[pescetom]

Yesterday we missed game due to the undiscussed meaning of a double jump response to a takeout double. I expected something semi-preemptive based on a long suit (if partner has not already promised 4-cards) and not many HCP, which is consistent with the style of our system - instead partner had a sound hand that was almost enough to guarantee game opposite a minimal takeout. Taking a look around internet and some books I see wildly varying recommendations for this bid, from 6+cards 5+ HCP right up to 5+cards 13+ HCP Forcing.

So I wondered how others were playing this bid and what people see as the downside (if any) of a semi-preemptive approach, with a double jump longer and weaker than a single jump and a jump to game being signoff.

[The_Badger]

Double jumps for me are pre-emptive and non-forcing, 6 card suit minimum (double of a major) or 5/6 card suit (double of a minor) and if partner has game going values he just cue bids the opponents suit instead. Single jumps are about 8-11 and can be made on 4 card suits.

[HardVector]

I also play those as preemptive. Single jumps should be 9-11 (if you really like your 8, call it 9). Stronger hands should start with a cuebid. That's to cater to responder making a delayed bid after our side has bid. If responder has a good hand, they were probably interested in penalizing one (or more) of the takout suits, and we bid the wrong one.

[ggwhiz]

Kokish summed those up as "weakly invitational"

Something like 6-4 hands with great potential offence and no defence in particular. ie. KTxxxx, x, QJxx, xx when your partner doubles 1c

[pescetom]

Thanks to all, sounds like we are all singing off the same sheet.

While on the subject, how do you interpret a second cue by interferer, for example
(1♦) DBL (p) 2♦
(p) 3♦ (p) ?

[HardVector]

pescetom, on 2018-December-09, 08:40, said:

Thanks to all, sounds like we are all singing off the same sheet.

While on the subject, how do you interpret a second cue by interferer, for example
(1♦) DBL (p) 2♦
(p) 3♦ (p) ?

This is similar to a responsive double. That should show both majors (4/4), and asking partner to pick one. This is only because partner made a cuebid, however. If partner has just bid a suit like; (1d)-X-(p)-1h, then your cuebid just shows a big hand and tells partner your next bid is forcing.

[barmar]

Note also that the first cue by advancer is not necessarily game forcing in that auction. It often shows a constructive hand with both majors, asking doubler to bid their better major.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-December-09, 08:40, said:

Thanks to all, sounds like we are all singing off the same sheet.

There are others who play it differently. My understanding is that the standard French way of playing it is that the single jump shows a four-card suit and the double jump shows at least five, but they have similar strength to each other.

I was originally taught that you should respond as though your partner had opened one of your suit (showing four or more). That leads to a double jump being stronger than a single jump, but it also leads to a single jump being weaker than is commonly played.

I must say it seems to me that a pre-emptive response is unlikely to be necessary, and when you have the hand for it you are likely to catch partner with a strong, balanced double.

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2018-December-11, 09:26, said:

There are others who play it differently. My understanding is that the standard French way of playing it is that the single jump shows a four-card suit and the double jump shows at least five, but they have similar strength to each other.

I was originally taught that you should respond as though your partner had opened one of your suit (showing four or more). That leads to a double jump being stronger than a single jump, but it also leads to a single jump being weaker than is commonly played.

I must say it seems to me that a pre-emptive response is unlikely to be necessary, and when you have the hand for it you are likely to catch partner with a strong, balanced double.

Sure there are others who play it differently, that's why I was relieved to find so many thinking like me My partner of the OP for instance was taught quite recently in Milan (where bidding is taken seriously but with little interest in how the rest of the world does it) that single and double jumps were both forcing, the latter showing at least enough strength for game. Even the usually clear and sensible bridgebum suggests something similar.

I don't see the single jump response to double as significantly different from a natural single jump response as though your partner had opened one of your suit. But making a non jump response even with 0 HCP means that to be invitational a single jump must be significantly stronger. Of course this goes against the grain of modern bidding, where jumps are weak and length showing, so there is room for doubt whether the double jump should continue the strength-showing crescendo or revert to a "normal" preemptive logic.

I'm comfortable all the same with the pre-emptive interpretation, which is consistent with how the system handles jumps like 1m - 2M and makes for easily understood bidding in a competitive situation. It's important that the hand be sufficiently weak that partner is probably not missing 3NT with a good balanced hand, otherwise I agree that it would not be an effective choice.