BillPatch

You are correct. Upon review of both editions I see that the material in question from the 2nd edition was not in the 1st edition. Mea culpa. I also think this set of treatments is vintage Lawrence. Vintage 2015--note yet current standard practice. I also like it. I highly recommend the 2012 edition.

As noted in my previous post, the ML advice which you referred to above is from Lawrence, Mike. The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles. The advice was not in the 1995 1st edition, but I cited the chapter and page numbers from the 2012 2nd edition. You slightly misquoted the title. The reason you had difficulty in finding Lawrences's complete reference covering the complete auction is that in an earlier chapter Mike introduces the original takeout double, then several chapters on responding to the takeout double, and finally finishes his exposition on this auction in the chapter under doubler's rebids in "Chapter 12: Continuing with over 18 Support Points but Only Three Card Support for Partner." Edited 0813 edt 8 Aug 2015 after reskimming 1995 edition and not finding the advice cited in 2012 edition,

Chapter 12(pp. 209-212) of Lawrence. . . Takeout Doubles continues the auction after one of a suit,( dbl), p, (simple suit rebid).p, (cue of opener's suit). 70% of the time opener will have the hand with three card support and 18+ support point s. If doubler has this hand he does not promise a rebid over a minimum change of suit, NT, or rebid of advancer's suit. With the OP hand--a maximum with a 4 card suit without a good club stopper--he should recue 3♣. With a maximum 4 card suit and a good club stopper, rebid 3 NT, with a maximum and longer original suit jump in hearts.

RKC is less likely to be useful playing an offshoot of 5 card majors and strong NT, since common minimum hands include only any 3 clubs and close to 12 -13 hcp and bad splits advertised. So, in Standard American 4NT is natural in this sequence, which I believe is the world standard, as also voted into Bridge World Standard. corrected 7/31 0821am Thanks Vampyr

I see. Saves space for slam exploration, when the opponents condone the insufficient bid.

1. pass, not enough beef. 2. 4 ♥

With SAYC advocating the 15-17 HCP, and the modern tendency of the expert player not to downgrade any 15 hand(see 2012 Wolff interview in Bridge World), the 1NT rebid is usually 12-14 HCP, and in that 3 point range a fairly normal 13 would be a maximum. So perhaps the 4NT bid should show 19-20 HCP.

I have just completed an extensive revision of my first post replying to this topic, correcting the material from Kit Woolsey's book, and adding additional material from the R Pavlicek website.

Also, Marty Bergen in one of the first two Marty Sez books, has a section on when to respond one NT rather than show a weak 4 card suit in response to one of a minor is closely related to this issue.

The original post queried whether it was good play to avoid searching for a 4-4 major, not only with the pancake hand, but also with balanced hands with a doubleton. Kit Woolsey, in the first edition of Matchpoints, has the rationale for when to do this with the doubleton hand playing MPs: 4 point scale-1 point each for 1. excess strength(28-30 HCP vs 25-27 2. quacks in 4 card suit overall values as opposed to acey 3. weak potential trump holdings (Hxxx or xxxx 4. quacks in the doubleton suit. Note that one half of these constraints do not apply to the pancake hands, which Woolsey did not address in the 1st edition. (By the way the 2nd Edition has just come out, I intend to review it on Amazon after I receive a copy.) Playing IMPs or other scoring systems it is more advantageous to choose to avoid the 4-4 more frequently, since at MPs you lose a full point if you make game exactly in both contracts(the safety play would only costs 1 IMP)but I have not seen any specific advice for the general game other than Kleinman's admonition to chose NT when you have 3 queens. Many authorities have written on the subject of avoiding the major search with the pancake hand over NT openings, most recommend avoiding it each time, Ron Klinger recommends always avoiding it unless the partnership has methods to find a doubleton in opener's hand. There are several arguments against using such partnership methods 1. Richard Pavlicek's web site cited above indicates that even if you were to find the doubleton, at game level 3N is still safer at game level. 2. Avoiding extra info given out additional info about opener's hand, particularly in the commom case where he declares 3NT. 3. Additional memory load on partnership. Edited extensively 1300 EST 7/27/2015

Since we have 6 ♣cards the remaining three seats have a mean of 2 1/3 clubs, a median and mode of 2. If partner has 2 clubs we can hold our club losers to one only if he specifically has the AK and the suit splits 3-2, the AQ, the club finesse works and they split 3-2, or KQ and the J falls doubleton. Roughly one third of the time the two clubs are this good slam has no play because the opponents can cash the ♠A, anther 40% of the 6-2 club slam splits that have ply fail due to off-side finesse(s). For the 60% of the time that the 2NT has 2 clubs, the slam will fail at least 5 of 6 time. Counting only the eight card fits approx. 50% of club slams fail, and there are enough high cards outstanding that substantially less than 100% of the 9+ fits fail in slam. Since a club slam is less than 50% and a 3NT game is certain. 6♣ is normally a bad bet.

I agree with 1NT, but it's close. Now I raise to 3♣. If he tries 3NT, I hope a rebid of 4♣ is non-forcing.

First of all I count my hand. 10 hcp + partner's 20-21 = 30-31. Second I note whether we are in matchpoints or IMPs. At matchpoints rejected slam try at 5♣ often will yield a 0 even if it makes exactly 11 tricks, so I'll start with Stayman. If I find the hearts, I'll probably play in 6♥. (Asking for A's or keys if system permits.) Otherwise, I will sign off at 3NT. Maybe at IMPS I would try the same. Since I have more than my share of A's for my points I doubt partner will cooperate with must suitabile hands if I invite(presumably with a raise to game after transferring to ♣).

I would rebid 2 NT. If I rebid 2♣ and then 2 NT over partner's 2R, according to Lawrence, I will have shown a queen less.

Pass. Looks like an unusual NT overcall.

At this vulnerability the best excuse for a weak 3rd hand is a lead director, so even if heir side ends in an unlawful 7 card fit they will rate to have the high trump, so the defensive bidders are unlikely to be sure enough about the trump, or overall strength, situation to make 2 of a major doubled in the suit drury raised a good bet for their side when the opportunity occurs. Usually, wen you open a weak hand vulnerable 3rd seat, and partner has a 9-11 hand, the opening side overbids are only caught on bad misfits, or above the 2 level. So I prefer a FP up to 2 of opener's major after drury. Even so, I will only show the 3♦ HSGT rebid on the auction.

K of clubs next. I that holds I lead another club for a ruff, suit pref for a diamond back.

And the safest way of competing for the partscore is 2♦ assuming a natural system such as Landy or Mosher(all bids natural). Why did the poll not contain choice of 2♦?

If they are sound bidders and we overcall we will probably be -500 to -1100 versus -420 to -480. If they are overbidding and we overcall, we might be -200 to -500 versus +50. If partner has the big hand and hears an overcall, we will be lucky to be down 2 doubled in slam versus down 2 our way defending 4 ♥. An overcall is losing bridge. A TO double at this level promises a good 15 hcp. Pass is the only bridge action possible.

Proving the superiority of Nige1's solution required extensive computation, which I doubt I could estimate well at the table. With 3rd-5th leads the lowest card lead indicates 3rd, 5th or 7th best. East play of the Q indicates that W has the J. I enumerated 6 possible 3 card suits with j and 2. 20 possible 5 card suits, and 8 possible 7 card suits. This time we must calculate all the "places open". 3 card W = 2 places open of 7; 5 cards W = 4 of 7; 7 cards W = 6/7 [(31% * 2/7 * 6/84) + (4/7 * 58% * 20/126) + (6/7 * 8/36 * 9)] works - [(31% * 5/7 * 6/84) + (3/7 * 58% * 20/126) + (1/7 * 8/36 * 9%)] fails Since this is positive Nige1's method is superior.

Sorry, poor choice of words. "Free cards" describes squeezes. Substitute "places open." If W has 4 spades, W will have 13 minus 4 spades + 2 hearts+ 2 diamonds + one club = 4 places open. E has 13 - 5♠ + 2 ♥ + 2 ♦ + 1 ♣ = 3 places open. West will have the Club Q 4/7 in relation to the seven open spaces or 57% of time, Because of the symmetry of the problem, East will have the ♦queen 3/7 or 43% at the same point if we take Nige1's line. Another possible true card lead from systemic fourth card leaders is third best from three. Since this will give one more additional "space open" for W, or 2 more "spaces open". this will increase the odds of the alternate line. Note that it was not necessary to actually go through and calculate the number of actual "spaces open" to solve problem given 4th best leads. One excess place open was sufficient. The rest is commentary, for the edification of the reader.

Without any clues from the bidding or carding, it is even money between nige1's line and playing for the drop in ♦ first else finessing clubs twice against W. But we have the opening lead of the 2. If this is not a false card, and the opponents lead fourth best, the alternative line is better, since W has at least one more free cards than E. (West has 4 spades, E has 5). If opponents lead 3rd,5th, Nige1's line is best.

I think that vulnerable I would hazard a false preference at IMPS.

Correct.

If I pass and partner bids 5♦ on a 6 card suit I expect him to make it, possibly with an overtrick.