[rhm]

the hog, on 2011-August-04, 18:42, said:

Its not a silly suggestion at all. How can YOU distinguish between a QJxxxx D holding and out and the original posted hand. If you can only do so by Leb later, then I think THAT is silly. You clearly do not like using the options given to you when the opponents uses a bid with multi meanings and are later forced to clarify their holding.

So tell us what to bid with a weak hand without a nice 6 card ♦ suit, say with with ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar? Does partner's double necessarily show ♦?
Bidding 3♦ on nothing is simply asking for trouble, but I agree with you that Leb is of dubious value over multi.
My agreements, which I do not assume here, are that double over multi 2♦ either shows a takeout double against a weak two in ♠ or a strong hand.
With a takeout double against a weak two in ♥ we pass first and come in later. Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar.
If you are broke you do not always have a nice 6 card ♦ suit, with which it might be relatively safe to go to the 3 level.
Much better and simple is to use 3♦ as a general game force, since you do not have a cue-bid available otherwise.
A cue-bid to establish an early game force is badly needed when opponents preempt and partner shows values. It is also much more frequent than a weak hand with a long ♦ suit.

To answer your question in this context is easy:
If you are weak with ♦ you pass and pass again. What could be more natural and safe?
If you are stronger with ♦ and you want to compete or emphasize your ♦ suit, pass and bid ♦ next. Looks to me quite natural too.
In the unlikely event that you want to preempt in ♦ you have the option of bidding 4♦ or higher immediately.
So North first pass is okay but conservative, so would have been an immediate more optimistic 3♦.
What is not acceptable is to pass and then pass again when partner jumps to 3NT.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

"Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar."

You might find yourself defending 2D x

[rhm]

the hog, on 2011-August-05, 04:16, said:

"Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar."

You might find yourself defending 2D x

I doubt it, since the 2♦ opener will have a tough time to pass with his 6 card major and you could also have a weak hand with long ♦s.
Anyway even if and they make it is at least not game. Far better than playing 3♦ doubled myself. I prefer to look for 6 tricks in ♦ on defense rather than for 9 tricks.

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

I would have unloaded 6N with the north hand rather than pass. South has about what I expected. The north hand is not only much stronger than it might be, it is also much more useful than other ten counts might be.

I think north has about a 4N bid in truth, which should fetch 6C from south.