[akhare]

IMPs. all vul. you deal and hold:

Scoring: IMPs

---

For better or worse you open this 1♣ (some might prefer 2♣, but it's too late now).

The bidding proceeds:

1♣ - (1♦) - P - (P) - X - (P) - 2♣ - (2♦).

What now? If you cue bid ♦, pard rebids ♣. Note that this is your first time w/ this pard and opps.

Atul

[Winstonm]

Double. If pard want to leave it with 5 to the 10 it's O.K. with me. If all he can do is pull to 3 clubs I'll bid 5C. The main point is this double is still the same kind of hand as before only more of it - it didn't suddenly turn into a penalty double but partner can convert on a much weaker diamond holding that he might otherwise.

Winston

[000002]

Winstonm, on Jan 15 2006, 09:29 PM, said:

Double. If pard want to leave it with 5 to the 10 it's O.K. with me. If all he can do is pull to 3 clubs I'll bid 5C. The main point is this double is still the same kind of hand as before only more of it - it didn't suddenly turn into a penalty double but partner can convert on a much weaker diamond holding that he might otherwise.

Winston

yes, i will take double too, but i would bid 3♦ only when my pretty partner back 3♣ poorly.
i think it need a lot of to get 5♣ ,something like 5card trump or a gray doubleton on major.

[han]

I agree with a second double followed by 3D. If partner now bids 4C then I pass.


Let me just point out that Ben's system has a great gadget for strong 3-suiters (open strong 2C followed by 2NT, see Chris Ryall's page) so I would not have this problem when playing with him.

[joker_gib]

Hannie, on Jan 16 2006, 08:40 AM, said:

I agree with a second double followed by 3D. If partner now bids 4C then I pass.

I can still have 5 or 6♣ even if partner has (4)5 clubs and virtually nothing so stopping in 4♣ is totally out of the question for me sorry.

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

joker_gib, on Jan 16 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 16 2006, 08:40 AM, said:

I agree with a second double followed by 3D. If partner now bids 4C then I pass.

I can still have 5 or 6♣ even if partner has (4)5 clubs and virtually nothing so stopping in 4♣ is totally out of the question for me sorry.

Alain

Hi,

right.

I will bid 5C, it may make or not.
6C is probably to much, since you will
need to drop the Queen of hearts / clubs
unless partner holds one of those cards,
and you need to finess the other card.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

I bid 3♦.

[Free]

As usual when there's no such option: OTHER!!! Dbl

I wonder how Fantunes copes with this. It's an easy 1♣ opening bid, but how do they continue?

[mikeh]

I agree with double now, and I understand the 1♣: I wouldn't bid it, but my 'solution' would be worse

What I really do NOT understand is the double of 1♦. Did I really think partner was sitting for it???

I had an easy 2♦ reopening: getting across my probable shape and 75% + of my high card: neither of which I have done yet.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

I had an easy 2♦ reopening: getting across my probable shape and 75% + of my high card: neither of which I have done yet.

Would 3♦ reopening be (long C suit and hoping for a ♦ and asking for a stopper for 3NT?

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 16 2006, 11:48 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

I had an easy 2♦ reopening: getting across my probable shape and 75% + of my high card: neither of which I have done yet.

Would 3♦ reopening be (long C suit and hoping for a ♦ and asking for a stopper for 3NT?

without discussion: I'd take it that way. With discussion, I'd probably still take it that way

[Winstonm]

Here is a question - how, if at all, can partner show long clubs verses only 3-card support in this auction? Granted, he did not make a preemptive jump over 1D but that in itself wouldn't disqualify him holding 5 clubs with xxx, xx, xxx, xxxxx.

My considered opinion is that over the second double Lebensohl might be a good idea. 2N would show a hand that is just trying to get out without being crucified while a direct 3 clubs would show true club length. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to play 2N in this sequence as natural as with a weak hand with 3 clubs and nothing but a diamond stop such as Qxxx it is more probably right to play 2D doubled and risk the -180.

A second question is then what would 2H/2S be? Are these bids 3 card suits trying to get partner to stop bidding or are they true shape showing with 5 clubs, 4 of a major and no points?

Winston

[akhare]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

What I really do NOT understand is the double of 1♦. Did I really think partner was sitting for it???

The X certainly wasn't intended for penalty -- it was a "bid something" X . The intent was of course to follow up that whatever w/ a ♦ cue bid to try and get in the hand.

Atul

[mikeh]

akhare, on Jan 16 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

What I really do NOT understand is the double of 1♦. Did I really think partner was sitting for it???

The X certainly wasn't intended for penalty -- it was a "bid something" X . The intent was of course to follow up that whatever w/ a ♦ cue bid to try and get in the hand.

Atul

That was the point I was trying to make Compare the sequences:

1♣ (1♦) P (P)
x (P)


and

1♣ (1♦) P (P)
2♦ (P)

in my view, our hand warrants the second sequence: the 1st sequence makes sense only if one anticipates that partner might be passing, and we are going to be happy with that. While I am willing to accept that we would be happy playing for a penalty if partner holds a penalty double hand, my hcp tell me that there is ZERO chance of that. Therefore, reopening with 2♦ makes far more sense to me that does reopening with a double.

BTW, there absolutely should be a difference between the hands shown by double then cue-bid or immediate cue-bid: in bridge, one should never use two sequences to show the same hands.

[han]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

BTW, there absolutely should be a difference between the hands shown by double then cue-bid or immediate cue-bid: in bridge, one should never use two sequences to show the same hands.

Although I agree in theory, in practice it is not feasable to define that many sequences. I expect that many partnerships beneath the national level have never discussed the difference between these two auctions, and it is not immediately clear to me that the direct cuebid shows a stronger hand than the delayed cuebid. For instance, it would make perfect sense to me to play that the direct cuebid shows 4-4-0-5 shape (a hand less interested in defending) and the double followed by the cuebid shows 4-4-1-4 shape. Of course, neither auction shows a 26-count.


As I don't know what the difference between the two auctions is, I can hardly critisize the auction so far.

[Kalvan14]

3♦. This comes out from not having opened this hand 2♣, you know.
Anyway, with these 26 HCP I want to go forward. Try to show at least 21

[000002]

<1>to those 2♦ or 3♦ :LHO raise 2♦ indirectly,that means it's possible your pd has 4cards ♦ or more with Q9xx, and your double indicate a comparable balanced hand.

<2>to winstonm: as you bespeak there exist 2 major bidding,i interpret 2♥/2♠ to show relative singleton suit with 5cards ♣ upholding;
2nt is natural ,the reason is his hand was limited 0-7 points and LHO raised indirectly, so 2nt show 3-5hcps with ♦ stopper ,for instance ♦q+♣ q.

regards
000002

[jdeegan]

You should have opened with 2♣. Failing that, reopen with 2♦. You want to be in ♣ unless partner is specifically 3-3-4-3 with no high cards. If pard has 4 clubs, you want to be in five if he has as much as a spare working queen, and you have some play for five opposite no high cards at all.

Even so, you are still at the party with this wretched bidding sequence. All you need do is bid 3♦ now and guess whether to pass or raise to five when pard bids 4♣. That will strictly be a guess and would depend on the state of the match, table feel, etc.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

akhare, on Jan 16 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

What I really do NOT understand is the double of 1♦. Did I really think partner was sitting for it???

The X certainly wasn't intended for penalty -- it was a "bid something" X . The intent was of course to follow up that whatever w/ a ♦ cue bid to try and get in the hand.

Atul

That was the point I was trying to make Compare the sequences:

1♣ (1♦) P (P)
x (P)


and

1♣ (1♦) P (P)
2♦ (P)

in my view, our hand warrants the second sequence: the 1st sequence makes sense only if one anticipates that partner might be passing, and we are going to be happy with that. While I am willing to accept that we would be happy playing for a penalty if partner holds a penalty double hand, my hcp tell me that there is ZERO chance of that. Therefore, reopening with 2♦ makes far more sense to me that does reopening with a double.

BTW, there absolutely should be a difference between the hands shown by double then cue-bid or immediate cue-bid: in bridge, one should never use two sequences to show the same hands.

Actually, the best sequence IMO is:

1C-1D-P-P
3D

Self splintering in the opponents overcalled suit unless someone convinces me this is best used as a stopper ask with a long running club suit - and I'm all ears.

Winston