mikestar

Exactly. Kaplan defined this double as a diamond trap hand in Competitve Bidding in Modern Bridge and no one has covinced me that it should be for takeout. No new suits have been bid, so if you have the right shape for double now, you had it on the last turn and if you were to weak to force partner to bid at the 1 level you are too weak to force him to bid at the 2 level on a non-fit auction.

With 8 trumps and a void, no one is going to pass 3NT without UI--so you needn't pass it with UI. If you had self-splintered with six trumps and a stiff, then I think you would have to pass.

I agree. I'm quite comfortable with 1x-1M-2M being three cards even in competition. Support doubles clarify the number of trumps for us, but also clarify the number of trumps for them, telling them whether or not to balance. My preferenece is for a takeout double which will very often have three card support but doesn't categorically promise it. Opener should have the strength/shape to control the auction if he doesn't have three. The double would be used with three card support when alternate contracts are in view, say you are short in the enemy suit and have some length in the fourth suit. The raise on three cards is used when your are fairly willing to commit to the major on a possible 4-3, for example with some length in the enemy suit and shortness in the fourth suit.

It is really a question of probability. 1♠ loses if partner is 4-5 majors, should break even if he is 4-4 majors and is almost certain to win if he doesn't fit spades. I vote for 1S, but lament not having a convention for the BWDH.

Marshall Miles would no doubt overcall 1♥ instead of doubling (given he was playing Raptor) and this will probably let you get out in 2♦ (or 2♣). But X is still a reasonable call. Partner's 1♠ might be 4 cards, he doesn't want to pass with xxxx-xx-xx-xxxxx. But it must deny 4 cards in either red suit. Partners correct bid on this hand is 1♦ and then you pass--the opponent will likely bid a contract of their own, and if they do whack it, it should cost less than 1NT. However, agreeing that partner passes xxxx-xx-xx-xxxxx and corrects your red suit bid to spades has merit and 1♠ would promise 5 in this case. These auctions are strictly up the line--the object isn't to get to a major suit fit, it's to get out alive. Your 1NT over 1♠ is fine if responder had passed. But after the redouble, a hand of this strength needs to run. If natural, this need to be about 23 HCP, to have the balance of power and to compensate for all the points being in one hand--so 1NT can't be natural. I would suggest it should mean "can't play in spades, but I have four clubs" while 2♣ would show 5 clubs. Playing the enemy minor is often an excellent option after (1m)-X-XX.

The approch I've used is "ignore the opening bid"--so after (1♣)-P-(1♠) fro example: X = takeout, red suits but includes club tolerance 1N/2♣/2♦/2♥ = natural 2♠ = Micheals, hearts and a minor 2NT = unusual, minors etc. This would not apply after (1♥)-P-(1♠) when the opponent are playing five card majors.

After a short suit game try, 3S wouldn't be choice of games (not sure what it should be). After a help suit game try, this is choice of games--if opener has only three, he will prefer hearts, but he might have four spades for a help suit try. This sort of hand is one of the reasons why the Granovetters and some others advocate long suit tries--they faciliate finding double fits which will get you to games and slams that the field will miss.

Let me clarify my point: a 4 point range loses against a 3 point range when you open 1NT, for that matter a 3 point range loses against a 2 point range. But the biggests gains from any NT range are when you open 1 of a suit--here a 4 point weakish range shines, say just for example 11-14--you open 1♠ and the opponents interfere--partner knows you have either extra shape or 15 points.

I rather like 4 point ranges--you get to open 1N more often and I find the loss of accuracy vs 3 point ranges rather modest. Weakish but not ultra weak ranges are best as a 24 point game on 12-12 is ofter quite good and on 13-11 isn't too bad. So depending on what fits the rest of your system, I would say 12-15 is ideal and 11-14 or 13-16 are quite playable. A special advantage in big club methods is that a range of 12-15 (with possible 5 card major) with a 16 point 1♣ allows your limited openings to deny a balanced hand.

1♥ 2♥ Normal opening and raise 2♠ 3♠ Game try; choice of games 3NT 4♣ Double RKCB; one key (can't want to play 3NT with a double major fit) 4♦ 4♥ Spiral scan; no Q♥ 4♠ 5♦ Q♠, extra length in hearts, no K♣ 5NT 6♣ Spiral scan, no K♦. (5M would have been to play.) 6♠ We will need a ♦ pitch--had partner shown K♦ I bid 6♥ The extra heart is critical, slam is under 50% with only nine hearts (52% we drop Q♥, but 5-0 ♠ sinks us).

I know that the problem was not posed that way, but paradox responses to 2♣ are so blatantly superior to other response schemes that it would be tragic not to mention them. Without a fundamental change in system, use of this method turns a common difficult decision into a no brainer--we open 2♣ with the possibility of getting out in 2♠ opposite a worthless hand: something even ACOl 2's can't do. This is not the same as pointing out that this is an easy Precision 1♣ or Romex 1NT or FP pass.

All true. OTOH, raising on 3 small cards can result in a horrible lead by pard, if oppos buy the hand. So can the lead when partner has four small.

I raise freely on three, but trump quality is of little importance--I use it as a tiebreaker if I'm otherwise on a guess. For me the decision for 3 card raise vs. 1NT on a balanced hand is based on the overall orientation of the hand toward suit or NT play--controlss argue for the raise, quacks argue for NT. A weak doubleton suggest the suit, Kx or Qx suggests NT, Ax is neutral.

No, partner won't always double with a stiff--maybe he is too weak and won't want to compete. But then he might not leave in a penalty double either. No one these days palys low level doubles to show a trump stack: a good player making a penalty double here will have good defense and good but not overwhelming diamond length and strength--you just can't wait for the hand that can beat 2♦ no matter what partner has. Most experts these days play something similar to Robson-Segal's rules: all doubles are for takeout until we have found a fit. There are certain excetions to be noted. Doubles are for penalty if: 1. we bid and raise a suit even if the fit may be seven cards. 2. we preempt. 3. either of us have redoubled. 4. either of us has made a penalty pass of a takeout double. 5. it is self evident that we are in a mistfit auction. 6. were are in a forcing pass auction Only exceptions 5 & 6 need judgement, the rest merely require memorization--they could be taught to beginners and should be. The reason for this evolution is that hands that need to compete but have no clear direction are much more common than penalty double type hands. True, they will sometimes escape a penalty, but they will sometimes get nailed by a penalty pass of a takeout double when they would have escaped if we we playing penalty doubles. On the whole the number of penalties we get are similar to playing most doubles as penalty--the big gain is in the greater ease and saftey competing on the majority of hands where we weren't going to penalize them either way.

Just to clarify, I was attempting to demonstrate how West might have reasoned. I would have led T♣ (or 9♣ if playing Journalist Leads). In power NT auctions I prefer safety unless I have a high odds agressive lead--and I don't think J♠ has good enough odds. I would have considered it, however, and West may have reasoned similarly but evaluted the odds differently than I did.

X is much better than 3NT, which should be a running suit with a shot at 9 tricks. This is would be a harder problem if the opening were 3♦. Amalya Kearse gives a useful convention for responding to a 3NT overcall in Bridge Conventions Complete: Advancer's 4♣ asks for hand type. Overcaller bids 4NT with a normal balanced hand, bids his suit with the running suit, or cuebids the enemy suit with a balanced battleship.

I must disagree. I would bid the hand the same way, because it is too strong for 2♠. But make the diamonds KQxxx and the hand is a perfect 2♠.

Quite correct. holding honors can also tilt the odds just a bit in hihg level decisions such as whether to bid on over a sacrifice: they increase the reward of being right and reduce the cost of being wrong--especially if the sacrificing side might also have honors.

My bad I was writing too fast--I have corrected the post.

I've actually played a fair amount of rubber back in the days. I must be getting old--these days most social games seem to be Chicago (4 deal). Not many duplicate players grasp how rubber bridge scoring affect tactics. The typical duplicate player plays rubber like he's playing IMPs and will do OK but get at lot of his close decisions wrong. By the way, a very fair number of rubber bridge players when the game was in its heyday were quite ignorant of proper tactics. Let's look at some numbers. What is the value of game? Winning the first game of the rubber is worth 350 (not the 300 given for a game in an unfinished rubber, which was the origin of 300 for game NV in duplicate). The reasoning: You have a 50% chance of winning the second game for a 700 rubber, for an expectation of +350. If you lose the second game, you have a 50-50 chance of winning or losing a 500 rubber, for an expectation of 0. Value of the first game: 350. The second game of the rubber is also worth 350. If the side that won the first game wins the second game, they change their 350 expectation into a 700 score=+350. If the side which lost the first game wins the second game, they wipe out the other sides 350 advantage=+350. The third game is worth the 500 rubber score. So for prempting/sacrificing, we can see some differences vs. IMPs. It would seem that we can preempt just a tiny bid more aggresively at neither vul, as their 4M is worth 470 instead of 420, but the difference is slight and is outweiged by the absense of the IMP scale reducing the magnitude of our big losses--so IMP tactics should work here. There is a big difference at favorable: their 4M is worth 470 instead of 620--we should bid as if neither vul. Again we can can follow IMP standards at both vul and unfavorable: at both vul, theier 4M is 620 same as at duplicate, at unfavorable their 4M is 470 rather than 420, but the disasters hurt more. The value of a very small partscore (<40) is less, but these are rare in a good game. Now where the difference in the games really show up is in partscores. A partscore is worth somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the value of the game. Partscores get converted about half the time, but the partscore was only an advantage if you convert it when yoiu couldn't have made game anyway. So let's say a partscore is worth 150 with both vul and 100 otherwise. Constructive game bidding needs to be more conservative than IMPs, more like MP. Competitive partscore bidding with nothing on the score will be very similar to IMPs, maybe even more aggressive as the parscore is so much more valubale than in duplicate: letting them make 3♥ when we can make 3♠ is a 380 point swing. Where everbody goes wrong is when some one side or the other has a partscore. If both sides have partscores, competive bidding should be very agressive notwithstanding the risks. Now letting them make 3♥ when we can make 3♠ is a double game swing. If our opponents have a partscore, we should go quietly. Thier game is of less value as they already have an expectation of 100 or 150. So giving up 300 to stop 2M = 310 or 360 is a small gain and the time the sac is too expensive are more costly. If we have a partscore, we should be ready with the axe for the same reason: our game is less valuable but the penalties are the same size. If our opponents have a partscore, we should bid game freely. Say both vul they have 60 on and we bid and make 4M. Our gain is 120 for the trick score + 500 for the game + 150 for wiping out their expecation = 770, while the loss is 90 for tricks if we had stopped in 3 + 150 for partscore + 100 for the undertrick =340. 31% is enough if we don't allow for doubles or down more than one. Rather less than the % needed vul at IMPs. For slam bidding, if both sides have a partscore there is no effect. If only our side has a score, we can live it up. Our slam is just as valuable but the game we blow if we go down is worth 100/150 less, because we still keep our partscore. If only they have a partscore, we have to tighen up: the game we blow if we go down is worth 100/150 more for wiping out the enemy partscore advantage.

Call me Lestat. This is a clear cut pass except perhaps at MP. It's a no brainer at rubber. They aren't making, so the only way this loses if if we have game, bid game, and can't set it enough to compensate. Even then, we are looking at +300 and we're still 3-1 to win the rubber. On the other hand how would we feel if we bid game and go off? -100 stinks when we had a sure plus.

I've played it both ways and canape is the way to go using natural responses (transfer responses are quite playable as well.) 1M round forcing helps with the troublesome big hands--the kind where 2/1 bidders open 2♣ with a side 4 card major and never find the 4-4 fit.

I open A only, but would rather pass A than open B. I miss the days when my favorite partner and I were playing a big club system with 13-16 NT and promptly passed all balanced 12's (excepting 5-3-3-2's with a fair suit, these opened 1NT). We had a fair number of auctions like: P-(P)-1♠-P-2♠-(3♥)-X As always, the disadvantage of conservatism is that you may miss somthing your way--the advantage is that you don't get too high as often and you get to keep the axe a lot sharper.

Agree 100%. 1♠-2♦-3♣-3NT-4♣ implies 6-5 or better precisely because you would pass 3NT on 5-5.

With a pickup partner I bid 2♠, I'm on a guess anyway with no agreements and 2♠ keeps it low. In an established partnership, X is wrong even playing ELC. Partner will never play you for 5 good spades. I don't think Leaping Michaels should apply here. So to my mind, the choice is between 2♠ and 3♥. If we prebalance on light hands in this sequence, my hand is too good for 2♠. If our actions are sound in this sequence, I bid 2♠ and partner will bid 2NT scambling, assuring we at least get to the right suit. Depending on our agreed strength ranges, either I would bid 4♦ over 2NT or partner would raise my 3♦ to 4♦. In either case, the other hand carries on to five. 6♦ makes double dummy but no one would want to be there.