[atlantajon]

Whats the problem?? Take-out with a good hand. My grandmother (that first taught me to play) would get that one.

An "X" is 99.9% of the time a form of a take-out. And barring a special agreement to the contrary...I fall back on that idea....

[y66]

Robson and Segal discuss 1C-(1S)-X-(2S)-X on page 185 of the pdf version of their book which is on file, with the authors' permission, at Dan Neill's site (halfway down under More stuff).

They describe the second X as a hand that wants to compete but doesn't want to guess the right strain, for example,

5 AJ6 K1074 AJ986

5 K106 KQ7 AQ8653

5 A6 K743 AQ10865

They also discuss sequences like the ones jdeegan mentions a few pages later.

[kenberg]

Thank you greatly. That reference, and the whole page of references, should keep me busy for a while.

As was observed, 1m-(1S)-X is a slightly different beginning since responder could have five hearts but lack the strength for bidding 2H.

In the case 1m-(1H)-X of course (as usually played) he has exactly four spades.

Either way, it is interesting to think about what happens.next.

In the examples you cite, often opener has a stiff in the opponent's (spade) suit.

Consider 1D-(1H)-X-2H where openers shape is 3-1-5-4. Responder is known to hold four spades and will often hold four hearts (on this auction when opener holds♠ a stiff). This could get a little tricky since he cannot be sure of exactly your shape. Opener has extras and both opponents are bidding. Responder may well have modest values, AQxx/ xxxx/ xx/xxx. And now? Pass and lead a D? Bid 2S allowing a scramble if opener is 3-1-5-4?

Anyway the majority view holds strongly that the X of 2H is for take-out with even Atlantajon's granny weighing in. I'll buy it but I see there are alternative ideas of interest (to me anyway).

Tanks all, especially for the references to Lawrence and Robson/Segal (since it makes agreement easier).

[lexlogan]

1♦-(1♥)-X-(2♥)-X? Seems like responsive double conditions apply (opener, in this case, "responding" to the negative double) -- the opponents have bid and raised a suit, doubler is short in their suit and therefore ought to compete but is uncertain of strain. With 3=2=4=4 or perhaps 3=1=5=4, odds are responder has a 4 card minor, and you'd want him to bid it; if he's 4333 or similar, the 4-3 spade fit should be OK. In other words, the key point for me is not the three card spade support, but the heart shortage with a choice of places to play. 2=2=5=4 (or 2=2=4=5, if that's your style) is also possible; opener can pull 2S to his long minor.

[Winstonm]

lexlogan, on Feb 1 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

1♦-(1♥)-X-(2♥)-X? Seems like responsive double conditions apply (opener, in this case, "responding" to the negative double) -- the opponents have bid and raised a suit, doubler is short in their suit and therefore ought to compete but is uncertain of strain. With 3=2=4=4 or perhaps 3=1=5=4, odds are responder has a 4 card minor, and you'd want him to bid it; if he's 4333 or similar, the 4-3 spade fit should be OK. In other words, the key point for me is not the three card spade support, but the heart shortage with a choice of places to play. 2=2=5=4 (or 2=2=4=5, if that's your style) is also possible; opener can pull 2S to his long minor.

I viewed this much the same way - as a responsive double. But the meaning then depends on how you use 2N. If 2N in this sequence is good/bad, then double may have to take on more duties. On the other hand, 2N could simply be competing in the minors, the 2254, 2155, and 2164 hands. If so, the double is not needed for minor-oriented hands. And if then we wanted to compete in spades with 3 of them we could just bid 2S.

So it appears to me its meaning has most to do with the neaning of 2N in this sequence. If 2N is minors, then I see my conclusion as most reasoned. If 2N is not minors - say good/bad - then I like your conclusions best.

Edit: thought I'd mention that this sequence seems to me a perfect time to utilize a G/B 2NT treatment.