[Winstonm]

3H. No guaranteed game here. Partner needs to hold some shape or a card or two. IMO, partner's input is needed.

Winston

[Joe de Balliol]

4♥ seems absolutely automatic. You *could* be missing a slam. You *could* be reaching a non-making game. But if you play pard to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx you're hardly ever doubling in the first place.

4♥ is the practical bid.

J

[mike777]

2D

Why the heck did I not bid 2D the first time? Please don't say I am required to play one of those 2 suited conventions that people play that mean I have some random 2 suited hand with random placement of hcp and unknown strength?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 23 2005, 08:04 PM, said:

2D

Why the heck did I not bid 2D the first time?

You started with a double because you're playing standard methods.

I recognize that some people like to use a direct cue bid as showing a strong hand. I'm surprised that any of them have adapted to use a new fangled contraption like a computer...

For what its worth, it seems strange to criticize Michaels type cue bids as being too random. My recollection is that these methods were adopted because they show amuch more narrow set of hand types that the any old strong hand bid that preceeded it...

[mikeh]

I voted for 2♦, and I agree 100% (I'd like to agree more strongly, but only athletes are allowed to give more than 100%) that 'step responses' to this are highly non-standard: I'd never heard of such a scheme and it seems unplayable.

2♦, unfortunately, is hardly a complete answer, since one has merely bought a little time.

However, the only other call that comes close to describing this hand is 2N: a double followed by 2N should show 21-23 or so: double followed by 1N is a hand too strong for a 1N overcall (which would show, in standard, 15+-18, hence double then 1N is 19-20).

The strength is right for 2N, but the 4 card ♥ fit is one big reason for not bidding 2N. My main fear is that we are going to need entries to partner's hand, or this hand will play much worse than its high card strength would usually suggest. We can get to his hand either through high cards or through ♥. The auction suggests the latter is more likely than the former: even if he has some high card strength, opener may be sitting over his cards.

I bid 2♦. If he rebids ♥, I will hope that he has not been caught with xxx xxx xxxx xxx and I will bid 3♥.

If he bids anything else: well, it depends on what that is. In my dreams, he bids 2N and I raise: getting the added bonus of having opener on lead.

Question: how do we rebid over 2♦? Do we (with partner's hand) require more than a yarborough to bid another suit? Say we held xxxx xxxx xx xxx, would we rebid 2♥ or 2♠?

Next question, is my proposed sequence of 2♦ followed by a raise of 2♥ to 3♥, forcing or only extremely invitational? If not forcing, how do I create a force with a hand on which I have strong slam ambitions: AKQxxx AKxx x Ax?

I have opinions on these, but my experience is that sequences beginning with takeout doubles are amongst the least understood for the majority of us, and it might be interesting to see the answers proffered by others.

[mikeh]

arrows, on Dec 23 2005, 10:42 AM, said:

2♦, let partner make another descriptive bid if possible.

Over partner's 2♥, I will try 2NT.

To this point, partner should know I have a strong balanced hand
a little below game-forcing, definitely with ♥ support.

I suspect that the most common expert view of your sequence is that it shows precisely 3 card ♥ support: that does not mean that your choice would not work out well

[Fluffy]

4♥ When I make a game opposite as little as Qxxx on a bid suit I bid it.

[Walddk]

Can't understand why some think that they must punish partner for doing what you asked him/her to do: take your double out.

"Thanks, partner;your reward for taking my double out is that you are going to play 4♥ whether you like it or not".

♥Qxxx as suggested by fluffy is not enough. I think 4♥ is a serious overbid. I also think 3♥ is an overbid.

Roland

[luke warm]

i voted for 2♦, but i did so too hastily... as whereagles said, this is a textbook 2nt bid, showing 21+ in a balanced hand.. 1nt after the x shows 19, 20 or so.. the only trouble is, partner might pass.. but i'm not convinced that would be a bad thing

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Dec 24 2005, 04:58 AM, said:

i voted for 2♦, but i did so too hastily... as whereagles said, this is a textbook 2nt bid, showing 21+ in a balanced hand.. 1nt after the x shows 19, 20 or so.. the only trouble is, partner might pass.. but i'm not convinced that would be a bad thing

there is an old saying: Show support with support

Whatever merits 2NT may have in clarifying strength, it conceals 4 card trump
I can't help but imagine that this little piece of data wouldn't be of some use to poor partner

[Kalvan14]

Pard migh very well have a yarborogh with 3 hearts. I would not like to hang him for that.
I suppose that it is a matter of partnership agreement, but, IMHO, a cue-bid followed by a raise at 3-level is stronger (in terms of HCP) than an immediate support jump at 3♥ (the reasons being that if my hand is distributionally strong I am interested to shut-out oppos, while if i am honor-rich I am not concerned that they might interfere, or exchange infos).

Besides this, there is a (remote) chance that pard might rebid anything but 2♥ after my cue-bid.

2♦, no doubt abt it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

MikeH: sequences beginning with takeout doubles are amongst the least understood for the majority of us,

No doubt this is accurate and is seems so many hands have to be crammed into the cue bid space that there is precious little room for hats and coats to be hung there as well.

Wasn't it Hannibal Lecter who said: "Simplicity. What does he do? What is his nature?"

The 1 heart bidder has simply said he doesn't wish to play 1D doubled and does not have enough to make an invitational bid. That is his nature. 0-9 HCP approximately with 3-5 hearts.

If we want to play game opposite the top end of this range don't we simply bid 2H?
If we want him to be game on any good excuse, don't we bid 3H?
And if we want him to bid game unless his heart holding says no, wouldn't we cue bid and then raise hearts?

But is this the right treatment? The cue bid is the most flexible of all as it forces another call from partner - and that force allows us to bid more hand types.

I am wondering if this doesn't make better sense:
Cue bid is either a minimum raise to 2, about 16-18, or it is a more powerful hand that has either its own suit or only 3-card support. With too little to move, reponder rebids at the 2-level.

This would allow a direct 2H to be solid heart support and 19-20 ish.
3H then would become almost game force.

Cue bid followed by raise would be the same hand with less support - 3 card.

It's late and I've played a lot of hands tonight, but I think this still makes some kind of sense.

Winston

[ArcLight]

Someone suggested this bid by the takeout doubler in response to pards 1H bid.

- 2H 16-17. Room for judgment here.

- 3H 18-20 Room for judgment here too.

- 4H 21 +

I asked an expert and he thought it was worth jumping to 4 hearts, because so little was needed to make game (and there is no way pard can know taht his J 10 of Spades and 5 hearts to the 9 are worth going on to game. You will go down occasionally, but the game bonus is worth the risk.

[han]

I voted for 2♦, but I think that 4 ♥ and 3♥ are reasonable too. 2♦ has the advantage that we might get to 3NT when it is right. I disagree with Roland that 3♥ is an overbid.

[000002]

Merry christmas!

The analogous question mentioned on a chineses forum(http://bbs.ourgame.c...p?Subject_ID=18)about2years ago,and the chineses leading player (named zhuangzhejun) advised 3♥ leap.
But we think it's a 5cards ♥ upholding since partner's 1♥ might 3cards only.it's important when you hold a particular hand,for instance:
xx
AKxx
x
AKQJxx

In this question the comparable reason is :
3NT has more safety than 4♥ even though 4-4 fit when partner has 3-5hcps,only 2♦ cuebid remains sufficient space to seek.
I think it's very important to show your trump cards in an marginal contract.

Happy new year!