Chamaco

I think this illustrates yet another time the adage "when in doubt, try to avoid takeout double with a void in opps suit". ("doubt" here would be only about the second round double IMO) Very very oftenn, doubling with a void in opps suit does not let pard (even if he is world class !) evaluate well the defensive vs offensive power of the hand: if the double is pulled, all is well (of course! all those who advocate t/o doubles with a void do it because "all suits supported), but when the double is left in (which is more likely, since pard will usually have length if we are void), is is very frequent that our eventual plus (if any), is less rewarding than an alternative contract for our side.

What are GIB's requirements for the doubler's hand ?

Flat shape and an Ace, if I trust my pard I'll pass, heck, they might make it but anything else is dangerous too

They mean it for "abnormal bids": that means either deviating 3+ hcp from a specifically announced range (e.g. NT openings) or "abnormal" shape deviations. From this viewpoint, they have become les restictive in terms of length of 2suiters: even if one has announced a 54 2-suiters, in 2006, if one has a 44, he will not be punished (unless this occurs repeatedly). In 2005, he would have been automatically punished. The rule is intended to avoid "genuine" psyches, such as bidding a suit that you do not have or psyching a control bid, or psyching a strong NT when you have a bust with a long suit to runout. I do not agree with banning psyches, but this year, at least, they have left room for "psyches" that are actually more hand evaluation/deevaluation rather that genuine psyches.

The same applied in Italy till 2005. In 2006 the problem has been "solved" altogether by the FIGB : now, in low/midchart events, ANY VOLUNTARY PSYCHE, of whatever nature, is automatically punished, regardless of the board result... :)

Agree.

One solution for strong hands is to use the "cheapest" reverse as artificial reverse. In that case, 1D-1M-1NT could be used as nonforcing to show a non-reverse hand with a second suit not biddable because that would promise extras or distort shape (e.g. canapèhands diam+ clubs, or hands with 5D and 4H when responder bids spades) 1D-1M-2oM is artificial, and responder relays to verify opener's hand type. 1D-1M-2NT might have various meaning according to how the strong balanced hands are dealt with by the system. One solution i like for the NT ladder is: - direct 2NT opening = balanced 18-19 (or 19-20, whatever fits with the rest) - the 20-21 (21-22) ncan be shown either via the 2D multi, or in the 1D opening (making the 1D opener 2-way), in which case the 2NT rebid would show that. I prefer this to using 1NT rebid as 1RF

I forgot, perhaps bidding out of turn ?

A high level (4+ level) preemptive opening in a red suit ;)

I'd like to add just a few lines on the topic of the takeout double. I am far from advanced/expert, but reading many posts and books bystrong players, it appears to me that there is often two schools of thoughts about offshape takeout double: - some players are quite consistent in passing offshape hands, even with a good opening hand. E.g. RHO opens 1C and we hold Axx-QJx-Kxx-Axxx They argue that there is no rush in entering the auction immediately with some hnds, and that it might be worth waiting the developments - some other think that, in some cases, it is feasible to double a little offshape if/when this is compensated by extra hcp (e.g. the point count is not 12 but in the 14 range or better). So, with the above example, they would double, arguing "In quick-outquick", meaning that it's better to show immediately the values, taking a chance while the bidding is at the 1 level, rather than wait the second round of bidding, when the the auction might be at the 2/3 level, and our partnership might be under a great pressure in th decision to compete for a partscore (or even game!). All this is only meant to point out that it would be not unusual to find GOOD partners who will make an offshape takeout double when his/her judgment sugests so. Everybody likes to make textbook takeout doubles but the world is not ideal, and sometimes we need to stretch for the least imperfection :lol:

This is reasonable, of course but I prefer to be ignored rather than this specific kind of reply that does not try to help, from which I have little to learn. If a reply does not try to be helpful, it is just showoff, in my opinion.

This is possible, I never claimed to be a good player, let alone to formulate good questions. But I seldom get these kind of replies from other strong players here on the BBF (e.h. Mikeh, Jlall, and others).

Alright, fair enough, fewer conventions and more judgment, I won't argue about that. Nothing new, must be true, but my question was not that. I must confess once again (you already did that before) that I find annoying these replies who indeed do not respond to the topic, at least I find it annoying when they come from good players who *could* ( if they wanted to) respond in technical detail to the questions. IMO there are many categories of posts: - questions/doubts - jokes - contributions - post that try to be helful for questions /doubts - posts that do not really try to respond to questions/doubts but just say "jut don't do it" or "I do it this way", without explanation and/or without taking time to use the premises laid down by the original poster. The latter category of post in my view show lack of will to be helpful to the original posters, and I find it sad, to say the least. However, I guess I'll have to put up with that. (Luckily, the really strong players who do that are really few and most of them here on the Forum are really helpful, and I am really grateful about that)

Thx a lot, Ben, this is encouraging for me, since it confirms that my choice to adopt LTCC+serious 3NT into a limited opening system is not a complete nonsense (although I know hardcore relayers surely will suggest a relay method work better- which I won't argue with, but my partners have explicitly banned detailed relays for the next 5 years o system update :P so this is out of the question)

Hi all, I have read with enthusiasm the thread about Last Train, with quite a few very enlightening contributions about captaincy. --------- Now, I am curious about one thing: I play a version of Precision, limited openings to 11-15, and we do play LTTC (and serious 3NT) when a major fit is found. Now my questions are: Assume that opener is limited to 11-15, responder has shown a major suit fit and we are in GF. 1. does it make sense to use Last Train by responder, which relinquishes captaincy and as a matter of fact gives captaincy to opener who has at most 15 hcp ? 2. does it make sense to use "serious 3NT " by opener, who, being 11-15, cannot be after all *really serious* ? :P

That surprises me a little. I would have thought it's more like 11+, or very good 10+. Hehe, I use XX as about 10+ :unsure: I guess it boils down to how light opener can be, because the XX sets a FP and often is followed by penalty doubles. I suppose that light opener style requires a good 11 for a redouble, whereas normal openers would require a good 9 or 10+, and quite solid openers might allow XX with somewhat less values.

Thanks folks, as many of you know, the topic of how to handle 5 and 6 level decisions is one of those most helpful bidding topics to me. Just another question: could you post some example hands that would justify pard's double of 5C ? (in other words, what's the minimum strength of thgis double, with a. balanced shape; b. unbalanced shape) And, if opps open 5C, how do you handle strong 55 2 suiters ♥+♠ and M+♦ ?

Thanks a lot, Fred, really, this is a great one. :P

I think "standard treatment" is invitational nonforcing, but IMO it makes sense to play it as forcing over pard's strong Notrump. I think it is more debatable how to handle the direct 3C bid responding to pard's takeout double over a weak 2.

Nice and interesting thread, thanks Phil :P

In the majority of cases, "When opps have a fit, WE have a fit". Here they found their spades fit, so, at MP pairs, nobody vuln, I think it's losing bridge topass, not showing the strength, afraid of the antipercentage risk of misfit. As it happens, here we do not have a fit, oh well. Just payoff the usual tribute to the spade suit. :D

I don't understand, the original hand posted was Qxx,Qxx,Qxx,ATxx not Qxx,Axx,Q9x,Qxxx :)

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq6hkj765dq864ct9&w=skj3h983dk92caqj3&e=sat872ht4dt53c765&s=s954haq2daj7ck842]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding went uncontested, by NS, who were playing a vanilla 4 card major system with 15-17 1NT: S.....N 1C...1H 1NT all pass West passed first time feeling she was not strong enough for 1NT and that doubling with 50% of the values in opener's real suit was too much. At her second round, she did not like the shape, and east felt he should not gamble 2S over 1NT in the balancing seat. I sympathize with both, and really, I don't know what would have been my choice at the table. I tend to think I would have repeated the same auction (I mean, even the second round double can lead to bad disasters if responder is sitting with values, and W does not have any escape suit). So I'll be happy to hear the various opinions from the Forum buddies :)

The problem is that I think the vast majority of players including me would treat 3H as nonforcing and might passout a cold game. :) I bid 4H, which is less risky than double or a 4D cue, both of which leave pard in the dark about our hand and are seriously bound to confuse the auction. Also, if pard leaves 3DX in, I doubt we'll get rich enough to compensate our game/salm. Over my 4H I expect pard to investigate slam with any non-wasted 9/10 hcp hand.

Was 2C "Forcing Stayman" or can it be garbage stayman? If my pass is forcing, I'll pass and pull to invite slam