[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-August-23, 07:54, said:

Isn't 4♥ a possible contract from South's perspective?

North is one of my regular partners, but I thought South bid it correctly.

Sure, 4♥ is a possible contract. But unless South's double is for takeout, there is no way of finding 4♥. And, if South's double is for takeout, there is no logical way to arrive at 4♦x which could easily be the last plus score available (unless partner converts the double by passing it out).

The preempt certainly makes life difficult. But if the pass of 4♦ shows a strong balanced hand (which it would for me) then it makes sense to bid the 6 card suit. Here, that works great, as partner will bid 5♦, and you will get to the top spot - 6♣.

South should double on any hand without a long suit. 4♦x rates to be a reasonable spot if both North and South have balanced hands.

[Phil]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-23, 08:50, said:

But unless double is for takeout.

Of course double is takeout. Does South's double look like penalty?

Quote

There is no way of finding 4♥

North bids 4♥. Why is this so difficult?

Quote

And, if double is for takeout, there is no logical way to arrive at 4♦x which could easily be the last plus score available (unless partner converts the double by passing it out).

North passes the double.

...

Quote

The preempt certainly makes life difficult. But if the pass of 4♦ shows a strong balanced hand (which it would for me) then it makes sense to bid the 6 card suit. Here, that works great, as partner will bid 5♦. You may not arrive at the grand, but you will at a minimum get to 6♣.

Why do we need bid 5♣ when North can be 4432?

[aguahombre]

There is something to be said for this very old concept:

Direct double is non-descript 2nd negative.
Pass is non-descript willingness to be in game+

But, the burden of Pass, then double can be reduced if (with enough for g.f.) we knock off our suit-quality requirements for freebid responses and are allowed to bid a six-bagger after an overcall of pard's 2♣.

This will help with the strain problems in cases such as the given one, while marginally hurting slam exploration in some other instances. We might even get to show our "solid" 4-bagger in hearts by bidding it.

2C (2D) 3C (4D)
P(forcing, waiting)...now responder's reopening double can just be nothing more to say, and he can bid a 4-cd heart or spade suit.

Absent that set of agreements, I go with Art and bid 5C, at the risk of losing a heart fit.

[han]

Normally I wouldn't pay too much attention to the old guys crying for a penalty double. They've been playing penalty doubles all their lives and the game has become difficult for them. But I actually agree with Art that there is a lot to be said for bidding 3C directly on the south hand. Sure, you have a terrible suit and your values are bad as well, but you are also 6-4 and bidding your 6-card suit immediately may make it easier later, especially when the opponents bid more. So I think Art has a good point here, hidden between the penalty double stuff.

[ArtK78]

han, on 2012-August-23, 11:41, said:

Normally I wouldn't pay too much attention to the old guess crying for a penalty double. they've been playing penalty doubles all their lives and the game has become difficult for them. But I actually agree with Art that there is a lot to be said for bidding 3C directly on the south hand. Sure, you have a terrible suit and your values are bad as well, but you are also 6-4 and bidding your 6-card suit immediately may make it easier later, especially when the opponents bid more. So I think Art has a good point here, hidden between the penalty double stuff.

I did not advocate bidding a direct 3♣ over 2♦, but there is certainly something to be said for that.

I said that South should bid 5♣ over 4♦ after partner passed showing a strong balanced hand.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-23, 11:54, said:

I did not advocate bidding a direct 3♣ over 2♦, but there is certainly something to be said for that.

No, I did. but I was not advocating any penalty double stuff, so I really don't know who he really is responding to (or what he is even talking about).

[JLOGIC]

been in worse