[the hog]

A quick question - hand from a bidding forum. E/W vul you are N/S
How do you treat this sequence?

(2D) (P) (4C) X

2D is a mini multi - Majors only version, 4C says "bid your Major"

How do you all treat the X of 4C.

Please don't let this sway your biddding, but you hold
x
x
Axx
Jxxxxxxx

[Free]

First I would think it's lead directing.

After seeing this hand, I think it might mean he has a penalty Dbl in at least one of the Majors.

[inquiry]

Is 4C bid your major or transfer into your major? It makes a difference as to what double shows... It could hardly be lead director if your partner will be on lead (treament is 4D over 2D is bid your major, 4C is transfer to your major, so you can play the major from either side).

Ok, with no previous agreement, 4C-X should be clubs. Free's clever penalty double of at least one major has some merit, as it allows doubles of major now to be penalty if they are preempting, but in my experience, good reopening double of their major with shortness works ok without such agreements. I suspect DBL is suggesting club save, or much better clubs so that when partner makes a takeout double of their major or bids 4NT over their major (especially if it is spades), it will place emphasis on clubs.

Ben

[the hog]

4C is bid your M, not transfer to the M, Ben.

[the hog]

Ok. Here is my thinking....
X of 4C should be card showing, not lead directing. What do you all think of this view?

How else would pd show a good hand when they are taking a sac?

[inquiry]

That is probably a useful treatent, I may adapt it... My mulit can include huge balanced hand, so my responses are different from this...

I bid 3NT over 2D to tell partner to bid hs major, showing 4-4 in the majors. I bid 4C with 4S and 5H (incase partner is huge balanced hand) for partner to bid his major, and 4D with 5S, 4H. IF I bid 4S or 4H over 2D, then THAT IS MY SUIT and is not pass/correct. So haven't thought too much about what to do over 4C being bid your major.

Ben

[Free]

Ah, if it's really BID your Major, then 'lead directing' is really stupid I also thought it was transfer...

I think it has to be a general take-out Dbl with at least 1 Major, or a VERY strong hand with slam ambition. With both minors he'd probably bid 4NT since the 4♣-bidder has support in both Majors (and will still not know which Major to lead)...

[joker_gib]

Correct me if I'm wrong but :

if this is "bid your major", your partner will be on lead and so "lead directing" isn't stupid
If this is transfer then it's stupid !

[whereagles]

Card showing seems sensible to me. The 4C bid can be made on a junky 44 major, so you need a bid to show strenght. There's more to this situation, though. Maybe later..

[pclayton]

Dbl should suggest bidding 5♣ over 4 of the impending major.

[whereagles]

If you had the above x x Axx Jxxxxxxx, and it went

(2S) pass (4S) ..?

would you bid 5C now?

[pclayton]

White on red, sure I would. Looks like a decent sac.

[whereagles]

Now try and tell pard why he should not to bid 6 with

Axx Axxx Kxxxx K

[the hog]

"Now try and tell pard why he should not to bid 6 with

Axx Axxx Kxxxx K"


Very true!

For those interested, this was a hand in a bidding forum the actual bidding was

(2D) P (4C) X
(4H) 5C (6H) P

Back to you. I voted for 7C because it was a bidding forum, but I made the comment that this was a bad problem as you need to know who sits opposite and how they treat the X of 4C. As it turns out this was from an international match and the doubler held AKx of C and nothing else. Weird double imo.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2004, 10:33 AM, said:

For those interested, this was a hand in a bidding forum the actual bidding was

(2D) P (4C) X
(4H) 5C (6H) P

Back to you. I voted for 7C because it was a bidding forum, but I made the comment that this was a bad problem as you need to know who sits opposite and how they treat the X of 4C. As it turns out this was from an international match and the doubler held AKx of C and nothing else. Weird double imo.

Doubling 4♣ with AKx is fatuous. On this auction there is no guarantee that a club lead is needed or even advantageous and there is always a chance that the opponents will be able to play in 4♣.

It reminds me of my wife doubling 2♦ in a Stayman sequence with ♦ AKxxx. She made her two top diamonds and a long diamond as I wrapped up two redoubled overtricks.

I think that in general whenever it is sensible the best way to play doubles of artificial bids is card-showing. The great advantage of this method is that it lets partner in on the decision.

So now on the auction presented partner can act on hands where without the input from partner he would have to pass. And we do not have to act again and force partner to the five-level. Basically we have gained a level of bidding - we can act now with the relative safety of the 4-level rather than acting later and being forced to the five-level. This has to be an advantage.

We play the next double is takeout after one of these card showing doubles.

Some other example of this general principle:

We had this auction yesterday

1NT (2C*) X (2D) * Can be any artificial overcall - Double shows values
X

Opener can now double for takeout on the right hand and this makes it easier to act on marginal hands. It is even easier when the second double has to force us to the three-level.

1NT (2C*) X** (2S) ** card showing
X***

***takeout

This is particularly advantageous to us as we play a weak NT.

We have a similar agreement over a Michael's cue-bid

1S (2S) X* * card showing

[the hog]

Makes a lot of sense to me, Wayne.

[Fluffy]

On untalked situations I have stated the meaning of this doubles with my partner:

A double of an artificial bid shows values (it promises our side is at last stronger than theirs if partner made any positive bid), with balanced tendency, and teh most important: makes all of our doubles penalty doubles.

Given the deal I doubt our side is stronger, I think I would go for 5♣.

And double 6♥, I don´t expect to make 7.

[Free]

joker_gib, on Oct 14 2004, 02:30 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but :

if this is "bid your major", your partner will be on lead and so "lead directing" isn't stupid
If this is transfer then it's stupid !

You're wrong...

Bid your suit = partner's LHO will play, so I'll have the lead
Transfer your suit = partner's RHO will play, so he'll have the lead