[han]

Absolutely agree with Luis, 4C does not show 6-5.

How would people play the 4♦ cue after 4C? Does this show slam interest in clubs, or is it in first instance a choice of games cue? If the latter, then that would make 4♣ more attractive as partner is a little less likely to bid 4S. I believe that Arend and I tend to play these cues as choice of games. [perhaps Arend can confirm this]

[luis]

Hannie, on May 2 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

Absolutely agree with Luis, 4C does not show 6-5.

How would people play the 4♦ cue after 4C? Does this show slam interest in clubs, or is it in first instance a choice of games cue? If the latter, then that would make 4♣ more attractive as partner is a little less likely to bid 4S. I believe that Arend and I tend to play these cues as choice of games. [perhaps Arend can confirm this]

Note I'm not bidding 4♣ here but if I had I would take 4♦ as a cuebid for clubs.
It's the only bid to show a good hand for clubs, you only have 4♦ and 5♣ for good/bad hands with club support.
That is one of the reasons why when you don't have club support you have to choose between 4♥ and 4♠, with 6 spades and 1 heart I think I would try 4♠ and that is why I'm not bidding 4♣ :-)
Of course anything might work in the actual hand but I love this kind of problems because it is judgement what tells you what would work better in average which is what matters.

Luis

[mike777]

That is why I tried the 3H, if I can just get past this round of bidding. I assume P will be pretty aggressive in making another bid, I hope. Well that was my thinking anyway.

[han]

Luis, with Arend I would also bid 4♦ with slam interest in clubs, but then we would pull 4♥ or 4♠ to 5C to show slam interest. So 4♦ is a priori a choice of games, but it could be a slam try in clubs.

This is quite common in other situations, for instance 1D-(2H)-2S-(p)-3C-(p)-3H is a priori a try for 3NT, but could also be a advanced cuebid for a minor. When partner bids 3NT and you pull to 4m then partner gets the idea.

[luis]

mike777, on May 2 2006, 07:58 PM, said:

That is why I tried the 3H, if I can just get past this round of bidding. I assume P will be pretty aggressive in making another bid, I hope. Well that was my thinking anyway.

I have a lot of admiration for your 3♥ bid, I certainly prefer 3♥ to 4♣

[luis]

Hannie, on May 2 2006, 08:02 PM, said:

Luis, with Arend I would also bid 4♦ with slam interest in clubs, but then we would pull 4♥ or 4♠ to 5C to show slam interest. So 4♦ is a priori a choice of games, but it could be a slam try in clubs.

This is quite common in other situations, for instance 1D-(2H)-2S-(p)-3C-(p)-3H is a priori a try for 3NT, but could also be a advanced cuebid for a minor. When partner bids 3NT and you pull to 4m then partner gets the idea.

Nice approach but I don't play that because it has 2 problems that have hurted me in the past.

The first problem is that when over 4♦ they bid 5♦ you have no idea if pd has club support and a slam invitational hand or was just asking you to choose a game. The meaning of pass, double and 5 of a major is now nebulous and you can't certainly bid 6♣ with a good hand a thing you can do when you are sure 4♦ shows club support.

The second problem is that you lose 4NT as RKCB since you have to bid 5♣ over opener's major to show you had a good hand with clubs. Opener should be able to ask for keycards when he knows you have a good hand for clubs, it's very hard to determine if you can play 5, 6 or 7 when you have to start investigating from 5♣.

Luis

[cherdano]

Yes, I am a fan of cheapest cue-bid=COG in cramped situations where we don't know the right strain yet, and would think this should apply here after 4♣. Of course it hurts slam investigations sometimes -- but only if you know the strain already.

Luis worry about club support being unclear when they bid 5♦ may be valid, though certainly not in this auction against opponents that are both sane and awake.
(1♥ (P) 1♠ (3♦) 4♣ (P) 4♦ (5♦??)) In fact, I can't easily think of an auction where this COG-cuebid might apply without previous opponent having passed (if he has bid, you usually can make a takeout double to choose the right strain), so I dont think this preemption can be an issue.

Arend

[han]

luis, on May 2 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

mike777, on May 2 2006, 07:58 PM, said:

That is why I tried the 3H, if I can just get past this round of bidding. I assume P will be pretty aggressive in making another bid, I hope. Well that was my thinking anyway.

I have a lot of admiration for your 3♥ bid, I certainly prefer 3♥ to 4♣

Err, I have a hard time believing that.

[pclayton]

4♣ seems so obvious, that I wonder why Frances posted this.

Why not tell pard about our 2 suiter? The right black king makes a difference and pard will also understand the value of a diamond card.

[sfbp]

Double gives us a couple of chances of contracts that 4♣ does not

a. 3NT
b. defending 3♦

as long as it is for takeout, partner knows I have at least 4 clubs and a good hand of some sort.

I've got plenty of time to rebid 4♣ when I see what happens to the double. Partner unless we are playing canape, will know that I have longer hearts than clubs.

It also gives partner a better chance to clarify his hand. Long spades, bad, 3♠. Long spades, solid 4♠ and we may still make slam if he has a diamond top card. Preference for hearts or clubs. Why mastermind the auction and go past 3NT?

Stephen

[mikeh]

I know that the modern fashion is that virtually all low-level doubles are takeout but why on earth is this one takeout???

It seems to me that this is an instance in which those who double are interpreting it as takeout because they want it to be.... and they will be in for a rude shock when partner passes.

Takeout doubles are not needed in this auction. we have bid BOTH majors, we can pass with all minimum hands, we can raise partner, we can rebid our suit, we can (heaven forbid) BID the unbid suit, and even bid 3N if we have short but good ♦ and an expectation of 9 tricks.

Certainly, should we pass (unthinkable here), partner's reopening double UNDER the 3♦ bid is card showing, not penalty (nor pure takeout).

But let's say we pick up x AKxxx Q10xx KQx wouldn't we want to say double? Is this a freak hand? But RHO has 7 good ♦, you say.... so how likely is it that we hold good defence.... well, the trend to never doubling for penalty has, not surprisingly, coincided with 3♦ being bid on not-so-great 6 card suits at times. And look at the vulnerability.

[Winstonm]

I believe in keeping bidding as natural as possible when preempted. To me, 4C is more in the nature of shapely and competetive, needing something from partner to go on but 5C would say I heard your one-level response and I'm so powerful that I must insist on game and have substantial slam interest. This could be all wrong and 4 hearts could be the max - but I've been sorely preempted and have to do the best I can with limited room to describe my hand.

I don't think I want to risk double, as this may induce a pass from a weakish partner with no good available bid, 4D overstates the diamond control so I don't want to do that either.

Nothing is good, but I'm going to do the best I can with: 5C.

Winston

[sfbp]

Quote

But let's say we pick up x AKxxx Q10xx KQx wouldn't we want to say double? Is this a freak hand? But RHO has 7 good ♦, you say.... so how likely is it that we hold good defence.... well, the trend to never doubling for penalty has, not surprisingly, coincided with 3♦ being bid on not-so-great 6 card suits at times. And look at the vulnerability.

What's wrong with passing and waiting for pard to make a takeout double on that hand?

If he doesn't have extras the opponents are probably going to make 3♦X

In general 5-card suits are for bidding, 4-card suits are for doubling with. However this posed hand appears to be a special case where we have a lot of options including the possibility of partner passing OUR takeout double because he has significant values in the overcaller's suit, and not much else except 4 lousy spades. In addition by doubling and bidding (ever hear this theme before?) we have a way of showing our shape and strength without ruling out any of our side's possible contracts, 3N, 4♥, 4♠, or some number of ♣

sfbp

[FrancesHinden]

Our partnerships play double as "take-out" here. As pass over 3D is not forcing, we would typically double on a 2524 good hand (2515/3514/2614 bad hearts etc).

[mike777]

I hope you can post all 4 hands.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on May 3 2006, 01:26 AM, said:

4♣ seems so obvious, that I wonder why Frances posted this.

I bid 4♣ at the table, and thought it was obvious (as do the majority of the replies here). 4♣ was also selected at the other table in the same auction.

After the match, one of my team-mates suggested that 4♣ was not correct. This was Bob Rowlands, who is a very fine player with a great deal more experience than most of us and as such should be taken seriously.

The incorrectness is not to do with not knowing what continuations mean (we were all certain that 4♦ is initially choice of major suit game, 4NT a good club raise).

The problem is that over 4C partner will bid 4S a lot more often than he will over 4H, and you are pretty certain that 4H will be a better game than 4S, particularly if partner has 2 or more diamonds. If he bids 4S over 4H there's a much better chance it's the correct spot.

Effectively, by bidding 4C you are sometimes going to lose out on being in the right game but you will gain by bidding your cold club (grand) slam. You will also be pleased you bid 4C if the next hand raises diamonds.

I admit that I will probably bid 4C next time I have the hand at IMPs (I may have been persuaded at matchpoints). However, 4S is two off and 4H is on the club guess. Partner has

AK98xxx
x
Qx
9xx

and you are likely to get clubs right on the auction (RHO has Jx).
(4S is not without play, but 4H is obviously better. And spades are 5-1.)

[cherdano]

mikeh, on May 3 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

I know that the modern fashion is that virtually all low-level doubles are takeout but why on earth is this one takeout???

It seems to me that this is an instance in which those who double are interpreting it as takeout because they want it to be.... and they will be in for a rude shock when partner passes.

I think previously you have directed such remarks in my direction (among others), and probably frequently you have been right. However, in this case I am absolutely confident that most of my frequent partners will take this double as takeout. They would expect shapes like 2524, 3523 (strong balanced, but this one is very awkward), 3514, 2515, 3613. I think Phil is the only partner who, I think, would take this double more as a cooperative penalty double.

Of course, partner will pass it more often than a lower-level takeout, in particular since opposite this range of shapes he often can't be sure of a fit. But my partners won't expect 3 trumps, and will stretch to reopen with shortness themselves.

I don't know whether that's good or bad. However, I do like simple rules about doubles, and my most favorite is still "Doubles are takeout until a fit is found" (which I learned from Ben).

Arend

[whereagles]

I'm not sure pard bid well by insisting on spades.

The natural 4♣ bid doesn't only show a big hand; it has also an intrinsic meaning to it, and that is "Pard, I don't like spades." Accordingly, responder should expect 0-1 spades from opener. Probably the correct bid by responder would be 5♣ instead of 4♠ (or 4♦ followed by pass to 4♥ if he's inspired). You'll probably go down in 5♣ (assuming you don't go berserk and bid 6♣), but hey preempts work.

The suggestion of bidding 3♥ copes well with pard having 5-6 good spades, since you'll rebid hearts or clubs over 3♠, and with it again issue the message "I don't like spades". But the hand is so strong I don't think I'd be able to do it at table.

4♥ also comes to mind, but it's a bit of masterminding. Perhaps the time is right for some masterminding, as RHO rates to have diamond honors and pard can't thus have much in terms of hcps.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on May 4 2006, 07:16 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 3 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

I know that the modern fashion is that virtually all low-level doubles are takeout but why on earth is this one takeout???

It seems to me that this is an instance in which those who double are interpreting it as takeout because they want it to be.... and they will be in for a rude shock when partner passes.

I think previously you have directed such remarks in my direction (among others), and probably frequently you have been right. However, in this case I am absolutely confident that most of my frequent partners will take this double as takeout. They would expect shapes like 2524, 3523 (strong balanced, but this one is very awkward), 3514, 2515, 3613. I think Phil is the only partner who, I think, would take this double more as a cooperative penalty double.

Of course, partner will pass it more often than a lower-level takeout, in particular since opposite this range of shapes he often can't be sure of a fit. But my partners won't expect 3 trumps, and will stretch to reopen with shortness themselves.

I don't know whether that's good or bad. However, I do like simple rules about doubles, and my most favorite is still "Doubles are takeout until a fit is found" (which I learned from Ben).

Arend

I am sure that you are correct in your statments about your favourite partners... and I know that many established partnerships play these doubles as takeout....and I am not saying that such a treatment is 'wrong'. I am saying that in my view, for what little it is worth, this is a situation in which I think that a penalty double is a reasonable usage... and the one that a partner may well believe in an undiscussed situation.. I go further: I think that all but one of my regular partners would consider it penalty...

My comments were not directed to partnerships in which the partners had an agreement that would make the double takeout.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on May 4 2006, 04:16 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 3 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

I know that the modern fashion is that virtually all low-level doubles are takeout but why on earth is this one takeout???

It seems to me that this is an instance in which those who double are interpreting it as takeout because they want it to be.... and they will be in for a rude shock when partner passes.

I think previously you have directed such remarks in my direction (among others), and probably frequently you have been right. However, in this case I am absolutely confident that most of my frequent partners will take this double as takeout. They would expect shapes like 2524, 3523 (strong balanced, but this one is very awkward), 3514, 2515, 3613. I think Phil is the only partner who, I think, would take this double more as a cooperative penalty double.

Of course, partner will pass it more often than a lower-level takeout, in particular since opposite this range of shapes he often can't be sure of a fit. But my partners won't expect 3 trumps, and will stretch to reopen with shortness themselves.

I don't know whether that's good or bad. However, I do like simple rules about doubles, and my most favorite is still "Doubles are takeout until a fit is found" (which I learned from Ben).

Arend

Yep, double is co-op here; ♠Ax ♥AKxxx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx would seem about right.