[cherdano]

My usual BWS plug: Bidding 2♥ here shows a queen above a minimum takeout double in BWS 2001. This matches Mike's example hand very well.

[kenberg]

pclayton, on May 3 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

I checked BWS (Ben: is THAT going to get me into trouble?) a few years ago for this exact question. Their notes say "a raise in competition promises a King more than a minimum".

Other than the 4th heart, what is this hand delivering that hasn't been already shown with the x?

So I pass.

Inspired by your seeking out BWS, I took a look in Lawrence's Complete Book of Takeout Doubles. Despite the title, I could not find this exact sequence. ML does recommend aggressive bidding by the doubler (if rho rebids something), but does not recommend that all four card holdings raise to 2H

Here is a hand, with an opening bid of 1D:

A972 / AQJ8 / T4 /K97. 1D-X-P-1H-2C. A different auction, a different hand. But not a great hand. More points, a well-placed club, but two diamonds rather than a stiff.

The recommendation is to bid 2H.

Partner's hand is 653 / K973 / Q732 / J4.

The recommendation, if the 2C call is followed by two passes, is for a pass leading to 2C making.

I'm not really claiming that this hand, or any hand I found in ML, supports my decision to bid 2H on the given hand, and in some cases his suggestion is to go quietly. I like my heart holding and I like my stiff club, still...

One further point: mikeh mentioned that lho can bid 3C over 2H easier than over a pass. True enough, but it isn't the whole story. If I pass, and partner bids 2H, then lho still has an opportunity to bid 3C, and it will be far clearer that his bid is merely competitive since with decent values (a hand that got significantly better after the club rebid) he could have bid it sooner. If I bid 2H now, lho can bid 3C or not, but he doesn't get to clarify how happy he is to be doing this. Maybe they have some conventional means of clarifying this. Maybe they don't.

[SoTired]

In Washington Standard, 1C X p 1H 2C 2H = 4♥ and no extras. The raise only confirms 4-card support. 3-card support is implied by the X.

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on May 3 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

This is the third article in essentially as many days calling Bridge Clues out and questioning their advise/suggestion. Once I thought, ok, np. Twice I thought I wonder if there is some vendetta against Bridge Clues. Now three times, and I am getting highly suspecious there is some agenda here.

So I am going to enforce a long standing Bridge Base Forum rule about publishing information from other sites. From now on, new threads referecing bridge clues and the bidding there will be deleted and users posting them have their warning levels elevated and potentially their posting rights removed.

Will this stop legitamate questions? No. simply post the hands/auction in question and ask if such and so bid is what you would do. Experts disagree on the right bid fequently, so whatever you post, you will hear views that disagree. I see no reason why our forum should constantly be posting bridge clue hands and trying to find fault with their "answers". The right answer depends upon the audience the question is posed to in the first place.

Ben

I think you are reading too much into this.

I visited the site, it offers a daily problem. I seen no reason to infer that the OP is either promoting the site or criticizing the site. It appears to me that someone is just reposting the hand here and asking our opinions on the hands/bids.

However, there are probably some "content rights" issues involved (I doubt the OP has the other sites permission to publish this elsewhere), so its still probably a good idea that you don't allow it to continue.