[barsikb]

Pass-1♠-Dbl-Pass-?

---

Strong enough for jumping to 3♦?

[barsikb]

---

[SteveMoe]

2♦ for me.

[relknes]

2♦ here as well. It is just shy of a 3♦ bid. Another point or another diamond and I will jump to 3♦, and if you switch the spades and clubs I would consider it (since partner's assumed spade shortage is likely to be working) though I would be much more likely to do so if I was bidding a major suit.

[aguahombre]

IMO, yes, opposite reasonable takeout doubles it is a 3D advance. Unfortunately even that would probably not get us to 3NT, for partner would pass 3D unless really inspired. 2D would never get us there.

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-17, 14:56, said:

IMO, yes, opposite reasonable takeout doubles it is a 3D advance. Unfortunately even that would probably not get us to 3NT, for partner would pass 3D unless really inspired. 2D would never get us there.

This. South would have to take a view to bid 3NT with that 14 opposite a passed hand (after 3♦). It's not insane, but I'd only do it if I was sure we needed a swing.

[aguahombre]

Put the Heart Queen in clubs, for instance, and partner would have done well not to be inspired, but if Advancer had an extra diamond ---oh, well

[P_Marlowe]

It is close, I would.

I am a passed hand, so my upper limit is below opening bid strengh.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

2♦ for me, but I wouldn't shout at anyone who bid 3♦.

[Zelandakh]

This is an interesting one because it shows one of the changes in responding to a takeout double in the last 70 years. I am also with the 2♦ bidders and think this is normal now. However, I learned bridge from Culbertson books and in that style (if I can trust my memory for once) this would be a 3♦ advance even without being a passed hand. 8 hcp does not usually make game opposite a weak NT.

[barsikb]

Thank you to all of you. For a change my opinion was same as of the experts: not to jump to 3♦

And even though on this hand 3NT would be ice-cold we should not make decisions based on that, right?

[GreenMan]

barsikb, on 2013-February-18, 09:03, said:

And even though on this hand 3NT would be ice-cold we should not make decisions based on that, right?

Right, that's called "playing results". Some games are simply not meant to be bid. "Just a magic hand" is what my partner and I say when we score an unlikely +150 or 170.

Sometimes I say "Meckwell would have bid it," referring to the expert pair well-known for regularly making game on 22 points. In my partnerships that means, "No one in their right mind would bid that game."

[barsikb]

GreenMan, I'll just call them "Magic Hands" from now on