[Hanoi5]

---

2♦ waiting. 4♦ cue bid. Should East double any of these bids or 7♠?

[bigbenvic]

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-28, 21:45, said:

---

2♦ waiting. 4♦ cue bid. Should East double any of these bids or 7♠?

I hate these decisions, I used to get these sorts of things wrong a lot.

I assume Imps.

X during the auction doesn't feel right, maybe X 4♦ keeps them out of the Grand which we were going to beat!

The questions are will partner get it right (I should hope so but!) what will he lead if I pass, and will they run to 7nt and make if I double?

I reckon I'm doubling at the table. Which means 7nt is cold when declarer knows I'm void in ♦

[gnasher]

I'd double 4♦, even though it's probably cold. I think this has less risk than the alternatives - if I pass and then double a slam, they'll know I have a void, whereas this way they often won't know whether it was an honour or a shortage.

[whereagles]

Well, the book says don't dbl 7S. Reason is they may self-rescue escape to 7NT and guess diamonds correctly after the dbl. Just pass and hope pard can find the lead for himself or that it goes down on a diamond misguess.

Doubling 4D smells like resulting

[Fluffy]

Have you ever seen a pair staying in a 4m doubled cuebid after having raised a major? I haven´t

[wank]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-29, 05:03, said:

Have you ever seen a pair staying in a 4m doubled cuebid after having raised a major? I haven´t

no, but i have seen the opps defending 7♦X when the doubler's partner naively believed he had his bid and sacrificed with his 7 card support.

[Fluffy]

luckilly our pass of 2♦ serves as protection in this hand

[gnasher]

wank, on 2011-November-29, 05:09, said:

no, but i have seen the opps defending 7♦X when the doubler's partner naively believed he had his bid and sacrificed with his 7 card support.

It's certainly a good idea for the partners to be in agreement about what the double means, but I'm surprised that there's any doubt about this one. Do you really play a double of a four-level cue-bid as promising length in the suit?

Even if you do, I don't see how it's possible for partner to have a hand that wants to save. He didn't overcall over 2♣, and, as Fluffy says, we didn't act over 2♦ either.

[whereagles]

Well, pass + dbl of 4D might mean "I don't have ♦KQJx but I do have ♦KT9x".

Anyway, if I had doubled before, I sure won't double now, as that conveys the message "cancel all my previous calls: DON'T lead a diamond".

[whereagles]

Well, pass + dbl of 4D might mean "I don't have ♦KQJx but I do have ♦KT9x".

Anyway, if I had doubled before, I sure won't double 7S, as that conveys the message "cancel all my previous calls: DON'T lead a diamond".

[benlessard]

Doubling 4D will achieve nothing against a good pair they will XX to show first round control or bid to show a 2nd round control and since you didnt bid over 2D they know its not a sac invite and they will stop in 6S.

I like my chance at 7Sx or defending 7Nt. Sure it can backfire but why give up a chance to go plus here ?

edit--One thing i like about my hand is if they pull to 7nt They are going to finesse me for the rounded suit-- also by principle in close case I prefer to X than making a slow pass (i dont think this one is close BTW).

[Fluffy]

benlessard, on 2011-November-29, 08:18, said:

Doubling 4D will achieve nothing against a good pair they will XX to show first round control or bid to show a 2nd round control and since you didnt bid over 2D they know its not a sac invite and they will stop in 6S.

Then I will double them with Jxxxxx and see how stupid they feel when they stop in slam. Don´t play the opponents to be genius, they are not.

[whereagles]

geniuses?

[aguahombre]

Thank you to those who used "cue bid" to describe the 4D control bid. The terms are interchangeable to most of the civilized world, but using them as such on these fora has incurred flack in the past.

Edit: The only place they definitely are not interchangeable would be when a "real" cue bid (bid of opponent's suit) does or does not show a control in it.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-29, 11:01

[S2000magic]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-29, 05:03, said:

Have you ever seen a pair staying in a 4m doubled cuebid after having raised a major? I haven´t

In both Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit and Opening Leads, Robert Ewen mentions playing in 5♦ redoubled (making) when his cue bid was doubled en route to a ♥ slam; he had ♦ A Q J 10 4 3. So, apparently it happens.

As for the original question; I'd double 4♦.

[S2000magic]

whereagles, on 2011-November-29, 10:13, said:

geniuses?

Genii?

[akhare]

X 7♠ -- if they run to 7N and make it, rationalize that pard would have led the text book ♠ and 7♠ would have been cold anyway .

Assuming it's IMPs, the score difference shouldn't matter assuming a similar auction at the other table; if it's MPs, c'est-la-vie...

[Fluffy]

S2000magic, on 2011-November-29, 11:13, said:

In both Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit and Opening Leads, Robert Ewen mentions playing in 5♦ redoubled (making) when his cue bid was doubled en route to a ♥ slam; he had something like ♦ A K J 10 6 5. So, apparently it happens.

As for the original question; I'd double 4♦.

We have a saying in my country that would translate to something like "A rule is not a rule untill it has one exception".

Yeah, spannish have been decaying last 4 centuries, this might be one of the causes