daveharty

On the off chance you are seriously interested in what I would bid with these hands, I will oblige you. If you are simply needling me, trying to point out some perceived inconsistency, I will still oblige you. :) xx KJxxxx x Jxxx I would bid 3H under most conditions. I think the shape is right, and it's only a Milton or two short of being perfect. Jxx QJxx Kx Kxxx Yes, I would bid 2H. What else? I am fully aware that this isn't a great 10 count, and the the actual value of the diamond king could range from "full" to "zero". I don't consider 1H an egregious underbid with this particular hand. But do you expect your partner to move over 1H with AT9x ATxx x QJxx? Qx KJxx xxx KQJx I trust you aren't seriously suggesting that 1H is the proper bid with this hand. If you are, then I would ask that you kindly share some of whatever you are smoking, and I would only add that I'm glad it's you and not me who has to explain your +230 to your teammates when your partner puts down AJxx ATxx x Axxx.

Agree with nigel_k. North has already stretched a bit. South knows that North has cooperated in a slam try with really bad trumps; he can hardly have no club control too.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I would bid 4H with either the second or third of your example hands. I think it's a reasonable bid with the third hand, but I wouldn't even consider it with the second. The way I like to bid over takeout doubles, at least with regards to 10 point hands with a four card major, is pretty standard. EDIT: I just noticed that the club suit in your third example hand was Kxx, not xxx (the lower case "k" threw me). In that case, I would bid 4H. But the reason I would do it with that hand as well as the first hand is that I expect 4H to be the best contract a large majority of the time.

World-class experts can't even agree on this. There was a vivid example in the second quarter of the Spingold final yesterday: East held AJ975 K74 642 AK. At one table, Meckstroth opened 1NT (14-16) with the hand, which led to a making 3NT. At the other table, Multon opened 1S (I believe he had a strong NT available), but was then in an awkward spot over partner's 1NT response. He guessed to pass, and lost 10 IMPs as a result. Larry Cohen went on at length about how strongly he felt about opening 1NT with such hands.

I think your example hand (xxx AQTxxx xxx x) is a textbook 3H bid after (1m)-dbl-(pass), although it is very similar to an example on Eddie Kantar's site where he advocates a single jump with such a hand (in his example the long suit is spades, so it already has substantial preemptive value, and the suit isn't quite as good). I thought this was standard. The situation is a little muddier when OPENER'S suit is spades, because there is one less step below game to show various strength hands with hearts, so 4H might be bid with a wider range of hands. But if you have that extra step, why not use it to tighten the definitions of your responses? I'm not as convinced as you that opener is always going to have something else to say, since his partner passed over the double and the doubler probably has stuff in spades. But even if he does it seems like partner is well placed. I also don't get the "always cuebid with a game forcing hand" theory. I did a quick survey of some of the books in my bridge library; both Bill Root ("Bid game directly if you know where to play it") and Mike Lawrence ("If you know you can make a game, either bid it or make a cue bid which forces the partnership to get there eventually") seem to subscribe to the view that not all game forcing hands must go through a cue, and they represent a pretty wide swath of what might be considered "standard". One irritating thing about what has been written on this subject is that most example hands which authors use when discussing the cue bid in response to a double seem to be cut from the same cloth: relatively balanced hands with one or both four card majors. I had a lot of trouble finding example hands where advancer had one long major in a game-going hand. I agree completely that 4H can include 2-suited offensively-oriented hands, but hopefully advancer is well-placed to make a good decision knowing that doubler has extra values. I think your other example hand (Axx AQJxxx xxx x) is borderline, but I think I would probably cuebid with it too, because it's easy to imagine a slam if partner has a perfect minimum takeout double with actual diamond shortness. But change it to Axx AQJxxx xx xx and I think I would just bid 4H.

Maybe I'm from Bizarro World. Wouldn't be the first time. :) But vianu2, your scheme for responding to a takeout double seems strange, not to mention nonstandard. If you are truly bidding only 1H opposite partner's double with Ax/QTxx/xxx/KJxx, you are going to be missing some good games. The way I learned responses to takeout doubles--and a quick Google search of "responding to takeout doubles" suggests that this is standard--a single jump response shows 9-11 (does NOT promise a fifth trump), a double jump shows 6-8 points with a six-card suit, and a jump to game shows 12+ "dummy points". This last point is why I disagree with nige1's assessment; I don't believe partner's failure to cuebid indicates anything in particular beyond the conviction that 4H is the best contract. The way I learned it, a cuebid in response to a takeout double could be a couple of different things: an invitational or better hand with equal length in both majors, interested in finding the best major fit; OR, a game-forcing hand with no clear direction, that wants to find out more information before deciding on a final contract (it might want to leave open the option of 3NT if partner only has three cards in our four card major or something). Rarely, it could also be a single-suited hand interested in slam, but that is pretty remote. Parter doesn't automatically cuebid if he knows what the best contract is likely to be. For example, why should a hand like xx/QJxxxx/Ax/Axx cuebid? Doesn't 4H rate to be the best contract opposite a normal takeout double? Why not bid it and put maximum pressure on the opponents? I don't get why you think this hand isn't defensive, either. It has 5 controls, which is 1-2 controls more than a minimum takeout double might have. My side kings seem to be sitting well. I'm not sure why you think you can't set 5D. Of course, if your partner's 4H bid is unequivocally a weak bid with extreme distribution, that's one thing, but I disagree with that interpretation (plus, if he has that hand, he will pull your double). His 4H bid put a lot of pressure on opener; why should we assume he has guessed correctly? Maybe he has a hand like AQx/x/KQJTxxxx/x, or Axx/--/AKQxxxx/xxx, or whatever. He doesn't have AQJ/--/AKQxxxxx/Ax where 5D is cold, because he would have opened 2C with that; and if his partner had a couple of those cards he might have found a response over the double.

As I said, if partner's 4H bid was a tactical bid with this sort of hand, the auction isn't over. I would expect him to pull the double, because he knows that I don't have a strong NT type of hand. The double of 1D said "I have a takeout double of diamonds", the double of 5D said "I have more than I promised for my takeout double of 1D." Also, if you DO play that a pass here would be forcing--and maybe that is what the OP was getting at, given the subtitle of the thread--then I have to decide whether I want to encourage him to bid on. I think not, since I don't have any extra distribution and I have excellent defensive values. So, double. Perhaps you play such doubles differently. I don't understand your comment about being unable to double with "11 cards fit in our hands". Why are you convinced that partner has 7 hearts?

I disagree somewhat with this. 4H should not be, say, 6 or 8 HCP with a six card suit; 3H was available for that kind of hand. I think 4H says "4H is likely to be the best contract opposite a typical takeout double." I would double on the given hand; I have extra values (about an ace more than a minimum takeout double) but no extra distribution. If partner's bid WAS a tactical shot with a very poor distributional hand, the auction is not over; after all, partner knows that I don't have, say, a strong NT hand, and I'm not doubling on a trump stack. This isn't the same situation as a double of an opening preempt, where doubler might have been under pressure with various types of hands. I think it was a harder problem as I originally read it, with advancer bidding 4C, and opener rebidding 5D. I've never seen that particular auction before, but in my experience when opener does something like that it shows a "flawed" preemptive hand; extreme diamond length, but maybe a little too much in high cards for opening 5D, or maybe a side four card major; after opening 1D, they got a little "buyer's remorse" when the opponents got into the auction, and decided to try and close things out. I'm not sure what parter would have been up to with the 4C bid; I suppose it would be analogous to an auction like (1D)-dbl-(pass)-3M, where advancer has a six-card suit with a little extra distribution but not enough in high cards to force to game, something like 9-11 dummy points; but that seems a dubious tactic with a minor suit when it takes you past 3NT.

Did the auction just change? I was about to post a response when I noticed the doubler's partner was bidding HEARTS instead of CLUBS. What gives?

The connection issues were so bad during the last quarter of the Nickell vs. Cayne Spingold semifinal last night that I finally gave up and went to bed, so of course it turned out to be a classic. Anybody have any info about an appeal by the Cayne team that was denied?

Agree 100% with wyman. This is a wtp 3NT if you play it as gambling; 5C and 1C are close but when it's close I would probably pick the maximum preemptive bid. Anything else is pretty strange.

The title of the thread would suggest uncertainty about how high you should be forcing with this hand, regardless of specific methods played. I would say it's a game forcing hand, but not a slam forcing hand, so bid appropriately: 3S if you play splinters (I'm really not sure how else you would play this bid, unless partner is so legitimately green that they have never heard of them), 4H otherwise. Of course that might stop you short of slam if partner is afraid of spade losers--but then you have a good reason to say to partner "Say, there's this thing called a 'splinter bid'..."

1. You ARE w/r. :) 3. Don't know if this factors into your decision, but your partner is probably not going to be outplaying the other tables. So, if 12 tricks are available by an obvious route, you might need to be there.

Three hands from the club game Thursday evening. Matchpoints, Random Club Opponents, new and unknown partner... 1. [hv=pc=n&s=s6hjt964da7642c82&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c]133|200[/hv] Anyone tempted? 2. [hv=pc=n&s=sajthaj3dk98ckqj7&n=sk8h6dqj63ct96532&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] T1: ♠3, 8, 4, 10. T2: ♣K, 4, 2, 8 T3: ♣Q, ♥7, ♣3, A T4: ♥K, ? How many tricks are you playing for? If asked about their signals and discards, the opponents will say "standard". 3. [hv=pc=n&s=saj4ha3dqj62caj73&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp2cp2np]133|200[/hv] You are playing with this partner as a last minute fill-in, so you have had almost zero discussion, but you know from a previous hand that partner uses 2NT as the "default" rebid after a 2/1 response, so it doesn't show any extras. Are you worth a move beyond game?

LOL you're right of course, I was laboring under the impression that it was an 8 card fit. A 58% slam is better than I had been thinking. It's still not great, but I would want to be there.

It's true that partner's working assumption will be that you are 5-4, but that's not a huge misrepresentation when your five card suit is "only" AKQx.

No, partner was just trying to be clever by saying "You're screwed already, so take it out (to the tune of -800) or eat it here (to the tune of -590). Have a nice day."

The sequence semeai suggested with your example hand suggests exactly what you have. If partner should choose to convert your takeout double--that's what it is, takeout--to penalty, why would you not "relish" it? You have a nice, prime defensive hand with extras, exactly what you promised. I would expect to do very well indeed defending 2S doubled in that case. But what I really don't understand is why you would try to place values and/or cards in partner's hand, rather than bidding your cards; you are conducting an auction, exchanging information with partner, until someone has enough information to place the contract. Why would you not try and tell partner as accurately as possible what is in your hand? semeai's suggested sequence doesn't commit your side to game; if partner hears your bids and decides to stop short, that's fine. You've told your story and can abide by partner's decision with a clear conscience. Yes, of course you might miss a 5-3 heart fit if partner chooses to pass 2C. But as wank says, you weren't bidding game then anyway. If somebody invents a bid that is 100% good for our side/100% bad for theirs, then I guess somebody will have discovered the Unified Bidding Theory and solved bridge for all time, but until then you might as well just tell partner what you've got.

I was referring specifically to the situation where the 4NT bidder needs to make the decision about whether to continue to look for slam even after discovering the partnership is missing a key. In that case, it's obviously advantageous to have the more likely answer be cheaper, thus allowing for a queen ask more often. Presumably, if there is no key missing, it doesn't much matter which flavor of RKCB you are using, since you won't be signing off at the five level anyway. You are probably right that this is getting off track a little! My main point earlier was (supposed to be) that it's not a particularly good slam, and even having somewhat more sophisticated tools and better agreements isn't going to "help" bid slams like this (in fact it will probably keep you out of them). I really don't think the OP should be worrying about not being there, and I hope the discussion has helped clarify their agreements about their 1NT system.

As far as I can tell, the only thing these hands have in common is that simply bidding what you have is likely to get you to a reasonable contract. I tried to explain in my earlier post why I thought 3C was best with the OP's hand. With your example hand, semeai's suggested auction looks fairly obvious and best to me. If the auction goes ...2C 2S pass pass, it looks to me like you have a very comfortable double in the balancing seat, suggesting just about exactly what you have.

Hope this double isn't what one of my partners used to call a "fast food double"--"Take it out or eat it here." 5H.

If you get this hand again run out and buy a lottery ticket!

I think this hand is right on the border between a mixed raise and a limit raise. Vulnerable at IMPs I would probably stretch and call it a limit raise; therefore I agree with Zelandakh's choice of 2NT (assuming you play that this shows a limit raise in spades). Also, strongly disagree with your partner's contention that you should have bid 4S immediately; that should show another spade and fewer high cards.

A couple of thoughts: --I'm not sure why you would want to be in a slam missing a keycard and the trump queen. Just because it makes on this particular day doesn't make it a good slam. --Agree with everyone who has mentioned that 4NT should be quantitative on your auction. West has a clear pass over 4NT, in my opinion. --I think Zelandakh's suggestion of using 1NT-3M as a natural, slammish hand is quite good. I disagree that one should never use RKCB if you aren't prepared to bid a slam off one keycard, though; I would amend that slightly and say you shouldn't use RKCB if you aren't prepared to make a decision over any response partner might give. If RKCB allows you to find out that you are missing both a keycard and the trump queen, and allows you to stop in five of the agreed suit, then I wouldn't say categorically that you have made a mistake in using it. --The last point highlights why some people feel there is a slight theoretical advantage in using 1430 responses to RKCB, rather than 0314. I read somewhere that the queen ask is most likely to be needed after a response showing 1 keycard; if that is true, then it makes sense for that response to be the "cheapest" response to 4NT. Had you been using 1430 responses, the auction might have gone: 1NT - 4D (Texas transfer) 4H - 4NT (RKCB) 5C (1 or 4) - 5D (queen ask) 5H (don't have it) - pass Maybe not the best theoretical auction but certainly normal. Even here, with more complete information, the only way to bid the slam is to hold your breath and take the plunge; not unreasonable if you need a top or a swing, but it should be done with the realization that you are not bidding an "odds on" slam.

Even if you don't play a style where 1S is forcing, the North hand shouldn't be passing. Game is still a lively possibility opposite many South hands that aren't worth a jump shift.