Double !

Ben: please check your spelling i believe that you transposed a few #s and $s. lolololol DHL

interesting discussion i would have interpreted the double as a very shapely hand that didn't have sufficient strength to have doubled 1H initially based on partnership agreement. i kind of thought that this is rather standard albeit admittedly a risky bid, perhaps old-fashioned. Little reason, especially at matchpoints, to play the double as penalty. If the opps are not making,and neither you nor your cho could bid, chances are you are getting a reasonable score if the opps are way overboard. just one opinion from a bidding dinosaur DHL

Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to play kickback, that 4S is RKC when hearts are the agreed suit? Then you always have 4 steps available without going past 5 of your suit and no confusion about the queen-ask. I play specific kings with one person. 6M = no outside kings. DHL

Jimmy: Isn't this hand a good argument for club canapes? Try handling this hand playing matchpoint precision where a 2C opener denies a 4-card major. DHL

i used to bid these types of hands naturally, even using a prepared 1♦ opener, planning to rebid 2♣ if i felt that the hand wasn't worth a reverse, and then take further action if P showed life. I no longer feel that this is the better approach. I, too, would now open this hand with 1NT for many of the reasons mentioned above. However, there are some other reasons IMO for opening this hand with 1NT. Response structures to 1NT openings are well-developed these days, and it is usually much easier for partner to 1) assess the potential of the combined hands, and 2) if partner transfers to 2M on a 5-card suit (that might not otherwise be rebiddable) and then passes, it is likely to be a good spot. What fascinates me, and I am curious about others' opinions about this, is seeing some players (perhaps with some younger experts) opening 1NT holding 4-5 in the majors and 15-17 (like 4522 distro). Do you all believe that this is an advisable way to bid such hands and, if yes, are any adjustments in the response structure made? TYIA DHL

If one is looking for unusual bidding systems, if one goes to acbl site, great bridge links, bidding box section, included is a description of a bidding system called "The Smart Blonde System" or some similar name. All I can say is that, upon brief inspection, it is different. A little over a year ago, a forum member discussed in one of the threads a homegrown bidding system that included something called Tornado Two bids. I recognized the bids and, after correspondence with this forum member, I learned that we had played at the same bridge club many, many years ago. (Although I couldn't recall who he was, I did recognize the name of at least one of his partners- small world.) As I recall, Tornado Two bids (2D,H,S) showed 11/12-15 hcp, a 4-card suit, no 5-card suit, and no higher ranking 4-card suit. It was what I call a "fix" bid at matchpoints: it works great and might fix the opps on the right types of hands when the bid works, and it can backfire on you when responder has the wrong hand. Part of the system, what little I can recall, was that an opening 1NT bid showed 15/16-18 hcp with just about any shape. I don't recall the response structure to the 1NT openers. I also believe that opening 3-bids showed something like 11/12-15 hcp and a 6-card suit (not sure about this). There was probably more to this, but it was over 25 years when I played this only a few times. It was an "interesting" matchpoint system when one had the right types of hands and it was fun to play (if I was able to remember all of the bids), but it had many obvious flaws. It could be worked on,though. :rolleyes: DHL

www.Bridgeguys.com Convention section has a written description of inverted majors for anyone who is interested. DHL

I can think of two rubbish conventions: 1) "Garbage Stayman", and 2) "TRASH" pardon the puns :o DHL

As much as I dislike UNT, it often gives a blueprint for playing the hand or results in big minus numbers (at least for me), I would use it in this sequence before the opps have a chance to explore for a spade fit, and it pretty much describes my hand in one bid. Let partner take it from there. Pass might also be a winning action. I don't like using a 1-suited pre-empt such as 2 or 3 hearts because it describes a different type of hand and partner will never be able to evaluate the ODR potential of the partnership and be able to make an informed decision. DHL

I certainly hope that partner would not by-pass a 4-card spade suit, even with 6 or 7 diamonds. One reason for this is, as I play it, a 2S rebid/ reverse by responder wouldn't necessarily show 4 spades once opener didn't rebid 1 spade but it would show something in the suit. Failure to rebid 1 spade, in my tattered book, denies 4+ spades. I prefer to bid out my shape until we know what the final contract should be. While I guess a case could be made for simply bashing 4 hearts especially at total points (let the opps guess what to lead), I think that it is better to rebid 2S followed by 3H to give partner a choice of contracts. It describes a decent 6-card heart suit with something outside in spades (I hope), and hopefully should put partner in a better position to select the final contract. An immediate rebid of 3H, forcing or not, could leave partner guessing without a sound spade stopper, so I don't like 3H/ 2D. And if I'm wrong about pushing to a game with this hand, I lose 50 or 100 versus reasonable chance for making a game. Those 9-10s are worth a little more IMO. DHL

Because the partnership has the agreement that the 1 spade rebid is forcing one round, because this way I give partner more time and room to show whatever support she might have for either of my two suits which will sound like a 5-6 hand while the bidding is still below the 3NT level, and because my power isn't totally concentrated in my two suits. Why do I want to rush without some indication of where this hand is going?

You hold the following: ♠ AJT43 ♥ A ♦ AK9876 ♣ 8 The bidding is as follows 3 passes to you you open 1 diamond, lho passes, partner responds 1 heart, rho passes you rebid 1 spade, lho bids 2 clubs, partner bids 2 hearts, rho passes, you bid 2 spades, lho passes, partner bids 3 spades, rho passes. What is your next bid? (Not that I feel it matters much, but the scoring format is imp pairs.) Additional Info: you are playing 2/1 GF except for suit rebid, and jump-shift responses to 1m would be a fit raise by a passed hand, not a WJS. DHL

I believe that this position or play is called a "pinning play" a smother play is something like the following/ spades trump, lho on lead: Assume spades are trump, it's lho's lead trick 12, (lho has no spades) dummy's last two cards are the JT of spades , rho's last 2 cards are the Kx of spades, and you have stiff ace and another card (loser) in another suit. you trump anything lho leads with the ten and rho is dead. DHL

what about: X X X. Though that too could give rise to misunderstandings. only if you're over 21 lololololol B) DHL

Excellent discussion topic. Just one favor. Next time please give the thread a different title. I became a little concerned at first when I first saw the title of this thread. Thanks: :-) DHL p.s.: Yes, I am aware of Mike Lawrence's book with same title.

makes sense to me and by doubling first, wouldn't that imply heart tolerance? DHL

i bid 3S I have 4 trumps, potential for heart ruffs, and a good interior sequence in clubs that might be of value. change the hand to 4333 and I might reconsider, but, well, it's not like I have nothing of value for P. The diamond K is probably wasted, not even valuing it. DHL

lol I must be getting old and/or my bidding has become obsolete. I play the double as responsive: support for the two unbid suits and tolerance for partner's suit. OY DHL

Dag! I feel so old! And my age shall show with my response to this thread. There are four books from 35+ years that, IMO, provide one with all of the basic, advanced, and (guessing) expert aspects of card play. Still my favorite book on card play is "All 52 Cards" by Marshall Miles. I still go back to this book to refresh my brain every once in a while and rate it #1. This followed closely by the two Kelsey books: "Advanced Play at Bridge" and "Killing Defense at Bridge". Right behind these three, at number 4 is Terence Reese's "Master Play" (many might place it as #1). These 4 books focus on many various important areas in card play including to COUNT and how to count, ways to think, reason, and make assumptions, how to read/ interpret the bidding, formulating plans, and reasonable inferences that one might take based on the opening lead. There are so many critical, perhaps some being basic these days, themes in these books. Yet one would be surprised at how much there is there that people who consider themselves to be experts still have to learn and how much of the material in these books that many players just haven't learned. One of my favorite sections in "Master Play" is a brief section on "upside-down inferences"). For learing about squeeze plays, I prefer Squeeze Play Made Easy by Reeseand Jourdain. I just personally found it to be much easier to read. (I just had difficulty reading Clyde Love's book and, as a result, wound up feeling BLUE.) I am sure that there are many more recent books on card play/ defense ( I haven't bought much lately), but I doubt that many would be able to significantly surpass the information is these 4 or 5 books. Mostly, they would just update some topics. And where else can one learn circa 1968 Acol bidding as an extra added pleasure than to read Kelsey's books. Sadly but possibly, some of the books might by now be out of print but IMO they are worth pursuing. BTW: Based on the sample hands that Fred provides on the BBO site, Fred's Bridge Master program appear to be very good. DHL

Jimmy: I like the idea of 3 clubs being top and bottom, too. Just one small problem. Relatively few people play it that way. In addition, this hand is so strong: are you Q-bidding 4C when partner responds 3 Spades (which is just a preference at this point). The follow-up bidding structure is critical. If 3C isn't an option, then I go back to the adage that says "when you have a 2-suited hand, start by bidding your suits". No double by Double ! this time. I would bid 1S and then see what partner does. Have nice weekend all DHL

prefer immediate raise to 2H what is wrong with first supporting with support, and then look for other fish to fry if necessary? fwiw: I am not crazy about constructive raises even in 2/1 or anything with 1M-1NT as being forcing. There is a chance of opps competing with a suit at the 2 level over 1NT and opener is now poorly placed without knowledge of trump support. I must be getting old and obsolete DHL

lol a humorous (not to me) side light. I never was able to play on msn/ the zone bridge site. The msn software kept denying me access, claiming that I was under-age. (Actually am in mid-50s) DHL

That's a BIG 10 - 4 ! A definite, emphatic affirmative. If one stops to think about it, BBO is an incredible achievement. Never take it for granted. And never forget the yellows who help the place run. Nothing compares. DHL

he means 1H-dbl-2H-dbl Mike. I am familiar with Mike Lawrence and "what he says". The fact that Mike Lawrence, or anyone says something about a topic doesn't necessarily mean that what they have said is the last word on a topic. Case in point: Mike Lawrence's approach to 2/1 versus Max Hardy. What I am asking people to do is to "think outside of the box", to consider this particular bidding sequence and then to do two things: 1) think of the number of times when this bidding sequence has occurred over the course of your personal bridge experiences and to think about which would have been more helpful/ important to you: to distinguish between 4 and 5-card spade support as soon as possible (like in one bid), or to show cards that are more minor suit oriented. 2). Think about which approach might have made life easier for the partnership and yielded better results over time. Hopefully you understand that I am only partly asking what various people play in this situation. I am also suggesting that the "traditional wisdom" of bid spades with 4+ spades and to use the responsive double as showing something else such as 4-4 in minors in this situation be re-assessed. (and, while you're at it, think about this common sequence: 1S-dbl-2S-? and about the most useful meaning of a responsive double vs. of a suit, especially 3H might be.) I thank you for your responses so far and in advance. DHL

Hi all. Echognome presented the following problem hand in a recent post: he said that he held ♠Q742, ♥T9, ♦ A96, ♣ KT93, and that the bidding had gone pass-pass-1H- double by his partner- 2H on his right - 2 spades by him, 3H by lho- pass-pass, back to him. I see this hand as being a problem within a problem. Specifically, I would like to revisit the 2 spade bid and ask the following question. How would people interpret a responsive double with the given hand both in terms of the number of spades it suggests as well as approximate hand power? When I first starting to play seriously many moons ago, we played this auction similar to a negX. By that I mean that we played 2S as showing 5 spades and a hand that was good enough to bid, and the responsive double to show only 4 spades and a hand good enough to make a competitive bid at that point. This approach had both positive and negative features. It allowed the less-well defined hand, the hand that made the initial takeout double, to be better able to judge the combined strength of the partnership as well as to know how many spades would be in the combined hands, and put partner/ doubler in a better position to know what to do should the opps compete to the 3-level. It provided some protection should partner have been somewhat off-shape with only 3 spades fo the double: P could just compete in his minor. The downside of this approach was that it made bidding a hand that was 4-4 or better in the minors more difficult to handle, but we came up with a method. Then, at some point, I read that I was doing it wrong, that the responsive double in this auction is minor-oriented, that one should just bid spades with 4 or more spades. As this "advice" was given by a well-known expert/ champion of the day, we decided that we were doing it wrong, and started to do what the famous guru wrote. This approach seems to be an almost unquestioned conventional wisdom (pardon the pun). This hand made me think about this issue again, and about whether or not this is the most functional way to play the responsive double in this situation? The problem, as I saw it, with Echognome's hand was that the doubler's (his partner's) hand was so undefined that it put Echognome in a difficult situation to assess combined assets and to select what, if any, further action he should take: to bid, to make an "action double"(at matchpoints),to pass, etc. I wonder whether or not such a decision should have been his to make in the first place, that the traditional methods had left his partner without room to clarify the quality of the initial double, leaving the (at that point) more limited and defined hand in the position of having to make a final decision, especially in light of the fact that his partner had passed 3 hearts. (Not sure I agree with that pass, BTW) How could one have been sure about the spade situation, especially if a partnership might be inclined toward lighter and/or potentially a little off-shape doubles over 1-heart?. So, out of curiosity, I wonder how others play a responsive double in the situation where the given hand bid 2-spades over 2-hearts by the opps? What type of hand might you have? Do you have any strength limitations? Does the type of scoring impact (e.g. Matchpoints) on your treatment of the responsive double? Thanks in advance DHL