Bid Your Hand 3 Times?

[kfay]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj9xhaj10xdxcj8xx]133|100|Scoring: MP

P-(1♦)-Dbl-(Rdbl)

1♠-(2♣)-2♠-(3♣)

3♦-(P)-?[/hv]

[Fluffy]

3♠ is enough for me. Have no clue of what is going on.

[Codo]

I guess partner has something around a 5341 hand.

 

Give him AQxxx,Qxx,xxxx,x and game is great.

 

I go all in.

[hanp]

I would not have raised to 2S. We have a 10-count, partner is a passed hand, are red against white and RHO is in an ideal position to double us.

 

With AQxxx Qxx xxxx x partner would have bid 2S immediately, bidding 4S now is from a different world imo.

[gnasher]

I would not have raised to 2S. We have a 10-count, partner is a passed hand, are red against white and RHO is in an ideal position to double us.

Agree with all that.

 

With AQxxx Qxx xxxx x partner would have bid 2S immediately, bidding 4S now is from a different world imo.

 

Does 2♠ over the redouble show the same hand as without a redouble? Traditionally, it was preemptive. That's what Lawrence said it showed in Takeout Doubles in 1994.

[aguahombre]

Does 2♠ over the redouble show the same hand as without a redouble?  Traditionally, it was preemptive.  That's what Lawrence said it showed in Takeout Doubles in 1994.

The thing is: people like to screw around with redoubles and/or opening bids. There is something to be said for taking out (or not taking out) doubles in the same manner with or without a redouble.

[hanp]

I must admit that I haven't discussed this with anybody. But I think that red against white, after the opponents have redoubled, partner should better have good playing strength for a jump to 2S. Especially so since we're doubling with 3 spades more often than when Lawrence wrote the book.

[gnasher]

The thing is: people like to screw around with redoubles and/or opening bids.  There is something to be said for taking out (or not taking out) doubles in the same manner with or without a redouble.

That's true, but people also like to redouble when they should just be bidding their hands.

 

If I had KQJxx xx xxx xxx, I'd really want to bid 2♠ over the redouble, at any vulnerability. I'm probably going to bid 2♠ at some point anyway, so it's not as though this is taking any extra risk.

[Codo]

I had thought that a possible first 2 ♠ from partner is competetive with good spades, not a good hand- like Andys example.

 

For all the 3 ♠ bidders out there. What hand do you think partner holds?

[OleBerg]

I had thought that a possible first 2 ♠ from partner is competetive with good spades, not a good hand- like Andys example.

 

For all the 3 ♠ bidders out there. What hand do you think partner holds?

♠ Q10xxx

♥ Kxx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

With a little luck, we might just make 9 tricks.

[Codo]

♠ Q10xxx

♥ Kxx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

With a little luck, we might just make 9 tricks.

If 3 ♦ shows this...

What had a vulnerable 3 ♠ shown then? xxxxx,xxx,xxxx,x?

[gnasher]

For all the 3 ♠ bidders out there. What hand do you think partner holds?

If you play 2♠ over the redouble as weakish, I don't think this sequence exists.

 

Partner can't bid 1♠ on an invitational hand - he will play there whenever responder has psyched. With a hand that's too good for 2♠, he has to either pass or cue-bid. A sequence like

  1♦ dbl rdbl pass

  2♦ pass pass 2♠

shows an invitational 2♠ bid

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj9xhaj10xdxcj8xx]133|100|Scoring: MP

P-(1♦)-Dbl-(Rdbl)

1♠-(2♣)-2♠-(3♣)

3♦-(P)-?[/hv]

Well IMO pass over 2♣ does not deny this holding so IMV 2♠ is already an overbid. Over 3♦ I would choose 3♠

[ArtK78]

I play that the doubler must raise on 4 card support, so my 2♠ bid in this auction does not promise extras.

 

Assuming that one does not play unusual methods, I don't understand the 2♠ call in this auction. The doubler already made a takeout double, so the shape of this hand is expected. Further actions should come from partner.

 

In traditional methods the 2♠ bid shows extras. We are at least an A, probably more, away from extras for a takeout double.

 

Having bid 2♠ we have done enough. I am not going to overbid my hand a second (third?) time. Try to get out in 3♠.

[hanp]

Let me guess, Kevin does not play that 2S showed at least an ace extra.

[aguahombre]

Let me guess, Kevin does not play that 2S showed at least an ace extra.

Just a question:

 

Do you disagree that a raise to 2S by doubler when Opener has rebid in-between should be handled differently than a double followed by a free raise with no further competition? I found no problem with doubler's competitive 2S raise, and would definitely not have done so if opener had passed.

[keylime]

Pard wouldn't double here unless he's exposing a light redouble. I'm going all in - 4♠; pard would raise here if he wanted to just compete.

[aguahombre]

Pard wouldn't double here unless he's exposing a light redouble. I'm going all in - 4♠; pard would raise here if he wanted to just compete.

Can someone explain this? I am not being sarcastic, I just don't understand.

 

Pard didn't double anywhere.

Is the second part referring to 3S versus 3D by advancer?

 

In any case, It seems advancer is willing to be in game (the 3♦ try) if 2S did have the extra Ace, but recognizes that the doubler might have just been competing. All roads lead to 3S, not 4S, now.

[OleBerg]

♠ Q10xxx

♥ Kxx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

With a little luck, we might just make 9 tricks.

If 3 ♦ shows this...

What had a vulnerable 3 ♠ shown then? xxxxx,xxx,xxxx,x?

Well, both 3♦ and 3♠ are strange bid.

 

But 3♠ would be something like 5-3-4-1, and one usefull highcard.

 

A hand with 5 small in a potential thrumph-suit, increases immensely, when it is ascertained, that partner has 4-card support. The weaker the 5-card suit is, the more it goes up in value.

 

I cannot see any other justification for making the "impossible" bids of 3♦ and 3♠.

[cherdanno]

Why is 3D an impossible bid? 2S still has a fairly high maximum, and game is still possible.

 

In any case, this discussion is really pointless. We have a minimum for our previous bidding. Hence we don't accept an invitation.

Sometimes, bridge is a simple game.

[OleBerg]

Why is 3D an impossible bid? 2S still has a fairly high maximum, and game is still possible.

 

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was "impossible".

 

Normally, you would not expect a hand that could bid only 1♠ on the first round, to be able to invite, just because partner confirms that he has his bid, and 4, not 3, spades.

 

So it must be a maximum 1♠, that has grown immensely.

 

In any case, this discussion is really pointless. We have a minimum for our previous bidding. Hence we don't accept an invitation.

Sometimes, bridge is a simple game.

 

In-very-deed.

[bucky]

If you play 2♠ over the redouble as weakish, I don't think this sequence exists.

 

Partner can't bid 1♠ on an invitational hand - he will play there whenever responder has psyched.  With a hand that's too good for 2♠, he has to either pass or cue-bid.  A sequence like

  1♦ dbl rdbl pass

  2♦ pass pass 2♠

shows an invitational 2♠ bid

+1