its the judgement stupid

[Fluffy]

First one looks like book's 3♥

 

Second one is a guess, partner will have the aces more than 50% of the time, but that doesn't mean 6 is the best bid on the long run. Yet I'll bid them.

[awm]

My point is basically to look at these two hands:

 

(1) Kx AQxxx Kxx xxx

 

(2) xx AQJxxx xx xxx

 

LHO opens 1♣ and partner makes a takeout double. It seems clear that the most likely contract is 4♥ on both hands. For example partner might hold a moderately nice minimum:

 

AQxx Kxx Axxx xx

 

However, the issue is that sometimes partner's hand doesn't look like the one above. Partner might have extra values, either with or without hearts. For example:

 

(X) AQxx Kxxx AQxx x

 

(Y) AQJxxx xx AQx Ax

 

With (X) opposite (1), we are virtually cold for 6♥. I want partner to bid on. With (X) opposite (2) I don't really want to be in 6♥ and would prefer partner to pass (or at most bid to 5♥).

 

With (Y) opposite (1), playing the hand in hearts is awful and even 4♥ may fail while 4♠ is on ice and 6♠ has reasonable play. I certainly don't want partner to pass 4♥.

 

With (Y) opposite (2), playing the hand in 4♥ is quite reasonable.

 

I don't see a reasonable alternative to bidding 4♥ with hand (2). This is virtually always where we want to play the hand. Taking it slow with hand (2) (i.e. cuebidding) seems bizarre, since opponents could easily have half the values and I want to pressure them, plus I know virtually all the time where we should play the hand so why try to start a delicate negotiation? On the other hand, examples (X) and (Y) above imply that if I'm going to bid 4♥ with hand (2), I probably shouldn't bid 4♥ also with hand (1). Thus I will start hand (1) with a cuebid. This makes it easier to bid to slam opposite (X) and get to spades opposite (Y).

[the hog]

First one looks like book's 3♥

 

Second one is a guess, partner will have the aces more than 50% of the time, but that doesn't mean 6 is the best bid on the long run. Yet I'll bid them.

I think you will find that most people play 3H as pre emptive Fluffy - a 6+ card suit and not much else.

[neilkaz]

Just curious. For those that cue and bid ♥'s, or just bid 2♥, what kind of hand do you think shows a 4♥ call?

I'd like a 6th ♥ and not too much strength that slam is likely. .. ie 4♥ should be a sign off unless PD has a monster which would require that the opening was minimal and responder is almost broke or totally broke.

 

More comments please on this !! .. ty .. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

First one looks like book's 3♥

 

Second one is a guess, partner will have the aces more than 50% of the time, but that doesn't mean 6 is the best bid on the long run. Yet I'll bid them.

I think you will find that most people play 3H as pre emptive Fluffy - a 6+ card suit and not much else.

Yes, many people now feel this is preferable to a super invitational since the jump to 2♥ shows 9-11 for most and the take out doubler can invite with a bit extra.

 

I suppose another way to play it is as a good GF H hand wanting PD to Q bid with some extras, punt with 3NT with no spade control and a bit extra and just bid 4♥ with a bare min.

 

Anyhow, I prefer it as a weak hand with lots of ♥.

[pclayton]

I believe the different interpretations of 3♥ is just different agreements. In the US its preemptive, but in other places its invitational with a 5th heart.

[pclayton]

I'd bid only 2♥ on the first hand and pass on the second.

 

For the first hand, I'm not convinced that this makes game opposite a minimum takeout double. For example:

 

KQxx Kxx Axxx xx

 

We might make 4♥, but we need the spade ace onside and a heart break. This is a normal minimum takeout double.

 

AKxx Kxx Qxxx xx

 

Here we need diamonds 3-2 with the ace falling doubleton (and we guess right which hand has ace) as well as a heart break.

 

KQxx KJxx Jxxx x

 

Here it will be hard to avoid losing two diamonds and one in each black suit.

 

Maybe my standards for takeout doubles are lower than most peoples? But I see a lot of people making off-shape doubles and weaker doubles than these hands.

"KQxx, Kxx, Axxx, xx is a normal minimum TOx". Don't you want to be in 4♥ with the opening bidder on your left?

 

"AKxx Kxx Qxxx xx". Perhaps you didn't notice the ♦ spots. All you need is to find the J♦ for 4♥ (and the 3-2 break)

 

"KQxx KJxx Jxxx x". As bad as this takeout double is, 4♥ is only on a hook.

 

None of these examples (or any others posted) have convinced me that 4♥ is a bad call. If you want to insist on a 6th heart, thats fine. Put me down then for 2♣ followed by a forcing ♥ call.

 

I think the above examples are as bad as takeout doubles get, and we have a good play for game on all of them.

[the hog]

Just curious. For those that cue and bid ♥'s, or just bid 2♥, what kind of hand do you think shows a 4♥ call?

Phil, my worry on this hand would be that partner has a big hand with a Ssuit - too big to overcall in S. The cue followed by a H bid caters to this. A 4H bid for me would show a hand with long , almost self sufficient Hs and limited strength - better than what for me be a pre emptive bid of 3, which I'd make with QJT to 6 and out.

I totally agree with you that opposite a normal t/o X you want to be in 4 and I cannot understand the posters who bid 2H on this - to me this is weird hand evaluation and that is being polite. Jeez, I would bid 2H on KQ to 5 and out.

 

Phil, I don't see the logic of playing 3H as inv as well; perhaps this is only me but is seems to trying to stop on a sixpence so to speak.

[whereagles]

First one looks like book's 3♥

 

Second one is a guess, partner will have the aces more than 50% of the time, but that doesn't mean 6 is the best bid on the long run. Yet I'll bid them.

I think you will find that most people play 3H as pre emptive Fluffy - a 6+ card suit and not much else.

Depends. Where I live it's played as 5 cards and 8-10 hcp, maybe less with compensating shape.

[pclayton]

Just curious. For those that cue and bid ♥'s, or just bid 2♥, what kind of hand do you think shows a 4♥ call?

Phil, my worry on this hand would be that partner has a big hand with a Ssuit - too big to overcall in S. The cue followed by a H bid caters to this. A 4H bid for me would show a hand with long , almost self sufficient Hs and limited strength - better than what for me be a pre emptive bid of 3, which I'd make with QJT to 6 and out.

I totally agree with you that opposite a normal t/o X you want to be in 4 and I cannot understand the posters who bid 2H on this - to me this is weird hand evaluation and that is being polite. Jeez, I would bid 2H on KQ to 5 and out.

 

Phil, I don't see the logic of playing 3H as inv as well; perhaps this is only me but is seems to trying to stop on a sixpence so to speak.

If we start with a cue bid and pard bids spades, how will we know he has a monster? Ron:

 

Assuming we start with 2♣, he bids 2♠..3♥..?? The auction rates to develop awkwardly. I'm not saying 4♥ solves the problem, but the idea of conducting a scientific auction may not be as easy as you suggest.

 

Even then, what are the chances pard has a spade monster? We have a good 9 count; LHO presumably has 12(+) which leaves 19 (-). Its possible I guess.

 

Maybe my overcalling standards are higher than most. I would overcall 1♣ with 1♠ with a hand like AQJxxx, Kx, Ax, Axx, which is the hand type you see to be worried about.

 

By the way, I never suggested that 3♥ should be invitational (versus preemptive). I merely stated that other places in the world play it that way.

[HeartA]

Phil,

 

After 2CL cue-bid and pd bid 2S and 3H rebid, doubler's bid would tell if he has a monster hand or an ordinary hand. If he simply raised to 4H, that would tell an ordinary hand. If he bid something else, including rebid 3S, that would mean a monster hand.

[pclayton]

Phil,

 

After 2CL cue-bid and pd bid 2S and 3H rebid, doubler's bid would tell if he has a monster hand or an ordinary hand. If he simply raised to 4H, that would tell an ordinary hand. If he bid something else, including rebid 3S, that would mean a monster hand.

Really?

 

1♣..

 

dbl - pass - 2♣

2♠.........3♥

3♠....

 

Are you sure this just doesn't show: QJxxx, Kxx, AQx, xx? Many of us would make a takeout double instead of a 1♠ overcall, since the hand is worth only one call.

[HeartA]

Really?

 

1♣..

 

dbl - pass - 2♣

2♠.........3♥

3♠....

 

Are you sure this just doesn't show: QJxxx, Kxx, AQx, xx? Many of us would make a takeout double instead of a 1♠ overcall, since the hand is worth only one call.

With this hand, dbl is OK, and it is OK to bid 2S (of course) over pd's 2C. But it is NOT OK to rebid S without support pd's hearts. 2C cue-bid could mean both majors and invitational strength. But after 2C-3H, it is clear that pd (responder) has a hand of hearts with gf strength. To rebid S is a crime, imo.

[cherdano]

Phil,

 

After 2CL cue-bid and pd bid 2S and 3H rebid, doubler's bid would tell if he has a monster hand or an ordinary hand.  If he simply raised to 4H, that would tell an ordinary hand.  If he bid something else, including rebid 3S, that would mean a monster hand.

Really?

 

1♣..

 

dbl - pass - 2♣

2♠.........3♥

3♠....

 

Are you sure this just doesn't show: QJxxx, Kxx, AQx, xx? Many of us would make a takeout double instead of a 1♠ overcall, since the hand is worth only one call.

Really? I think this would be a 80% vote in favor of 1♠.

 

Anyway, if you cue-bid, you at least tell partner your bid is based on some hcp. A direct 4H could be much weaker and more distributional.

[hatchett]

I think this would be a 80% vote in favor of 1♠.

 

only 80%?

[the hog]

Phil, given that you would overcall with such a strong hand as the one you posted rather than X first, you have a point I guess. Your example shows how much bidding needs to mesh with partner expects for a simple overcall and for a X followed by a bid.

I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

 

As far as the second point goes, X vs 1S on QJxxx Kxx Aqx xx,

I would probably bid 1S, BUT I see absolutely nothing wrong with a X rather than a 1S bid. You are quite right - you have 3 places to play. Those who claim that more than 80% would bid 1S are not thinking straight. I would guess that in an expert field the breakdown would be more likely 50-50 for 1S vs X.

[Blofeld]

As far as the second point goes, X vs 1S on QJxxx Kxx Aqx xx,

I would probably bid 1S, BUT I see absolutely nothing wrong with a X rather than a 1S bid. You are quite right - you have 3 places to play. Those who claim that more than 80% would bid 1S are not thinking straight. I would guess that in an expert field the breakdown would be more likely 50-50 for 1S vs X.

Even though double isn't much worse than 1♠, it doesn't follow that it will have a large body of proponents.

 

I don't think double is silly but I do think that a goodish majority of people will prefer 1♠, even if only by a small margin.

[hrothgar]

I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

I probably should have given more thought to a 2♣ cue bid rather than 2♥, however, my main focus was trying to explain why I thought an immediate 4♥ was so badly flawed...

[pclayton]

I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

I probably should have given more thought to a 2♣ cue bid rather than 2♥, however, my main focus was trying to explain why I thought an immediate 4♥ was so badly flawed...

We are products of our own experience. There is a hand in one of the Reese books that is very similar to this where he bids 4♥ over a takeout double. I can't remember which Reese book it is.

 

4♥ does have a 'bid what you think you can make' feel to it.

 

Another reason why I still like it is the fact that the opponents probably have 10 or 11 clubs, yet RHO couldn't raise. Why stick in a 2♣ cue when LHO can make a sac suggesting double, or a 3/4♣ rebid? I'd much rather have LHO guess at the 5 level on whether or not a sac is correct.

[Guest Jlall]

hand 1: 4H

 

hand 2: pass.

[bid_em_up]

Really?

 

1♣..

 

dbl - pass - 2♣

2♠.........3♥

3♠....

 

Are you sure this just doesn't show: QJxxx, Kxx, AQx, xx? Many of us would make a takeout double instead of a 1♠ overcall, since the hand is worth only one call.

Really? I think this would be a 80% vote in favor of 1♠.

 

Anyway, if you cue-bid, you at least tell partner your bid is based on some hcp. A direct 4H could be much weaker and more distributional.

For a long time, I thought 1♠ was the "normal" call on the suggested hand (and it still is for many players as suggested by others). However, I no longer believe it to be the best call at IMP scoring.

 

At MP's, 1♠ is still probably the best call in the long run, but ONLY because of the scoring differences between minor suit and major suit contracts.

 

At IMP's, double is automatic these days in my partnerships, as the objective should be to immediately find your best fit as frequently as possible. I agree with Phil on the philosophy that this hand has three possible places to play and X is more descriptive of this immediately and will work better the majority of the time.

[bid_em_up]

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

 

2. KQxx K10xx Q10xx 9, you deal:

 

P-(P)-1♦-(1♥)-X-(4♥)-5♦-(P)-?

 

Partner has essentially bid 5D on his own (not withstanding our negative double). One thing I am (almost) certain of it that partner is void in hearts. He does not have 4 spades or 4 clubs (if he did, he should bid one of those two suits instead of 5D).

 

Since the AK♦ along with either black ace will give 6♦ excellent play (the spade A rates to be onside if partner doesnt have it), I will bid 6D.

 

I would expect partner to hold Axx void AKxxxxx Kxx or Jxx void AKxxxxx AQx or similar.

[hrothgar]

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

From what I can tell, I'm the only 6♦ bidder on the second hand...

 

Its possible that this should given you even more pause than zero 6♦ bidders...

[bid_em_up]

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

From what I can tell, I'm the only 6♦ bidder on the second hand...

 

Its possible that this should given you even more pause than zero 6♦ bidders...

No, I bid 6D also in my earlier post (on page #2 in this thread).