[SteveMoe]

All depends on which of 2♣ or 2♥ is natural. Then the other is a cue bid (excepting transfers). I think 2♣ natural is more common/likely, and less necessary as a cue bid if we put all ♥ hands in the advancer's double.

[WesleyC]

 SteveMoe, on 2015-July-27, 19:11, said:

All depends on which of 2♣ or 2♥ is natural. Then the other is a cue bid (excepting transfers). I think 2♣ natural is more common/likely, and less necessary as a cue bid if we put all ♥ hands in the advancer's double.

When partner makes a 'take-out' double showing shortness in a suit, I don't see much value in having that suit available for advancer to bid naturally.

[aguahombre]

 WesleyC, on 2015-July-27, 22:32, said:

When partner makes a 'take-out' double showing shortness in a suit, I don't see much value in having that suit available for advancer to bid naturally.

You are assuming a fact not in evidence. The take-out double tends to have 13 cards, no particular distribution, for too many players, and they don't want to miss their 5-4 club fit on this auction.

[Cascade]

I would have thought that 2♠ was best played as five here. We have 1♠ and 2♠ and 2♣. I think 1♠ can cope with four spades up to enough strength for 2♣ and five spades too weak for 2♠. I don't have strong feelings about where the boundaries should be. Without the 1♥ bid I like to bid 2♠ fairly freely with five and don't really see why that bid should interfere with my plan.

[1eyedjack]

 Cascade, on 2015-July-28, 00:18, said:

I would have thought that 2♠ was best played as five here. We have 1♠ and 2♠ and 2♣. I think 1♠ can cope with four spades up to enough strength for 2♣ and five spades too weak for 2♠. I don't have strong feelings about where the boundaries should be. Without the 1♥ bid I like to bid 2♠ fairly freely with five and don't really see why that bid should interfere with my plan.

To my mind 2C would force us to 3S on hands where 2S is the limit. Perhaps this hand can stand it, but a slightly weaker hand with only 4 Spades may still be too strong for 2S and too weak for 2C. Just my opinion.

[WesleyC]

 aguahombre, on 2015-July-27, 22:57, said:

You are assuming a fact not in evidence. The take-out double tends to have 13 cards, no particular distribution, for too many players, and they don't want to miss their 5-4 club fit on this auction.

Admittedly over a short 1C (or a precision 1D) there is sense to sometimes being able to play in the opponents suit. However, giving up on the minor fit and playing in NT instead is often a fine alternative, and there is a lot of value in having simple and unambiguous agreements about the suit that constitutes a cuebid. Certainly in the context of an Intermediate/Advanced discussion, using an advance into the suit that has been takeout doubled ALWAYS be a cuebid feels like the best practical agreement.

[WesleyC]

 1eyedjack, on 2015-July-28, 01:06, said:

To my mind 2C would force us to 3S on hands where 2S is the limit. Perhaps this hand can stand it, but a slightly weaker hand with only 4 Spades may still be too strong for 2S and too weak for 2C. Just my opinion.

It doesn't directly relate to this discussion, but the idea that advancing a takeout double with a cuebid is 'forcing to suit agreement' isn't really a logical one, especially when 2M is such a desirable contract, and you rarely want to stop in 3M.

If you consider a simpler auction like:

(1C) X (P) 2C

rather than making the cuebid 'forcing to suit agreement' you can play it as 10+ HCP and forcing for one round. With a minimum hand the takeout doubler bids a non forcing new suit at the 2 level. With a minimum cuebid responder can either pass or offer another non forcing new suit at the 2 level. If either partner has extras and wants to force they can either jump, or cuebid opener's suit again at the 3 level.

[1eyedjack]

Not necessarily to disagree, but I think I would prefer the cue to be GF than to distinguish between a 4 card and 5 card nonforcing jump shift.

[kenberg]

First I go back to where there is more agreem ent but not complete agreement, the double. Using the double to show a good four card holding in the doubled suit actually comes up. Partner will not always have four hearts for his double, especially when he has extra strength, and the heart bid on the right is often on four. Forget the psych. It happens, but not often.

But partner usually has three hearts, maybe more, for his double, and rho usually has four heart, maybe more, for his 1H call. Not surprisingly, I don't often have five hearts. It can happen, but I am having trouble remembering when it did. Since I have no difficulty remembering four card holdings, no doubt five card holdings happen, just not often.

As to having a club suit. I could. I think I actually have held hand where I would like to be able to bid 2C naturally. While it's true that partner does not guarantee club shortness, I think a natural 2C bid only makes sense if I can tolerate club shortness. I assume that if 2C is played as natural it is also passable and in fact will be passed when doubler has a typical take out double, Expecting doubler tto bid again to show that he is short in clubs seems unwise.

All this explains the lack of certainty for the meaning of the calls. Most partnerships are not Meckwell. Besides lacking the talent, they have discussed the sequences that arise, or at least they hope that they have discussed them and can recall them, but they have not discussed the less frequent sequences. I mentioned earlier that after (1C)-X-(1S)-X, by me, I was relieved to hear lho ask for the meaning and partner say that it showed spades. I thought we had discussed this but I was not positive. I am sure that I have not discussed with that partner, or anyone, what a 2S call would mean. Now I will, but three years from now when it comes up I hope we both remember what we decided. We play once a week when time permits.

[kenberg]

Perhaps of interest:

I jave Mike Lawrence's Takeout Doubles (1994) and also his Double New Uses for an Old Bid (2002).

In both books he discusses (1m)-X-(1H)-X and in both books he says it can be played either as a penalty double with four hearts or as a take out to the other two suits.

In the earlier book he says it has been played as penalty for the last hundred years (ok, we won't hold to this literally) but he prefers using it for take out. In the later book he says he will lists the treatments in order of his preference and then first mentions the use as a penalty double. Well, he doesn't say increasing (or decreasing) order of preference but I got the idea he prefers penalty.

At any rate, it seems fair to say that this is not a completely settled matter.

In both books he speaks of 2H as a five card suit with around 8 highs. Not with more.

[phil_20686]

 mikeh, on 2015-July-27, 10:37, said:

Here is what I have played for many years, including with some very experienced players, with wide national and international experience:

over the 1♥:

double: 4+ hearts, and values. I expect to beat 1♥ even if responder has hearts. So not just any 4 card suit, but some values as well.

2♥: natural, 5+, fairly weak hand, not the least invitational, too weak on the side to double 1♥. A decent suit (Q109xx would do).

1♠: 4+, less than constructive, so tops out at a mediocre 8 count.

1N: 8-10, with clubs stopped, doesn't need a heart stop

2♣: cue-bid. All invitational or gf hands other than a hand with hearts (would double and then bid) or a hand inviting in notrump (would bid 2N) or a hand that simply wants to bid game now.

2♦: constructive and natural

2♠: constructive, 4+

So I think this is basically what an expert would assume opposite an expert with no discussion. This is not universal, and transfer advances are gaining lots of popularity, but this is by far the most common scheme among UK experts, and what everyone would assume with no discussion. My only slight quibble is that when i am playing with an inexperienced player or giving them advice I strongly advise them to play the cue bid as GF. While it is doubtless an inferior treatment it simplifies a very large number of auctions and requires much less discussion.

[Cascade]

 mikeh, on 2015-July-27, 10:37, said:

1♠: 4+, less than constructive, so tops out at a mediocre 8 count.

 phil_20686, on 2015-July-29, 09:33, said:

So I think this is basically what an expert would assume opposite an expert with no discussion.

I wouldn't have thought that 1♠ tops out at a mediocre 8 count. I always think of these as 6-9 and possibly even a little higher - an ugly 10. After third hand bids, just bidding is constructive so there is no need to jump on some hands that I would have jumped before.

The wider the range for 1♠ the more important it is for the doubler to raise just to show a fit.

[mike777]

2c cuebid seems normal enough.

I guess some are afraid It is natural and weak.

[jddons]

 mike777, on 2015-July-29, 14:50, said:

2c cuebid seems normal enough.

I guess some are afraid It is natural and weak.

My immediate thought was 2C natural F1, X = H; but is there a difference depending on what 1C means? In Italy where 1C is natural or 2+ and usually a weak NT, it is normal for an immediate overcall of 2C to be natural (rather than Michaels). Is this also the case for Standard American? If so, I can imagine that without discussion, ones instinct might be to bid 2C naturally on a weak hand in the stated auction.

[Zelandakh]

 phil_20686, on 2015-July-29, 09:33, said:

My only slight quibble is that when i am playing with an inexperienced player or giving them advice I strongly advise them to play the cue bid as GF.

Another decent option is for the cue to be GF in a major but only forcing to suit agreement in a minor. This allows the invitational hand with both majors to cue, which can otherwise be a little awkward.