[bd71]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠)
P (P) ?

---

[Furlan]

3.

[aguahombre]

negative double the first time, 3H this time.

[CSGibson]

2♥ then 3♥. With all due respect to Agua, I believe this is enough playing strength to bid 2♥ in competition, so a negative X is unnecessary.

[JLOGIC]

CSGibson, on Sep 11 2010, 12:13 AM, said:

2♥ then 3♥. With all due respect to Agua, I believe this is enough playing strength to bid 2♥ in competition, so a negative X is unnecessary.

but you don't have 10 points!

[aguahombre]

No doubt about the playing strength. The problem, as I see it is that bidding 2H, then 3H might create the impression 3H is forcing ---since we didn't neg double the first time. Not sure opener will appreciate the fine-line difference between the two sequences if neither one commits to game and both want to bid at the 3-level.

[lmilne]

i wouldn't think either sequence is forcing?

[jdonn]

True maybe I should start with a bad bid if partner doesn't know what normal bids otherwise mean.

[hanp]

Definitely 2H initially, now 3H.

[bluecalm]

3♥ for me too.
The reason is that partner is not likely to have 2-3 majors because with such hand he would strive to bid 3♥ himself (and even if he didn't he will bid 4 now).
That leaves all the 2-2-5-4/2-2-6-3/2-1-6-4 for him and opposite that and minimum we don't want to be in game usually.

[Phil]

2 and 3. Partner is probably a minimum with 2=1 or 2=2 in the majors.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Sep 11 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

True maybe I should start with a bad bid if partner doesn't know what normal bids otherwise mean.

Not bidding 2H the first time might well be "bad"; but, it might be systemic for some. There are still a few of us for whom 2H itself creates a game force. The other styles are neg freebids and (probably most standard) one-round force.

2H then 3H is easy on this hand for neg freebid people who bid 2H but were too strong to really do that and must bid 3H now; it is also an easy sequence for the one-round force people.

However, for the few of us bad bidders who still insist 2H be GF or 4m forcing, there really is no alternative to the horrible negative double.

[jdonn]

I further agree if you play a nonstandard system then you might be forced to make nonstandard bids.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on Sep 11 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

However, for the few of us bad bidders who still insist 2H be GF or 4m forcing, there really is no alternative to the horrible negative double.

I would suggest playing 3♥ as invitational then. Burying this heart suit for one round is untenable.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Sep 11 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 11 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

However, for the few of us bad bidders who still insist 2H be GF or 4m forcing, there really is no alternative to the horrible negative double.

I would suggest playing 3♥ as invitational then. Burying this heart suit for one round is untenable.

Good suggestion. Now, we have to decide whether to give up 3♥ showing a different number of hearts and less defensive potential. Or maybe this situation will never come up again

[Pict]

I'd certainly bid 2H then 3H.

Apart from the debate here, the other interesting questions are around how many spades partner has, and what if anything his next move is.