[Deevan]

---

In the "good" (or, maybe "bad") old days of bridge, it was considered a normal action (by some players) to bid what you have!! Now, that the bidding concepts seem to have advanced, one is confronted with unusual bidding situations on the bridge table!

You have the South hand, IMP scoring, All NV. Let's say that you decide to bid 2D (some people may not like this bid, but, let's say just for the sake of discussion, that's what you bid). Now, the following questions arise:

1) How do you interpret your partner's first double? Is the partner showing: (a)Diamond Support, regardless of HCP strength? (b) Extra Values, with or without Diamond Support? © Something else, and what is it ?

2) How do you interpret your partner's second double? (a) Is the partner saying bid 4C, or 4D; i.e a definite Take-Out ? (b) Is the partner saying I do not want to unilaterally bid 4C or 4D; is the partner now asking you to bid 3NT or pass for penalties? © Is the partner saying, I am short in Diamonds, and I have extra HCPs, judge accordingly?

3) What would you bid, assuming that your partner is a very good player with some experience playing at the international level?

As a related point, I decided to do a quick search of the internet to see if there is a write-up about "Bidding after an Opponent has Cue bid Partner's suit". Nothing came up with a quick search. It appears that this would be a common problem on the bridge table; and, partnerships need to establish how to handle situations like this in the context of modern competitive bidding.

[phil_20686]

For me the first double is t/o, and the second is extra values with the expectation that you pass quite a lot in 3sx.

There is also a school of thought that plays the diamond double as support, but I have the meta agreement that when the opponents agree a suit your dble is t/o if it would be t/o when they bid their suit. This covers situations like drury, or here.

If doubling their suit would be penalty, then doubling the cuebid reverts to support/suggesting partner bid. The most common case for this meta rule is something like
(1H)-1S-(2H)-2S
(3S)- X

where X suggests that we should bid 4S. Some people call this a game try double, but to me it just suggests extra offense and I can do it pretty weak if I want partner to sac.

[gnasher]

When it's my suit, I prefer to play that double is takeout of their suit. When it's partner's suit, I think double shows a hand that wanted to raise.

In this auction, therefore, the first double says he would have raised diamonds, and doesn't show or deny extra strength. The second double says he has a good hand.

On the actual hand, if partner wanted me to bid 3NT with this, he might have bid 3♠ over 3♦. Hence I bid 4♦.

[han]

I play that the first double shows diamond support (but not spectacular support), and the second double shows a good hand, willing to defend.

If partner wanted to play 3S doubled he would have passed over 3D and then doubled 3S (or 4S!).

I would bid 3NT now. I'm not going to pass because in my mind I'm extremely light for 2D and my partner hasn't made a penalty double. But partner has diamond support for my 6-card suit and we have 1 or maybe 2 spade stoppers. If 3NT isn't making then it is not clear that 4D will do better.

I am not sure that a direct 3S by partner would have been stopper asking. If so, it certainly wouldn't show diamond support. To me the current auction sounds like partner is more balanced while a direct 3S would suggest short spades with diamond support.

[mikeh]

I agree with han's interpretation, but not his call. I cannot see how partner can have the ♦AKx necessary for us to enjoy 6 diamond tricks....they are knocking out my spade at tricks 1 and 2, and thus even AK tight in diamonds is of no real use...and the makings of a second spade stopper (surely their suit is 5-4 or better?) and 2 more quicks on the side.

I don't expect to make 4♦, but I expect to go down several fewer tricks than in 3N.

[han]

If you cannot see how partner could have all that, did you try imagining a hand like Qx xxxx AKx Axxx? That's 9 tricks on a spade lead, and probably 9 tricks on any lead. Of course that's not partner's hand, partner's hand will be better and she is probably less balanced.

I'm not saying that 3NT is the right call, perhaps partner even has something like x KQxx AKx Kxxxx where 3NT has no chance but 5D has. However, to me that hand looks more like a direct 3S bid, I would rather expect partner to have a 2-2-3-6 shape or perhaps a strong 2-4-3-4. What kind of hand do you expect partner to hold?

[han]

Of course, I know that you would not bid 2D on this junk in your wildest dreams. But in a style where a 2D bid is possible on this, I think that opener is showing a pretty good hand.

[mycroft]

I think playing Negative Free Bids, that this is a 2♦ call - otherwise why play NFB and screw up your negative doubles? If you're not playing NFB, then yeah, that's a really scary call.

I like the double of 3♦ to be either "takeout, but probably support" or "diamond raise, but I might not have it". Either way, it's a hand that knows what to do if partner "guesses wrong". Assuming I'm playing a system where this 2♦ call is sane, I pass 3♠x - I have the trick partner expects me to have, and at least at matchpoints, this might be our least worst contract. If partner expects me to have the ♦A as well for my call, then I guess I'm pulling - but whatever score we get is my fault; doubly so if 3♠x goes down and I don't follow "if you've decided your hand is worth the call you made, you have to stick with it".

[mikeh]

 han, on 2012-March-29, 10:12, said:

If you cannot see how partner could have all that, did you try imagining a hand like Qx xxxx AKx Axxx? That's 9 tricks on a spade lead, and probably 9 tricks on any lead. Of course that's not partner's hand, partner's hand will be better and she is probably less balanced.

I'm not saying that 3NT is the right call, perhaps partner even has something like x KQxx AKx Kxxxx where 3NT has no chance but 5D has. However, to me that hand looks more like a direct 3S bid, I would rather expect partner to have a 2-2-3-6 shape or perhaps a strong 2-4-3-4. What kind of hand do you expect partner to hold?

I think that the opps are vulnerable; that they have limited values (since our partner has extras) and that LHO didn't bid preemptively....tho whether 3♦ was limit or mixed is unknown...and that the chances that partner, under those conditions, holds the Qx of spades are miniscule.

I am not saying one cannot construct a hand on which 3N has 9 winners, but I suggest that on most of such hands, partner has to have misbid already by not bidding 3♠ earlier.

We bid 2♦ vulnerable. If he holds the diamond AKx(x) and side quicks, can't he bid 3♠ on the previous round?

And if he holds running clubs and two red suit quicks, again why not 3♠?


As for the strong balanced hand...I am not playing partner to have forgotten to open 1N, nor, on the auction, am I playing him for a balanced 18-19 that makes 3N and doesn't make 5♦, which is the target you are aiming for, it seems.

So it seems to me that 3N is hoping for a very narrow subset of holdings, and the imps odds seem to me to be against it. -300 as opposed to -100 is 5 imps, and I think the odds of losing 5 imps are several times the odds of winning 10 or 12 by bidding and making 3N.

[FrancesHinden]

I think the auction is very different if 2D was a NFB because if so, you have (in theory) now described and limited your hand. If 2D was just natural and forcing, you are unlimited.

As a general rule, we play that
- if they cue bid opener's suit, double by opener is take-out of their suit (1D 1S P 2D x = take-out of spades) with a special exception if we have opened a potentially short 1C, double of clubs shows a decent suit.
- if they cue bid partner's suit, double says "i would have bid that" (or at higher levels shows a high card in the suit)

so on this auction partner's double of 3D says "I would have made a non-forcing raise to 3D". If partner has a game forcing hand with diamonds, he can raise them.
partner's double of 3S just says "I've got a good hand in context"