[pclayton]

For those of you who haven't opened their September '04 Bridge World, there is one of the most intriguing problems I have ever seen.

Here it is: All vul at IMPs.

---

Pard........RHO.......You......LHO
1♦.....DBL.....Pass.....Pass
2♦.....Pass.....?

I've got my own thoughts, but I wanted to hear from the others on this one.

[paulhar]

IMPs, both vul.

Partner can't want diamonds because he could play 1Dx with 200 point overtricks. Partner is probably 4-4-3-2. 3C with a bad break is easier to double than 2H, so I'll try 2H.

[Free]

simple 2♥ bid imo

[the hog]

Very odd. 4432 might be what he has, but I can't see why cho would not xx holding this. Partner will strive to bid a major rather than 2c even on a 3 card suit.

Reminds me of a rubber bridge game where his actually happened, believe it or not.

(2H) X (P) P
(3H) P (P) X

1 off.

[daswallow]

Partner surely doesn't have 4-4 in the majors as he would xx then.
So i think either he has 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-4-1, or has mis-opened!
I would bid 2c.

[daswallow]

or 3c even..

[joker_gib]

Partner is probably 4-4-3-2 or 4-4-4-1 (most probably because 2♦ bid shows no ♣ tolerance )

So 2♥ !

[twcho]

can't think of a hand that can bid 2D but not redouble for SOS. Give up

[inquiry]

Pard........RHO.......You......LHO
1♦.....DBL.....Pass.....Pass
2♦.....Pass.....?

My turn to guess... I bid 4♦!!!!.... because I am very greedy... Partners hand is something akin to the following...

♠,KJTx
♥AQTx
♦AKxxx
♣ -void


He didn't redouble because he REALLY didn't want to hear you bid clubs or compete too high in clubs. So 4♦ is greedy lets bid game... .if you want to be a little more careful, bid only 3♦, to invite to game..but I add full value for my singleton diamond and my major cards. Only a wimp would try to play two of a major...but then, at least that is very safe.

If I was going to answer in the MASTER SOLVER club as a panelist, I would bid only 3♦..after all the majors are probably splitting badly for me. If I was going to answer as a contestant trying to win, I would bid 2♠ (or maybe 2♥), because I have a sneaking suspesion those will be the bids getting the most votes despite them being very wrong.

Ben

[paulhar]

inquiry, on Aug 25 2004, 08:23 AM, said:

My turn to guess... I bid 4♦!!!!.... because I am very greedy... Partners hand is something akin to the following...

♠,KJTx
♥AQTx
♦AKxxx
♣ -void

Wow - do you really want to play 4 of a major on these cards with repeated club leads by the defense and the takeout doubler presuably holding 4S to the ace and 4H to the king offside?

BTW, would anybody want to shoot out 1Dx on those cards? That fifth diamond is huge - gives me flexibility to try to set up major tricks or to ruff 3 clubs depending on how the defense goes. If the advancer ruffs my major suit high cards, it's with natural trump tricks.

[inquiry]

paulhar, on Aug 25 2004, 11:03 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 25 2004, 08:23 AM, said:

My turn to guess... I bid 4♦!!!!.... because I am very greedy... Partners hand is something akin to the following...

♠,KJTx
♥AQTx
♦AKxxx
♣ -void

Wow - do you really want to play 4 of a major on these cards with repeated club leads by the defense and the takeout doubler presuably holding 4S to the ace and 4H to the king offside?

BTW, would anybody want to shoot out 1Dx on those cards? That fifth diamond is huge - gives me flexibility to try to set up major tricks or to ruff 3 clubs depending on how the defense goes. If the advancer ruffs my major suit high cards, it's with natural trump tricks.

You do understand poetic lisences? I said my MSC answer would be 3♦ and that 4♦ was REALLY gready.... the dramatic 4♦ was to highlight for the kind reader the offensive potential of this hand.. and which is why when it counts (if I was panelist on MSC), my choice would be a tamer 3♦.

Ben

[mikestar]

I think Ben is right on the money. Partner must have a stong hand with a club shortage. With a minimum hand and club shortage, he redoubles and bids 2D over 2C. This is the best treatment (rather than 2D=weak and XX followed by 2D=strong) because you may get out at one of a major if partner doesn't have long clubs.

3D is a tad agressive for my tastes but quite reasonable.

[cherdano]

paulhar, on Aug 25 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 25 2004, 08:23 AM, said:

My turn to guess... I bid 4♦!!!!.... because I am very greedy... Partners hand is something akin to the following...

♠,KJTx
♥AQTx
♦AKxxx
♣ -void

BTW, would anybody want to shoot out 1Dx on those cards? That fifth diamond is huge - gives me flexibility to try to set up major tricks or to ruff 3 clubs depending on how the defense goes. If the advancer ruffs my major suit high cards, it's with natural trump tricks.

I think I would pass out 1♦X with these hands. I am not as optimistic as you (dummy certainly won't have entries to give you three club ruffs if he cannot bid over 1♦X), but I expect partner to stretch to bid with a 4cd major and short diamonds.

Isn't there a better chance of going plus in 1♦ in the 5-1 or 5-2 fit than in 2 of a major in a 4-3 fit?

I think cuebidding your own opening suit is very inventive, but I still don't see the hand with which it would make sense. (I assume a flat 4-4-3-2 would rather redouble.)

[pclayton]

You gotta love this problem.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Ben for the most part.

For those that suggest 4432's, the 2 level can't be safe, even with power. These patterns call for a redouble, or perhaps, 1N. And clearly CHO doesn't have a 2 suiter; he'd just bid the 2nd suit.

Pard is marked with a hand that has some offensive potential BUT NOT IN DIAMONDS. I suppose Ben's example of KJTx, AQTx, AKxxx, void is possible, but I'm more inclined to switch the K♦ with the A♠; AKJx, AQTx, Axxxx, void, or with maybe even the K♥. Note if I have a weak 5 or 6 card major, his hand turns into a massive dummy; where even SEVEN is possible.

Could pard have a short major and clubs instead? I suppose its possible, but pretty unlikely; that would leave the opponents with an undisclosed 10 card major suit fit.

The 4-3 will play a little problematic, unfortunately. The subject hand had the 8♠, so we're probably getting uppercutted once when we try to ruff diamonds in our hand. So I'm just taking it easy with a 2♠ call.

[whereagles]

I'm not sure what pard has... but sure will ask him in the end!! For the moment I temporize with 2H. If that gets doubled on the spot, I might try 3C. If it's doubled slowly, I'll stick to it

[TimG]

It seems that people think that 1♦-DBL-P-P; RDBL would be for takeout rather than business. True?

If it's takeout, would opener redouble with the 4432 hand? He can't want to up the level if he's scrambling.

If he's got the 4450 offensive moose, can't he redouble (takeout) and then raise (or convert clubs to a major)?

So, maybe 1♦-DBL-P-P; RDBL isn't takeout, but rather suggests the opponents have gotten things wrong. Maybe?

[paulhar]

TimG, on Aug 25 2004, 05:45 PM, said:

So, maybe 1♦-DBL-P-P; RDBL isn't takeout, but rather suggests the opponents have gotten things wrong. Maybe?

If the opponents have got things wrong, does the opener really want to give them a second chance? Or are you suggesting that the opener thinks that despite the fact that 1Dx is a bonanza, that any score derived from the opponents running is going to be a better bonanza? How could opener possibly know that?

[pclayton]

Honestly, I wouldn't expect a discussion of 1♦ - Dbl - Pass - Pass - Rdbl as anything but SOS, except in the beg/int section of this forum.

The idea about raising a raising a suit after an SOS is valid. Certainly there should be some differentiation between a raised pull of an SOS and the 2♦ rebid.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Aug 25 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

Honestly, I wouldn't expect a discussion of 1♦ - Dbl - Pass - Pass - Rdbl as anything but SOS, except in the beg/int section of this forum.

The idea about raising a raising a suit after an SOS is valid. Certainly there should be some differentiation between a raised pull of an SOS and the 2♦ rebid.

Well, my point was really: if RDBL is SOS, how can 2♦ show a 4432 hand?

[hrothgar]

Hey y'all

I certainly agree that this is one of the more curious bidding sequences that I have seen, and not necessarily one that I have given much thought about. with this said and done:

1♦ - (P) - P - (X)
XX

Would normally be interpreted as SOS. In this case, a 2♦ rebid logically can't be takeout or scrambling. [Please note: I can see a very valid arguement that a XX over a major suit opening should be scrambling, while a XX over a minor suit opening should be for business]

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the hand was choosen to explore this issue...