[kenberg]

matchpoints, non vul, opponents vul, I am S.
As it went:

---

The good news is the the heart K is (of course, given the bidding) offside. The even better news is that spades are 4-2, dooming 4S. Still, the bidding needs work. Partner had a momentary lapse, thinking that his 2D was forcing. Well, a 2M call is certainly not forcing over the X, but perhaps an argument could be made for making a 2D bid a one round force. Let's forget that. Assume he starts with 2C.

No doubt I am a bit light (more than a bit?) for my takeout double, but it is mps and we are white against red. Partner would reasonably expect that unless I had a huge hand I would be at least 4-3 in the majors. Not this time, but usually.

So here is what I want to think about. Imagine North, after it goes (1C)-X-pass. Imaging N has a big hand, as he does, and five diamonds. Sometimes he also has a major, sometimes not. We want to sort it all out. How?

On this hand, presumably a good start is:

---

It would be nice if we always had an eight card fit in the majors and all we had to do is find it, but it is not always so. And then we need to see how high in diamonds, assuming 3NT is out.


But change the S hands a little

---

Maybe now N can bid 2S with a big hand and four spades, and 3S with a big hand and five spades?


Of course there are other variations, including some where N has the strength and the diamonds, but no four card major.

We are close to game. Change my heart Q to a hear K and it makes 5D. And makes 4S for that matter, as long as spades are no worse than 4-2.

So: Second hand doubles, fourth hand has a lot, we have to sort on which major if either we have, lacking that we have to sort on whether we can play 3NT, lacking that we have to sort on how high in diamonds.
How do we do all that?

[mike777]

Agree with your first point, you don't have a takeout x.

Assuming you pass and north doubles, I would expect to end up in 4d or 5d which sounds like it is down.


I still don't think South has a double with your second example.

[Phil]

It wouldn't occur to me to x with the South hand, since its such a POS. But assuming you do:

1♣ - x - pass - 2♣
pass - 2♦ - pass - 2♠
pass - 3♦ - pass - ?

Its hard to say whats best, but partner sounds like 3=3=5=2. 3♥ as a punt is probably safe and 5♦ is premature. This will elicit 3♠ and you can try the Moysian. You're happy if partner bids 3N as well.

[kenberg]

I am not surprised to find that you don't think much of my X. Me neither.

It still got me to thinking about just how an auction should develop after (1C)-X-(Pass) when fourth hand has a 15 count, give or take, and 5+diamonds, with or without a four card major.

Take Phil's starting auction on the current hand:

1♣ - x - pass - 2♣
pass - 2♦ - pass - 2♠
pass - 3♦ - pass - ?

Presumably the 2♦ effectively denies a major, no? After S doubles 1♣ and N bids 2♣, it would be time for S to show a major if he has one, and usually he will have.
So now, after 2♦, N could have five spades. With five spades and, say, a 13 count he would bid 2♣, not a passable 2♠. So what should we make of 2♠ over 2♦? With the 13 count hand with five spades perhaps N should bid 3♠ rather than 2♠ over the 2♦?

I realize this is not what anyone would call advanced, but I am not so sure it has been much talked about. Usually, after 1♣-X, partners find their major fit if they have one and bid to some reasonable level. When they don't have a fit they usually get out early unless NT is playable. It's not all that often that an auction starts like this and then ends in 5D, except when the original X was on a huge hand with diamonds.

So I was just mulling over how to handle the general situation.

My X was pushy, the only issue is pushy or very pushy. I have no quarrel with "out of my mind" if you like. We landed on our feet, but just barely.There were pairs in 5D off one, and one pair in 4S off two. Of course I am not attributing our success to our brilliance here.

[mike777]

Fwiw:
1) over 1c when you have 3h and 4s and a longer d you will likely still want to make a t/0 x.
2) with 4spades and longer diamonds you can overcall 1d.
3) you might try astro cuebids so 1c=2c shows 4hearts and longer diamonds.


In your suggested auction if 2c is our only force by north then 2s should promise 5s and I would expect to be in a gf auction.

[Winstonm]

I think the essence of the question is whether or not the 2C should be considered game forcing or simply one round forcing. I am old school and believe that bidding becomes much easier if these are game forcing bids, then there is no pressure to invent a bid, and an auction such as X-2C, 2H-3D would be forcing. When you make the decision to make the cue bid a game force, that frees a second cue bid for meaning assignment: instead of 3D, what would it mean in a forcing auction for partner to bid 3C? It could mean stopper hunt. It could mean: I hold the other major, or it could be a re-cue establishing the fit with a control.

Of course, the disadvantage of forcing auctions is that precision of non-game contracts suffer. That is the nature of bridge, it seems to me.

[ggwhiz]

Winstonm, on 2016-July-11, 08:31, said:

I think the essence of the question is whether or not the 2C should be considered game forcing or simply one round forcing. I am old school and believe that bidding becomes much easier if these are game forcing bids,

I agree and in that context with an UPH partner, sorry Ken but out of your mind gets my vote.

[rmnka447]

I'm also with the out of your mind crew. IMO, a hand with 1 QT, 6 quacks, and 12 HCP of which 3 are doubleton honors in the opponents suit just isn't a takeout double.

That said, I think Phil's auction through 3 ♦ is correct. 2 ♠ is still forcing as advancer has cued 2 ♣ so it can hardly be a landing place. It must be a search for a fit. I agree 3 ♦ shows the 3-3-5-2 hand. With 5 ♦/4 ♥ South might well rebid 3 ♥ rather than 3 ♦ (implying 3-4-5-1).

I'd follow up with 3 ♥ looking for 3 NT if South has a ♣ stopper. With South's hand "known", 3 ♥ can hardly be a further search for a fit but shows a stopper and asks about ♣. Note that with something like ♣ Kx instead of ♣ QJ, 3 NT should be a good contract. It looks like if 3 NT is bid then there are 5 ♦ plus the ♣ stop in South's hand and North's 2 side suit As. And South is almost sure to have another K for the double.

Without a stopper, I think 3 ♠ is South's reply followed by 4 ♦ by North. But I wouldn't be surprised to see more than a few North's jumping to game because of the double.

[kenberg]

I think that once I made that double of 1C, only a miracle could keep us out of a doomed game. It is not too much for partner to expect I have the king of hearts instead of the Q, and then we are home.

Looking at the two hands, the only game contract with a snowball's chance is 4S. The heart finesse is clearly going to fail, but spades could be 3-3.

But the hand was not a waste, and I am not referring to the fact that we ended plus 130. I have not been playing that regularly so I got to thinking, or re-thinking, about agreements that I do not now have with anyone.

Mike Lawrence, in his book on take-out doubles, suggests that after (1C)-X-(Pass) the cue bid of 2C can be non-game forcing when and only when the cue bidder has (at least) four card support for both majors and invit values. Thus, after 2C, the auction can continue 2M-3M-Pass. If the cue bidder does anything other than raise the 2M call to 3M, then this establishes a gf. This sounds right to me. I imagine myself with, say, an 11 count and both majors, and partner makes a take-out double. Jumping to 2M might well lose the 4-4 fit if partner is 4-3 and minimal.
This has the corollary that if there is a 2M response to the X, then doubler knows that his partner is not 4-4. With 4-4 shape and with invit values, the call would have been 2C.

One could say this is obvious, doesn't everyone do it this way? Well, no. Winston above suggests that 2C is absolutely gf, and since Richard Pavlicek says the same thing on his website, Winston is in good company. I'm not claiming that the ML approach solves all problems, nothing does, but it is reasonably natural (raising 2M to 3M sounds passable) and will apply on hands that are fairly common in practice.

And, of course, this is the IA forum so if I am saying something that is broadly known perhaps I will be forgiven.

But I am completely at ease with criticism of my double. I get carried away sometimes.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-July-12, 18:46, said:

I think that once I made that double of 1C, only a miracle could keep us out of a doomed game. It is not too much for partner to expect I have the king of hearts instead of the Q, and then we are home.

Looking at the two hands, the only game contract with a snowball's chance is 4S. The heart finesse is clearly going to fail, but spades could be 3-3.

But the hand was not a waste, and I am not referring to the fact that we ended plus 130. I have not been playing that regularly so I got to thinking, or re-thinking, about agreements that I do not now have with anyone.

Mike Lawrence, in his book on take-out doubles, suggests that after (1C)-X-(Pass) the cue bid of 2C can be non-game forcing when and only when the cue bidder has (at least) four card support for both majors and invit values. Thus, after 2C, the auction can continue 2M-3M-Pass. If the cue bidder does anything other than raise the 2M call to 3M, then this establishes a gf. This sounds right to me. I imagine myself with, say, an 11 count and both majors, and partner makes a take-out double. Jumping to 2M might well lose the 4-4 fit if partner is 4-3 and minimal.
This has the corollary that if there is a 2M response to the X, then doubler knows that his partner is not 4-4. With 4-4 shape and with invit values, the call would have been 2C.

One could say this is obvious, doesn't everyone do it this way? Well, no. Winston above suggests that 2C is absolutely gf, and since Richard Pavlicek says the same thing on his website, Winston is in good company. I'm not claiming that the ML approach solves all problems, nothing does, but it is reasonably natural (raising 2M to 3M sounds passable) and will apply on hands that are fairly common in practice.

And, of course, this is the IA forum so if I am saying something that is broadly known perhaps I will be forgiven.

But I am completely at ease with criticism of my double. I get carried away sometimes.

I have always been a big fan of Mike Lawrence's ideas about how to bid and why it should be done his way - and I quite like the idea of the raise of either major as the only non-forcing move.

[WellSpyder]

kenberg, on 2016-July-12, 18:46, said:

Mike Lawrence, in his book on take-out doubles, suggests that after (1C)-X-(Pass) the cue bid of 2C can be non-game forcing when and only when the cue bidder has (at least) four card support for both majors and invit values. Thus, after 2C, the auction can continue 2M-3M-Pass. If the cue bidder does anything other than raise the 2M call to 3M, then this establishes a gf. This sounds right to me. I imagine myself with, say, an 11 count and both majors, and partner makes a take-out double. Jumping to 2M might well lose the 4-4 fit if partner is 4-3 and minimal.
This has the corollary that if there is a 2M response to the X, then doubler knows that his partner is not 4-4. With 4-4 shape and with invit values, the call would have been 2C.

What do you mean by invitational values here, Ken? For me a 2M response to the X would be about 8-10 HCP and a 2C response normally 11+. The 2C response would have to be weakened a long way to allow your inference about advancer not being 4-4 in the majors.

[Zelandakh]

Bidding after a takeout double and cue is quite an interesting topic I think, probably more worthy of a spot in the expert forum than most of those that do get posted there. Everyone seems to accept that 2♦ is a reasonable advance for Doubler but for me that shows a big hand and a basic TOD has to bid a major even if that is a 3 card suit. The cue is most often played as forcing to suit agreement so when Advancer bids 2♠ over 2♥, that is forcing. I do not see any reason to jump with 5 spades either, we can bid 2♠ followed by 3♠ with that hand.

As for GF or not, I think the vast majority play a minor suit cue as not GF, although the bottom end for this varies somewhat - the question here tends to be what you do with 8-10 and both majors as it can be rather helpful to play in the correct major rather than being forced to guess. A major suit cue is different and you lose a lot less by playing that as a GF, not to mention that there is less bidding space to sort it out if you have many different hand types included.