[gwnn]

I recently realized that I don't really understand t/o double auctions.

Both hands are vul/vul imps.

1.

Jxxx
KQx
xx
T9xx

p-1♦-X-p
1♠-p-2♦-p
?

2.

AKxx
AK9x
Axxx
x

p-p-1♣-X
p-1♠-p-?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3C, trying to describe my hand further, since I
have some values, I bypass 2S
#2 3S, giving partner the small chance to check out

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

1) Awkard but I bid 3♣. I suppose a case could be made for 3♦ and that some would invent a 2♥ bid.

2) 4♠ lol.

[mcphee]

Minimum rebid = trash and although I do not have H I do not think the bidding will end when I bid 2H. I believe we must have a shot at some game after this cue bid.

Second looks to me like 3C, this seems to get the hand across. I am going to respect partners response and pass 3S as well, tempted as I am to raise. It is not the first time my paratner has been forced to bid a 3 card major. If they do have 4 trumps and some working value they will bid game. With 5 trumps they need little excuse.

[ArtK78]

Based on the responses so far, I might not understand takeout double auctions, either.

1) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a tekeout double followed by a cue-bid of the opponents' opening suit is game forcing. It is the equivalent to the old-fashioned rock crusher game forcing cue bid from Goren days.

Therefore, my hand is NOT trash. I bid 3♣ naturally, but I am willing to cooperate with partner's forward going actions.

2) This hand is a 3 1/2 ♠ bid. I suspect that I would bid 3♠, given that my partners are not timid. But I understand 4♠.

It is about a King short of a 4♣ call, which is essentially a slam try opposite a potential zero count. If I were 5440 with the same honors, I would bid 4♣.

[ArcLight]

Auction 1 -
When pard doubles you are forced to bid (unless you pass for penalties) even with 0 HCP.
A jump response shows 9-11 points and a 4 card suit.

In the context of auction 1, your 1♠ bid showed 0-8. You have near the top end. You have a 4 card spade suit. You have no wasted values in the opps suit, the T9 in clubs could be useful as pushers thru the opener. You have shortage in openers suit. Thus in the context of the current bidding, you have a good hand. I would bid 2 Hearts. Pard will assume I am eitehr 4-3 or 5-4 in the majors. We don't yet know his hand. Give him room. I dont see how 3 Clubs helps pard.


#2 - pard is showing 0-8. We have 18, and shape. I would start with 2Clubs. If pard has crap, we can stop in 2 Spades. With more we go on to game.
I don't want to be at the 3 level opposite a bust.
How come LHO didn't bid? Seems like pard should have 5+ and/or RHO has a bit more than a minimum.

If pard has anything like hand #1, and bids 2 Hearts or 3 Dimes in response to 2 Clubs, we can go onto game in Spades.

If pard has
xxxx
xxx
Qxx
Qxx

we dont want to be in 3/4 spades

[vuroth]

On hand 1, is 2♦ stronger than 4♠? Or is it just looking for more info.

Not being sure about hand 1, my instinct was to bid 3♠. Having read the other responses, though, I really like 3 ♣.

On the second hand, I like 3♠. 1♠ has such a huge range, and if partner's 1♠ wasn't under duress they'll likely be fairly aggressive anyways.

0.02

[jdonn]

1. 3♦, no alternative. I like to play the cheapest bid is artificial very weak, and everything else is natural. The cuebid simply shows lack of direction and a game force (with or without my agreement).
2. 4♣, there are alternatives but I'm not going to stop on a dime here, and clearly no reason not to splinter if you are bidding game anyway.

[skjaeran]

1. 3♦
2. 3♣, mini-splinter. Not GFing this hand. Accepting any try from partner, passing 3♠.

[mikeh]

1. I like josh's 3♦, and consider it the best call, but suspect that at the table, I would have chosen 3♣.

2. We have multiple ways to show our level of interest in spades. Leaving aside, for now, splinters, we can:

pass: no extras

2♠: invites game if partner has a maximum: his range is 0-8 hcp, so we probably have to have a decent 16+ (16 with a little shape) to invite

3♠: asks him to bid game with almost any excuse: a good 3 count with 5 spades would be enough (altho minimum). This looks about right on this hand

2♣ followed by spades: this establishes a force... so this would be a hand that is at least strong enough for game opposite a very poor response, and may include a slam try.

We can also bid 4♠: I think most would expect doubler to hold 5 spades and a very good hand, but with no slam interest... but one can certainly construct hands based on 4 good spades.

Then, of course, we have a splinter 4♣.

To me, a splinter here has to carry slam connotations, and so it seems like a gross overbid. I mean, if we are forcing to game, and we have zero slam ambitions, why splinter? And this is not a hand on which we rate to have any play for slam. Ok, I concede that we can probably construct some super-max 1♠ that gives us a play, but why should partner hold the magic hand... when many maximums give us no realistic play... how will partner be able to tell which is which?


As it is, I don't force to game with this hand. Qxxx xx xxx Jxxx... what did he do wrong? And while we don't have a lot of losers, if trump split, we don't have a lot of winners either, with a trump lead... and he may have a much worse hand than this. If his hand is better.. Qxxxx xx xx Jxxx... this is a 4♠ raise over my 3♠

I was about to post that 'Note that no-one has suggested 3♣ as a splinter.. we need that call as natural', but along came Harald I think it is an interesting question, but to me the need to be able to show, say, a 19 count with 6 good clubs (have you seen what the opps open on these days), without having to distort via a notrump bid is more valuable than a mini-splinter, given that partner should (in my view) assume that we have 4441 shape when we double and raise.. if we are offshape, then we have compensating values elsewhere.

[han]

On the first one I think 3C will time out better than 3D. Partner may be stuck over 3D and over 3C partner can bid 3D so that we can bid 3H. The downside is that partner may expect 5 clubs for our 3C bid. One thing I'm certain of: partner does not have 4 spades.

On the second one I like 3C.

[gwnn]

1. partner had a good 18 count with support. I made 4♠ without a problem (I chose 3♣)

2. I bid 3♠, partner bid 3NT and I passed, not sure if that's a good idea. Partner had QJT xxx xxx QJxx.

[brianshark]

I'm indifferent about 3♣ vs 3♦ on the first hand.

On the second hand, I'm going to bid 3♠. 3♠ is strong invite opposite a potential 0 count and this is exactly what we have.

[vuroth]

gwnn, on Sep 18 2008, 05:30 AM, said:

2. I bid 3♠, partner bid 3NT and I passed, not sure if that's a good idea. Partner had QJT xxx xxx QJxx.

Passing seems reasonable to me, fwiw.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Sep 18 2008, 05:30 AM, said:

2. I bid 3♠, partner bid 3NT and I passed, not sure if that's a good idea. Partner had QJT xxx xxx QJxx.

1♠ instead of 1♦ by partner is absolutely absurd.

[mikeh]

han, on Sep 17 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

On the first one ....One thing I'm certain of: partner does not have 4 spades.

Where did you get that from? Double and cuebid DENIES 4♠? I've never heard of that proposition.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Sep 18 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 18 2008, 05:30 AM, said:

2. I bid 3♠, partner bid 3NT and I passed, not sure if that's a good idea. Partner had QJT xxx xxx QJxx.

1♠ instead of 1♦ by partner is absolutely absurd.

While 1♠ would not be my choice, I think that it is a little short of absurd... the problem is that doubler will more often be 4=4=3=2 than 3=4=4=2 and many (me included) will risk a double on chunky 4=4=2=3 hands. Advancer expects that the bidding will usually end at a low level, so decided to try to maximize the chances of having more trump, in the two hands, than the opponents have. Personally, I'd rather run the risks inherent in 1♦, but I think it is unfair to call 1♠, which looks like the 2nd choice, 'absurd'... it is better, after all, than the bid many inexperienced players would choose: 1N.

[han]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

han, on Sep 17 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

On the first one ....One thing I'm certain of: partner does not have 4 spades.

Where did you get that from? Double and cuebid DENIES 4♠? I've never heard of that proposition.

You are right, it is possible that partner has a balanced 25-count with 4 spades. Most other hands with 4 spades would bid 2S, 3D, 3S, 4D or 4S.

[jdonn]

han, on Sep 18 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 18 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

han, on Sep 17 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

On the first one ....One thing I'm certain of: partner does not have 4 spades.

Where did you get that from? Double and cuebid DENIES 4♠? I've never heard of that proposition.

You are right, it is possible that partner has a balanced 25-count with 4 spades. Most other hands with 4 spades would bid 2S, 3D, 3S, 4D or 4S.

I think this is a superior way to bid. I also think it's completely non-standard. In fact I bet there are a lot of players out there who always cuebid on hands where you would make most of the bids you mentioned.

[gwnn]

BTW this was mostly why I started this thread. My partner cuebid on the first hand and I bid 3♠ on the second, which seems conflicting. So a cuebid after a t-o x is absolutely GF?