[Cascade]

1♦ (Pass) Pass (2♣)
...

So you have a great hand with six diamonds - solid or nearly solid - but you need a little something from your partner.

Does anyone play a distinction between 3♦ and Double and then 3♦ so that one route promises a club stopper?

[bucky]

I think double shows a more flexible hand. So double then 3♦ shows something like 3361 shape. With a solid diamond suit and just looking for club stopper, you can cuebid 3♣.

[Fluffy]

 bucky, on 2010-October-20, 13:37, said:

I think double shows a more flexible hand. So double then 3♦ shows something like 3361 shape. With a solid diamond suit and just looking for club stopper, you can cuebid 3♣.

Seems you totally missed the thread's point

Wayne I have no way for that, I just gamble 3NT more often than I should

I play 3♦ as semi-preemptive

[bucky]

 Fluffy, on 2010-October-20, 14:05, said:

Seems you totally missed the thread's point

Wayne I have no way for that, I just gamble 3NT more often than I should

I play 3♦ as semi-preemptive

Hmm, what did I miss? With good and flexible hand I double then bid diamonds; with solid diamonds but need partner to have club stopper, I bid 3♣; with solid diamonds and club stopper I bid NT myself; a direct jump to 3♦ shows good diamonds but not good enough for 3♣/3NT call. My main point was that, I did't like the suggestion of using double-first to show/deny stopper.

[Fluffy]

 bucky, on 2010-October-20, 14:20, said:

Hmm, what did I miss?

This:

 bucky, on 2010-October-20, 14:20, said:

with solid diamonds and club stopper I bid NT myself;

[bucky]

OK... thought that would be obvious.

[ninja89]

An average 18-19 balanced is not going to bid 2NT here, so 2NT should be based on decent diamonds and a club stopper. Is a king enough to raise? Should be, I think. 3♦ and double-then-3♦ are more distributional, with 3♣ explicitly requesting ♣ stopper, for me.