[kfay]

Here's one that caused some discord.

1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Rdbl) Rdbl shows 6-10 HCP, exactly 3 spades
2♠-(P)-3♦-(3♠) Bidding the hand twice...
4♣-(P)-4♦

What's 4♦?

[ArtK78]

Diamonds?

Really, it seems that responder has a minimum negative double with 4-6 (maybe even 4-7) in the reds. He has nothing to say except that he has lots of diamonds.

And I strongly suspect that the 3♠ bidder has more than three spades, despite the explanation of the redouble.

[mikeh]

One issue, I suppose, is the extent to which 2♠ created a force. I see is as playable two ways: forcing to 3N or 4♣ otoh, and forcing to game oto.

In either case, opener has now described a monster one-suiter with no spade stop.

4♦ is imo a cue in support of clubs. Responder has, I think, probably limited his hand since 3♦ sounds like 5+ diamonds and with a gf of his own, would have been able to bid 2♦ over 1♠. But responder can easily have a good hand in context....well worth a slam try opposite a 2♠ hand.

If 4♣ was not forcing, responder can and should pass with a bad hand, rather than trying to improve the partial.

If 4♣ was forcing, responder still should not try to improve the denomination. He'd need to be 4=7 reds for that to make sense, and using 4♦ as a cue in support of clubs will be far more common, so we give up on the 4-7 hand.

[jdonn]

Looks natural to me. Not sure what else we want responder to bid if 2461 or something. I don't think opener promised solid clubs or even self sufficient clubs, just a game force with long clubs.

[jjbrr]

I think it's natural and forcing. I admit I wouldnt be surprised if he doesn't have 4♥.

[Siegmund]

I would be surprised if he did have 4 hearts. Doubler's 2nd bid would have been 3♥ with all his 4-5s and some of his 4-6s. The 3♦ says we have long diamonds too weak to start with 2♦ and comes extremely close to denying hearts.

Without discussion I'd assume 4♦ was just showing a 7th diamond, still a bad hand. Agreeing to play it forcing would be sensible, if you ever get around to discussing this sequence with your partner.

My opinion is influenced some by playing 1♣ (1♠) 3♦ as a fit-jump, not a preempt. If you're not playing fit-jumps then you have much less need of a natural 4♦ bid and much more need of showing the hand with both minors.

[jdonn]

Siegmund, on Jan 15 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

I would be surprised if he did have 4 hearts. Doubler's 2nd bid would have been 3♥ with all his 4-5s and some of his 4-6s. The 3♦ says we have long diamonds too weak to start with 2♦ and comes extremely close to denying hearts.

What? Double is sometimes 5 or 6 hearts too weak to bid 2♥. How can bidding hearts the next time not show that?

[kfay]

I was reponder.

My hand was actually x J98xx K109xxx x

How would you bid?

[mike777]

was PASS an option?


can I somehow show:

very weak with dist later?

[Siegmund]

I asked my partner how he would have taken 4♦, and he said he thought it was a cuebid in support of clubs (and that opener must be something like 1-2-3-7 on this sequence.) We didn't come to a firm agreement, but at least established where we were coming from.

On the posted hand I would have rebid 3♥ not 3♦ over 2♠ -- if I made the negX at all on the first round, which I'm not sure I would have.

[mikeh]

kfay, on Jan 16 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

I was reponder.

My hand was actually x J98xx K109xxx x

How would you bid?

I would have passed 1♠. We can sometimes get back into the auction if we need to...but bidding, with a misfit and every reason, at the time of the double, to expect partner to be long in the blacks, seems too aggressive...I would change my mind if we reversed the red suits....doubling would still seem to be hyper-aggressive, but at least I can safely bid hearts next time and describe that suit, even if I still am somewhat light.