I would bid 3♠ (or 3♥ if that was agreed as something like this). In the second case, 3♣. We should also have a discussion about what our agreements on 2NT and X are in this auction as that might well affect the choice. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that it is more common for X to show ♠ and 1♠ to deny them rather than the other way around. For those that play it the "normal" way, I suggest you just mentally substitute a 1♠ response for the X and respond accordingly.

smerriman, on 2021-February-23, 16:28, said:

It just means I have some values but can’t bid 1NT. So that you don’t have to pass hands like Kxx xxx Axxx QJx whose strength is moderate but interesting and when partner might not be able to balance. Or bid his minor(s) if LHO bounces in H.
The development of (so called) support X made it less useful to distinguish 4S and 5+ hands for responder.
Actually the modern trend is to reverse X and 1S to « transfer » and have overcaller on lead: 1S is « transfer » to 1NT w/o stopper usually, and X shows 4+S. Openers reactions to these bids are of course « codified » and the transfer doesn’t have to be respected. You more or less answer like after the natural bid that was swapped.

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 17:55, said:

My apologies!, I have been playing 'double denies' for a while now and thought it was something I had picked up from you.
It appears that your unbiddable 1♠ and my 'double denies' accomplish the same thing, showing a hand with values but no sensible bid.
I like it very much, it gives partner a clear picture of my hand.




Partner has K98,A94,QT2,AQ64 and hopefully bids a minor game.

Needless to say, that didn't happen at my table.

apollo1201, on 2021-February-24, 01:06, said:

OT: the bridge term 'transfer' is a bit overloaded I find. The common ground is that a bid of a certain denomination indicates willingness to play in a precise and different denomination (maybe 'alias' would be a better term, with 'transfer' indicating an obligatory bid by partner of the indicated denomination). There are basic 'transfers' that must be completed by bidding the indicated denomination, others that can be broken with some codified responses, others like this one that are really just an 'alias', others that assign a conventional meaning (or just 'not suitable for any codified response') to completion. More precise terminology (analogous to the Puppet/Marionette/Relay distinction) would be useful here, not sure if it exists or has been proposed.

JillyBean My apologies!, I have been playing 'double denies' for a while now and thought it was something I had picked up from you. It appears that your unbiddable 1♠ and my 'double denies' accomplish the same thing, showing a hand with values but no sensible bid.I like it very much, it gives partner a clear picture of my hand. Partner has K98,A94,QT2,AQ64 and hopefully bids a minor game. Needless to say, that didn't happen at my table.++++++++++++++++++++++
Another case, where it would be preferable to divulge relevant agreements before presenting a bidding problem.
EW would do well to bid and make 5♣ but if West doubles 3♥ and leads a trump, JillyBean might escape the quagmire with a reasonable score
Incidentally, this deal illustrates the limitations of double-dummy analysis. e.g. at double-dummy, playing in 5 of a minor, the ♦ suit rarely presents any problem.

---