[cnszsun]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
 1♥     Dbl    3♥    4♥
 Pass  4♠    Pass  5♦
 Pass  5♠    Pass  6♦
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[whereagles]

4♥ was muddy, but after 5♦ North should have passed because he didn't have that good a hand in support of diamonds.

[helene_t]

The dbl is wrong. 2♣ or pass would be better.

4♥ is wrong. Just bid 5♦.

4♠ is wrong I think but this may depend on agreements. I would be 5♣.

5♦ is fine.

5♠ .... difficult, bidding 5♣ first and 5♠ now would have been better. I think I prefer 6♣. Not pass, S started with a cuebid so he should have another place to play besides diamonds.

6♦ is fine.

Pass is fine.

[mcphee]

I do not understand why players make a t/o dble with this sort of hand. If you choose to bid how about bidding C which is a bit marginal for suit quality but far closer to what you have. How is responder supposed to react to a t/o dble with say a different hand type shaped like this, xx xxx xxxxx xxx with around 9 or 10 hcp when 3H gets bid next over the t/o dble? Naturally they bid 4D (perhaps with less than 9 HCP even) and now you are in a major mess when they make a penalty dble, even passing.

The idea implanted in players minds seems to be, I must show 4 card S for some reason therefore I make a t/o dble. I have a strong reccomendation to these players, never play for money.

[whereagles]

Take-out dbl was fine. You just need to assume your actions and pass any diamond bid by pard.

One day I had something like

AQxx
Axxx
Qxxx
x

and RHO opened 1♥. I didn't dbl because "I didn't have 3-card support for all suits". LHO bids 4♥. Now it's 4♥ -2 but our side is cold for 4♠, which we would have bid had I dbled. Since then I stopped being picky about take-out dbls with off-shape hands. If I have the unbid major(s), I dbl, period.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 The double by North is garbage, what
argues against a simple straight forward
2C overcall?
Even if you play ELC, this hand should bid
2C, you cant correct 2D to 2C.
#2 4H is garbage, what argues against a
straight forward 4D bid?

After both players played hide and seek, it is no
wonder, that the follwoing bids were meaningless.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

The only bid that made any sense on this auction was 5♦, and even that wasn't right if you package it with the 4♥ call. 5♦ over 3♥ would have made much more sense.

I strongly dislike the double with short diamonds. 2♣ makes so much more sense.

[bid_em_up]

Quote

What's wrong here?

Everything?

(Sorry, I realize its not constructive, but I thought it was funny).

I agree with Art.

[cnszsun]

From south's point of view, i'm wondering if he is thinking his hand is better than a direct 5♦ after rho's 3♥. Anyway, his 5♦ is surely to be taken as natural, rather than cue for ♠, anyone agree?

[jdonn]

Double was absolutely awful, 4♥ was pointless and ultimately confusing, 4♠ was weird, and 5♠ was weird to the nth degree.

Good 5♦ bid!

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

Take-out dbl was fine. You just need to assume your actions and pass any diamond bid by pard.

One day I had something like

AQxx
Axxx
Qxxx
x

and RHO opened 1♥. I didn't dbl because "I didn't have 3-card support for all suits". LHO bids 4♥. Now it's 4♥ -2 but our side is cold for 4♠, which we would have bid had I dbled. Since then I stopped being picky about take-out dbls with off-shape hands. If I have the unbid major(s), I dbl, period.

1. The fact that a bad bid sometimes works out (double of 1♥ on 4=4=4=1 shape) doesn't make it a good bid. Open 7N every hand you get, as dealer, and eventually you will reach a cold grand unbiddable by any normal method. Of course, you won't have any partners by then But nor will you encourage many good players to be regular partners of your by advocating a takeout double on 4=4=4=1 12 counts after a 1♥ opening.

2. With AQxx Axxx Qxxx x, a lot of people (I might want to have the AQ9x of spades) would bid... but not double... 1♠ shows a chunky 4 bagger for many players

3. Some people permit a takeout double of 1♥ with, for example, 4=2=6=1 shape, espousing ELC... a treatment I don't personally like, but that some excellent players use. But that doesn't apply here.

4. I agree, in all other respects, with Mcphee.

[kenberg]

I certainly wouldn't double with the N hand. Beyond that, it seems that the main problem is that neither partner had a clue as to what the other partner's bids meant. I assume that South's thinking was something like: I'll make a strength showing 4H bid and follow it with a trump setting 5D. I assume N took 4H to set spades as trump and then 5D as a cue in diamonds and a slam try in spades. Or something like that.

Without getting into what the bids should mean, it seems that if undiscussed then over the 3H, if you want to play game, you bid 4S to set spades (if S had spades), or 5D to set diamonds (since S had diamonds). Probably Meckwell, and maybe even lesser mortals with detailed agreements, will cope with the 4H call but the rest of us need to bid the game of our choice when it appears game may be on.


Maybe the 4H call should say something like: I have a good hand with four modest spades and a great minor. If you have four spades that should be fine but if your double was on a three card holding I suggest we skidaddle to my minor. I have no idea if anyone plays it that way and I wouldn't expect any partner I have to be able to interpret it at all.

[cnszsun]

kenberg, on Dec 7 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

Without getting into what the bids should mean, it seems that if undiscussed then over the 3H, if you want to play game, you bid 4S to set spades (if S had spades), or 5D to set diamonds (since S had diamonds).  Probably Meckwell, and maybe even lesser mortals with detailed agreements, will cope with the 4H call but the rest of us need to bid the game of our choice when it appears game may be on.

Did it mean you will never consider some way to invite for slam facing take-out double?

I don't know if it's reasonable to play like this: Cuebid beyond 3nt by take-out doubler's partner and then bid his own suit or raise doubler's suit, showing a hand better than direct jump to game.

[neilkaz]

I don't really care for N's take out double, and would overcall 2♣ and hope later to bid ♠ but sometimes the opps jump the bidding and the 4-4 fit is buried.

However, the 4♥ cue bid followed by 5♦ is confusing and also a clear overbid, IMHO.

I bid 5♦ in response to the take out double and honestly hope it makes. If the take out doubler has a control oriented moose, he can carry on.

[kenberg]

cnszsun, on Dec 6 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 7 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

Without getting into what the bids should mean, it seems that if undiscussed then over the 3H, if you want to play game, you bid 4S to set spades (if S had spades), or 5D to set diamonds (since S had diamonds).  Probably Meckwell, and maybe even lesser mortals with detailed agreements, will cope with the 4H call but the rest of us need to bid the game of our choice when it appears game may be on.

Did it mean you will never consider some way to invite for slam facing take-out double?

I don't know if it's reasonable to play like this: Cuebid beyond 3nt by take-out doubler's partner and then bid his own suit or raise doubler's suit, showing a hand better than direct jump to game.

I mean I won't guess partner will understand a sequence like this and so I'll settle for something less scientific.

Presumably S meant strong plus diamonds and I agree it is reasonable. It appears that N thought otherwise. If the partnership plans to develop then maybe 4H can be bid and, if it fails, the discussion will lead to greater partnership understanding in the long run. If that's the goal, fine. But if the goal is to get to a sensible contract on the board I would forego the slam try and place my bets on an unambiguous 5D. I recall some advice somewhere about the best contract possible rather than the best possible contract.

Maybe I lack ambition

Whatever partner thinks, you may well be off two aces, as you are, and I have no idea how partner is to know how many keys he needs to hold to bid 6. (This assumes he has some diamonds of course rather than that stiiff. I really would not have started with a double.) For example, holding the AQxx of clubs, Kxx in diamonds, and KQJx of spades that may look like enough to him.

[cnszsun]

One more question, at this color, if you held another hand:
♠xx
♥x
♦KQxxxxx
♣xxx
Would you be tempting to bid 5♦ too?

[jdonn]

cnszsun, on Dec 7 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

One more question, at this color, if you held another hand:
♠xx
♥x
♦KQxxxxx
♣xxx
Would you be tempting to bid 5♦ too?

No, seems like 4♦ is just right. Closer to pass than 5♦.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

Take-out dbl was fine. You just need to assume your actions and pass any diamond bid by pard.

One day I had something like

AQxx
Axxx
Qxxx
x

and RHO opened 1♥. I didn't dbl because "I didn't have 3-card support for all suits". LHO bids 4♥. Now it's 4♥ -2 but our side is cold for 4♠, which we would have bid had I dbled. Since then I stopped being picky about take-out dbls with off-shape hands. If I have the unbid major(s), I dbl, period.

There is already a bid that only shows spades: 1♠, there are too many different hands to show after 1♥ to use the cheapest 2 for the same thing.


Double was awful, the worst bid by far IMO, 4♠ was a bad decision, 4♥ an overbid, 5♠ is bad judgement about what is going on.

[kenberg]

cnszsun, on Dec 7 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

One more question, at this color, if you held another hand:
♠xx
♥x
♦KQxxxxx
♣xxx
Would you be tempting to bid 5♦ too?

I might be tempted, I easily am by many things, but I think I could resist. 4D seems right, as mentioned by jdonn. If we can make 5 partner may bid it.

When the auction gets high fast, and here I must make my first choice at the four level, I try to bid games even if I must stretch a bit but I generally forget about slams unless I feel I have a clear route. There are exceptions, I do sometimes have trouble with impulse control, but generally I believe this to be the right approach.

I have been thinking a bit more about the meaning of 4H. I really think there is something to be said for playing it as I mentioned. Partners do make TO doubles with three card holdings. Over 3H, a desire to find the right game will come up far more often then a desire to make a slam try. Given that the values for game are there, how about 4S over 3H showing five or an exceptional four, and 4H showing a so-so four card suit with good values and an alternative strain if partner holds, say, AQx. You are going to be tapped with the hearts. Does anyone play it that way? It doesn't sound crazy to me.

Of course you could still then play a 5D rebid over 4S response to 4H as canceling the spade message and suggesting a D slam, but that may be a heavy load for one bid.

[whereagles]

mikeh: I know where you want to get at, but I don't totally agree. In my experience, it pays to emphasize on majors when you make a take-out dbl. That's just it. As for ELC some pairs extend it to 1-level dbls. This style is common in Italy, for example.

fluffy: yeah, I suppose I could bid 1♠ too. I guess it depends whether I told pard of my style or not.. lol.