[bridgeboy]

Over the last couple of days, I came across a few hands which I found some interesting bidding sequences

All cases at imps,

1. ♠KQ96 ♥Q ♦Q7543 ♣J64

Favourable vul, it goes 1C on your left, partner doubles, 3C (weak) on your right. Your bid?

2. ♠AT53 ♥K8 ♦KT843 ♣86

All vul, it goes 1C on your left, partner doubles, 1H on your right. Your plan?

3. ♠93 ♥8753 ♦AKT63 ♣JT

Vul vs not, once again it goes: 1C on your left, partner doubles, 3C (weak) on your right. Your plan?

(a) If you pass, partner doubles again
(b) If you bid 3D, partner raises to 4D

For all the problems, how will your bidding plans vary if it's matchpoints instead?

Thank you in advance!

[Phil]

Good set.

A - I like a responsive double. At higher levels they can be flexible hands. I would expect a 3♥ call and now 3♠ should imply flexibility of strain. 4♦ is misguided and 4♠ is just an overbid.

B - 2♠. If you play x to show this hand type, make that call, but I don't consider that standard.

C - Agree with 3♦. I will pass 4♦. Its too late to worry about a 4-4 heart fit.

[Jlall]

1) 3S
2) 2S
3) 3D then 4H

[pooltuna]

1) 3♠
2) 3♠
3) 3♥

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Nov 7 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

1) 3S
2) 2S
3) 3D then 4H

Quote

you downgraded again  on 2)   

[Codo]

4 ♠
2♠
2 ♥

[helene_t]

3♠
2♣
3♥

[dellache]

1. 3♠
2. 2♣, too many HCP for 2♠, not enough Spades for 3♠
3. 3♦

[gnasher]

1. Double. Shows two places to play, which is what I have. I don't particularly want to play 3♠ in a 4-3 fit instead of 3/4♦ in a 5-4.

If I were planning to drive game, I'd bid 4♣.

2. 2♣. If that doesn't show this, what does it show?

3. Double. Still shows two places to play, which is what I have again.

[WesleyC]

1. 4C. Converting 4H to 4S to show 4S and longer Diamonds.

2. 2C. Forcing one round, showing about 10+. Planning to pass 2S or raise 2D to 3D. I expect partner to with more than a minimum T/O dbl to show some life with 3C or a jump in a new suit.

3. 3D, then 4H. Not quite strong enough to responsive double with no support for the highest unbid suit.

[jdonn]

1. 3♠, I play double is general value showing and tends to be a balanced hand, so I don't want partner to get the wrong impression.
2. 2♠. Shows my values, blocks a 2♥ bid, I will be delighted to double if LHO feels pressured into 3♥, and I'm well placed to bid 3♦ if rho balances with 3♣ which is relatively likely.
3. 3♦, still a bit unbalanced to double and a bit weak as well.

[FrancesHinden]

1. Double, responsive, showing two places to play. The interesting question is whether I pass 3D from partner, or bid 3S (showing roughly this shape, non-forcing).

2. 2C. Seems to describe my hand perfectly.

3. I am agnostic between double (two suits) and 3D (such good diamonds). Pass does not come into it.

[Phil]

On two, is there a continental difference between what 2♣ promises?

[Vampyr]

Phil, on Nov 8 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

On two, is there a continental difference between what 2♣ promises?

Possibly. I am sure that some people play it as denying 4 spades.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Nov 8 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

On two, is there a continental difference between what 2♣ promises?

I used to play with one partner that 2C showed this hand, other 2 suits and inv values, and 2H showed a GF.

Generally I play 2H as natural though, and 2C is our only cuebid. So if I bid 2C I cannot stop in 2S (if I bid it next it's forcing, if partner bids it it's forcing).

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Nov 8 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

On two, is there a continental difference between what 2♣ promises?

I am not sure in this auction, but e.g. in
(1D) X (P)
it seems to be US standard to play 2♦ as promising a rebid, and in European standard advancer can pass 2M.

[nigel_k]

1. 3♠. I'd prefer to have both majors or a game force for a double, i.e. if I pull partner's 3♥ to 3♠ he cannot pass.

2. 2♠. This is a maximum 2♠ bid for me. I play double and 2♥ as both showing hearts here so 2♣ is the only forcing bid. This is probably overkill and you could use either double or 2♥ to show another hand type but I've never found a need for it.

3. Prefer 3♥ to 3♦ but it's close. Having bid 3♦ I would pass 4♦.

[jdonn]

Yet another continental difference I didn't know about. I have always thought it's standard that the cuebid in response to a takeout double is forcing to suit agreement. So it's essentially game forcing unless one player bids a major and the other player raises it to 3. I would define certain auctions where we can stop in 2NT as well, but that's because my doubles are so bad and not really relevant anyway.

[gnasher]

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK a cue-bid in response to a takeout double is traditionally played as forcing to agreement, ie the same as in the USA. I now tend to play that you can stop in 2M, especially after responder has bid, but I don't think that's the default.

On hand 2 I have a pretty good hand, so I'm happy to cue-bid even if it does commit us to the three level.

[WesleyC]

Cue-bid forcing 1R isn't standard here in Australia, I think the style was imported from Scandinavia perhaps?

In terms of frequency this style of responding to a t/o double makes sense. 10/11 counts opposite a double come up fairly often while strictly G/F hands aren't so common (and aren't difficult to deal with anyway). A major benefit is more tightly defining your jumps to the 2 level (almost always a 5c suit).

On hand 2 in the problem 2S isn't too much of a stretch because the spades are decent but on a hand with worse spades like xxxx Kx KJxxx Ax you can get yourself into trouble when the opponents compete.