Rebound

There is one thing I suggest you consider when making a low level takeout double. It may sound obvious, but I don't think it is, at least not to me. That is, don't double for takeout if you don't want it left in. Sorry if this seems like basic bridge, but I have run into many who have questionable understanding of the takeout double. Ages ago, I picked up a monster hand with a long solid heart suit (7 or 8 to the AKQJ i think) and about 19 HCP. After RHO opened 1 spade and I doubled, it went P-P-P (missing heart slam). I should have known partner might have spades. I don't know who of you might make the same error, but I chalked it up to my own peculiar brand of dumbness. As a result, I have learned that even some very strong hands may need to be overcalled with rather than doubling. Of course, I realized later that with such a strong hand, some other call should be made anyway, but even somewhat weaker hands but still normally considered strong enough for a dbl/rebid you may wish to consider, "will I be happy if partner passes the double?"

Thanks. I agree completely. 'Nuff said.

Well, that certainly places a different complexion on things. I'm for 2♠ in that case. It seems the best call to me.

oopsie lol

I feel I should add I skipped reading pretty much any post that didn't mention passing this hand.

I can't understand why there aren't more advocates for passing over RHO's 1♠ bid. You have a partner. You have a crappy minimum. You don't really have anything to tell your partner, so why not wait to see what your partner can tell you?

I believe the suggested rating system could be implemented via software, although that's easy for me to say since I don't have to do any of the programming heh heh. I've seen it used for other types of online game servers, backgammon, for example. As a starting point, the same could be done as in chess where everyone begins with a set rating. Until play begins to cause the ratings to more accurately reflect the player's ability, the current self-rating system could be maintained. There is one major drawback to this system. It causes too many players to try to guard thier ratings. BBO goes a long way to preventing this already, however, by penalizing players who drop out of tourneys and so on. I forsee the need to answer one other question - how to distinguish between club and tournament play for rating purposes. I suppose it could be added as an option to the table/tournament to choose whether play in this case would be rated. Just some thoughts on the subject....

Double.

Chamaco has something with the chess rating system. Way better than masterpoints as a method of ranking across a large field. One great thing about such a rating is that, unlike masterpoints, accumulating indefinitely, the higher your chess rating, the harder it is to increase it any further and you can mainly only do it by playing people of higher rating. I think it would work great in an environment like BBO.

While it is true that our 3rd seat pre-empts tend to be allowed to be wilder than those in 1st and second, our other openings are usually required to adhere to the bid's description, hence the name Precision. ;-) So, the latter applies. I had no better idea he was weaker than normal than the opponents did. The fact that I had a 1-count was what kept me from bidding, not that I knew he was weak. This was the point we tried to make at the time but were drowned out by the howling protests of the opposition. It's a shame it turned into such a big deal, seeing as how the actual hand in question made no difference to final result.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder why our opps (who apparently couldn't be bothered to read our card) and the TD of the event disagree. Unfortunately, I was not privy to what our opponents may have said to the td. But I doubt they were inaccurate in reporting thier complaint.

There is one player with whom I play precision, who opened a natural 2 clubs in 3rd seat. I don't recall the actual hands, but this call normally shows 11-15 HCP, 5+ clubs with a possible 4CM. A normal precision 2 clubs, in other words. However, my partner held something more along the lines of a 9-count and 4-1-2-6 distribution. When asked to explain the 2♣ call, he told the opponents it showed 11-15 hcp and a club suit. Of course, an argument broke out because he told them one thing and held another. He was told in no uncertain terms he should have explained distribution but held his tongue on point values. I don't agree with this. So, the question, if you psyche, or for that matter, shade a bid, what do you respond when asked for an explanation of the bid?

For declarer, you can count 1H (already in), 4D, 2C, 1S. That's 8. If declarer has another heart trick (and I think it is likely if you lead them), I believe it makes for sure unless you shift to a spade now. It may turn out not to make any difference whether you lead spades or diamonds, as long as you don't give declarer an extra heart trick. However, the spade Q seems like the more agressive play.

I respond 1♦/1♣ and raise to 3 over 2nt. Partner needs to know you hold something.

Playing with a competent partner I wouldn't open either hand. Neither of them have the playing strength partner will count on. I'm not worried about getting a chance to bid with either hand. I've passed these sorts of hands regularly. If I don't get to bid, I am usually getting a plus on defense. A good partner will cooperate to back us in to the auction if it is appropriate.

I don't think it is a good idea to get into the habit of raising a preempt to game with an opening hand either. I would do it with a weaker hand to further preempt the opponents, or with a stronger hand thinking it would make. A normal opener is likely to have too much defense and not enough offense.

Well the remaining cards in the suit rate to break 4-2. Perhaps it is to cater to honor-doubleton with west (as you have presented the 2 known hands as n/s).

I agree, but only if there is a way to minimize up/downloading pictures for dial-up users. I don't want to seem like a broadband snob, but lag already appears to be a problem for many users on BBO. Anyway, I think it's a nice idea.

I gerenerally play that without prior agreement, a double of any artificial bid shows the suit bid. I'm sure others here will describe more advanced treatments but it works for me. The context will often indicate whether the double is high card-showing or based on length. If there is a rule one can apply to that I would be interested in hearing it. However, see The_Hog's new thread, http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=4939 for some different ideas.

I have no objective evidence, but the rule of 15 seems to have worked very well for me.

I agree with Free. K♦ seems best chance to get to partner's hand to lead a heart.

I chose 6♦ because I liked it best but I doubt I would have thought of it at the table and just bid 6♥

Alas, 1980 is about the time I took up bridge and I guess I haven't learned much since because I would still play it as penalty.

1. Balancing, doubler has a balanced sub-opener with weakness in the enemy suit 2. Penalty over weak 3♦, takeout over strong 3♦ - indicates a strong hand with nothing in diamonds which prevents nt overcall 3. Penalty 4. See #2 Generally in the direct seat, I assume if partner has also passed, a double of a minimum rebid should say I was a trapped pass, holding good diamonds (or clubs, as the case may be) and had no other good call available over 1♦. If the double comes over a strong rebid, I would deem it unprofitable to double for penalties most of the time. I believe it is better to use it to show the hands I describe and to pass weaker balanced hands. 4th seat and bidding after opps have agreement is another story entirely. Clearly double is needed to keep the auction from ending too low for a good result but I apply the same reasoning as in direct seat over responses showing strength and/or agreement. But that's just me. I'd be interested in reading about other treatments. An alternative could be to play them all as t/o, it would avoid misunderstandings at least :)

My problem with 4-handed methods is their apparent one-sided nature with respect to the partnership. Conversely, I enjoy having a partner defending against them with me, so I ain't complainin'. ;-)