Awkward Bidding Situation

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&w=saq86ha5dkq965cqt&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h2cdp2d3c]133|200[/hv]

 

 

What would X say? What should I bid?

 

thanks,

 

eagles

[LBengtsson]

Good hand to post. What contract would you not like to be in: 3NT surely. Looks like South has a 7 bagger ♣ suit to bid twice at red. X could be confusing here, I feel: TOX or penalty? I feel it would come across as penalty. Best bid here imo is 4♦ which I would take as forcing. Keeps 6♦ in the mix if partner has something like ♠Kxx ♥KQxxx ♦Axxx ♣x

 

It will be interesting what other commentators say is best here.

[mw64ahw]

I'm in the camp that plays 4♦ as invitational and West's hand is worth a slam try. 4♣ is my keycard ♦ ask with a ♦/♥ choice. 4♦ shows an even number of keycards, while other bids show an odd number with a control. This way we check that both hands don't have a Weak ♣ doubleton.

 

So my expectations are:

... 4♣ - 4♥ (1 keycard+K♥)

... 4♠ control. Then

 

4NT shows the ♣ control; likely a singleton

5♣ shows a void

5♦ shows 2+♣ with no control

[Cyberyeti]

Form of scoring ?

 

Can partner have K, KQxxx, J10xx, Kxx ? where suit games may well fail, 5♦ to a club ruff, 4♥ to club and diamond ruffs or club ruff and trump promotion but 3N is easy.

 

That said xx, QJ10xx, Axxxx, x made up to an opening bid is probably close to a good slam given the major suit finesses are likely to work.

 

To me 4♣ is the forcing 4♦ raise and would be what I would probably bid, but aware it could be horribly wrong, second choice 3♠ and pull 3N if partner bids it.

[akwoo]

I would double, and it's not penalty.

[AL78]

Looks like a 30 point pack situation on the assumption South's bidding at this vulnerability is not garbage. 4♣ showing diamond support with slam interest.

[DavidKok]

I would have bid 2♦ the first round since I'm too strong to stop in 3NT anyway, so there is plenty of room to show the spades later.

4♦ would be a slam try in diamonds. I don't have agreements on the meaning of 4♣, but on the auction it should also be a diamond slam try. Maybe partner will expect shortness (or at least a control) in clubs if I bid 4♣, so I will bid 4♦.

 

I think a double here should show an interest in defending, typically a 4=2=3=4 or 4=1=4=4 or so. 3♦ is already an invitational diamond raise (keep in mind partner gets another bid if we pass, so there's not much reason to bid 3 over 3 when partner may have a misfitting hand. 3♦ can well be a least of all evils on, say, a 2=5=3=3 or lousy 1=5=4=3) so we don't need the double to show generic extras.

Keep in mind partner already had the opportunity to show extra values or shape last round, and instead made the cheapest call. I think we have a reasonable read on partner's distribution and strength, and having another generic takeout double is not that valuable.

[LBengtsson]

Looks like a 30 point pack situation on the assumption South's bidding at this vulnerability is not garbage. 4♣ showing diamond support with slam interest.

 

I thought about 4♣ here instead of 4♦ but as Cyberyeti says (in his comment also) it could go "horribly wrong". To me, just my opinion, it suggests some sort of control or stiff/(void) in ♣ as well as ♦ support. That is why I opted for 4♦. I understand why some commentators see 4♦ as only invitational here, but given that East has already, I guess, limited his hand with the 2♦ rebid, 4♦ as just a invitational bid does not, to me, seem right. That is why I see it as forcing.

 

But, as I said in my first comment on this thread "It would be interesting to see what other commentators make of this situation". I guess that West did not have the option of a 2♦ bid (Negative Free Bid maybe?) on the first round instead of the TOX. It is a heavy hand (17-18) for a TOX on the first round of bidding after partner has opened imo. Though we never expected South to bid 3♣ alone at red/white on this auction either.

 

Edit: DavidKok beat me to the comment again lol!

[AL78]

4♦ as just a invitational bid does not, to me, seem right. That is why I see it as forcing.

 

You are probably right but you have seen one or two hands I've posted with a partner who thinks 4♦ is invitational in situations like this. :D

[Douglas43]

How about a BWYTYCM 5♦?

[pescetom]

You are probably right but you have seen one or two hands I've posted with a partner who thinks 4♦ is invitational in sistations like this. :D

We play that 4♣ is RKCB(♦), 4♦ is forcing and invites a control-bid, 4♥ idem but with hearts control (almost certainly 1st level). The first would do the job here.

[akwoo]

Yes, partner can pass the double of 3C with ♠x ♥KQJxx ♦Jxxx ♣AJx. I fancy my chances of +1100 on that layout.

[pescetom]

How about a BWYTYCM 5♦?

Looks a bit like stopping on a dime, to me.

If anything maybe a RADTP4MAMP 4♥, Moysian but S looks quite likely to hold Hx.

[mikeh]

This is appropriately in the intermediate forum because few experts, if not playing negative free bids (and not many do) would double. It’s basic bridge that one doubles only when one cannot make a natural, forcing bid….either because one lacks the strength to do so or because one lacks the suit length to do so or both. Here, we have both thevstrength and length to bid normally.

 

There was no reason, with this hand, not to bid 2D, intending later to bid spades, thus showing at least opening values with 4 spades and longer diamonds. Isn’t it surprising that such a sequence actually describes our hand and gives partner some real clues as to our holding?

 

In my partnerships we play that jumps to 4m are forcing. In our view, aiming to play in 4m is aiming at far too narrow a target. Here, 4m, as forcing, is close to ideal….the only real problem is that the shape makes no sense. You can’t have a forcing hand and 5 diamonds….that hand bids 2D over 2C. You can’t have 5 spades, for the same reason. You can’t have 3 hearts since you’d raise hearts. So 4D is 4=2=4=3, but virtually all game force 4=2=4=3 hands double 3C…not as pure penalty but as a ‘do something intelligent, partner’ action.

 

Thus, to me, this auction is essentially a ‘does not exist’ auction.

 

Now, if I’ve agreed to fill in for a player who uses negative free bids, so I had to double initially, I can and would bid 4D, forcing. I’d distinguish between 4D and 4C on the basis of my club holding. 4D denies a club control but forces to 5D. 4C shows a control and agrees diamonds.

 

Slam is good opposite xx KQxxx AJxxx x, basically cold opposite Kxx KQxxx AJxx x, but we want nothing to do with slam opposite Kx KQJxx AJxx Jx.

 

We don’t have a lot of bidding space over 4C unless 4C says something more than ‘I have a forcing diamond raise’. You might survive but opener may well think you’ve cuebid a control and so not worry about xx or even xxx in clubs.

 

Just to prove that I don’t just talk about this style, in Phoenix we played Welland-Auden. I held 10x AKxx Ax KQ109x

 

LHO passed, partner opened 1S, RHO bid 2D and I bid 3C.

 

The auction ended up as (P) 1S (2D) 3C (4D) 5C (P) 6C….

 

We’d never have reached this excellent slam had I doubled. Partner had AK98x Qxx xx Axx…nobody can afford to bid clubs after (P) 1S (2D) x (4D)…….

[helene_t]

One could play x as an invite with diamonds but that makes it almost impossible to penalise opps. So I prefer x being penalties - with less than 4 clubs we can always bid something else. There's a case for 3s or maybe 3h asking for a stop, implying diamonds.

With this hand I like 4di, with 4cl showing diamonds with a club control.

[eagles123]

This is appropriately in the intermediate forum because few experts, if not playing negative free bids (and not many do) would double. It’s basic bridge that one doubles only when one cannot make a natural, forcing bid….either because one lacks the strength to do so or because one lacks the suit length to do so or both. Here, we have both thevstrength and length to bid normally.

 

There was no reason, with this hand, not to bid 2D, intending later to bid spades, thus showing at least opening values with 4 spades and longer diamonds. Isn’t it surprising that such a sequence actually describes our hand and gives partner some real clues as to our holding?

 

In my partnerships we play that jumps to 4m are forcing. In our view, aiming to play in 4m is aiming at far too narrow a target. Here, 4m, as forcing, is close to ideal….the only real problem is that the shape makes no sense. You can’t have a forcing hand and 5 diamonds….that hand bids 2D over 2C. You can’t have 5 spades, for the same reason. You can’t have 3 hearts since you’d raise hearts. So 4D is 4=2=4=3, but virtually all game force 4=2=4=3 hands double 3C…not as pure penalty but as a ‘do something intelligent, partner’ action.

 

Thus, to me, this auction is essentially a ‘does not exist’ auction.

 

Now, if I’ve agreed to fill in for a player who uses negative free bids, so I had to double initially, I can and would bid 4D, forcing. I’d distinguish between 4D and 4C on the basis of my club holding. 4D denies a club control but forces to 5D. 4C shows a control and agrees diamonds.

 

Slam is good opposite xx KQxxx AJxxx x, basically cold opposite Kxx KQxxx AJxx x, but we want nothing to do with slam opposite Kx KQJxx AJxx Jx.

 

We don’t have a lot of bidding space over 4C unless 4C says something more than ‘I have a forcing diamond raise’. You might survive but opener may well think you’ve cuebid a control and so not worry about xx or even xxx in clubs.

 

Just to prove that I don’t just talk about this style, in Phoenix we played Welland-Auden. I held 10x AKxx Ax KQ109x

 

LHO passed, partner opened 1S, RHO bid 2D and I bid 3C.

 

The auction ended up as (P) 1S (2D) 3C (4D) 5C (P) 6C….

 

We’d never have reached this excellent slam had I doubled. Partner had AK98x Qxx xx Axx…nobody can afford to bid clubs after (P) 1S (2D) x (4D)…….

 

 

I agree that X was a mistake, I think it was an auto instinct to X with 4 other major, but it's clearly a mistake.

 

I doubled and partner reasonably passed, that was -1. 5D was cold.