eight clubs doubled

[jim420]

Two times four clubs doubled equals eight clubs doubled...

 

An MBC session. I was South.

This was board 36

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sathadq942ckjt643&w=skq84ht97da876ca8&e=s92hkj5432djt53c5&s=sj7653hq86dkcq972]399|300|Scoring: IMP

W N E S

1♦ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣

P P 3♦ P

3♥ 4♣ P P

X P P P

 

lead ♦J

 

4♣xN=

12.0 IMP to NS[/hv]

 

Here comes board 38, with the same players

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sathadq942ckjt643&w=skq84ht97da876ca8&e=s92hkj5432djt53c5&s=sj7653hq86dkcq972]399|300|Scoring: IMP

W N E S

1♦ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣

P P 3♦ P

3♥ 4♣ P P

X P P P

 

lead ♦J

 

4♣xN=

12.0 IMP to NS[/hv]

 

Comments on the bidding of the 2 deals please...

[Apollo81]

36. In the auction that you had, the biggest mistake by far was East sitting for 4♣x. This is a 100% clear pull to 4♥.

 

Given that East is bidding 2♥ over 2♣, the rest of the auction should go something like:

 

1♦-(2♣)-2♥-(3♣)

3♥-(4♣)-4♥-(Dbl)

all pass

 

All of the actions after 3♥ are a little unclear, but opener should definitely bid 3♥ over 3♣. I don't want to comment on the 2♥ bid; I think it's reasonable but many wouldn't do it.

 

 

38. In the auction that you had, the biggest mistake by far was North sitting for 4♣x. This is a 100% clear pull to 4 of a major (probably 4♥).

 

The first decision was North's pass over 3♣. IMO 3♥ is also reasonable. If North bids 3♥ then South is going to bid 4 and go down. Given the pass South should double 3♣ so partner can pull to 3♥ if he likes hearts better than spades.

[skjaeran]

36. I've little sympathy for west's double. The double fit has been revealed. There's no reason to expect more than one down in 4♣, so no reason at all to double at IMP's. When that is said, east's got an obvious pull to 4♥.

 

38. This double is worse. You've made three bids opposite silent partner, and committed yourself to 3♠. Why you should double now, with 2.5 tricks on defense is really beyond me. Again partner had a clearcut pull to 4♥.

 

Not intending to be rash, if someone get that feeling. I know this is in the B/I forum.

[inquiry]

Someone should pay a good teacher and get some bidding lessons.

 

Ok, lets handle these by the numbers...

 

36. East 2♥ bid is horrendous, unless he is playing negative free bids. There are a number of options if not playing negative free bid. Over 2♣ he can bid 3♥ if that is weak jump shift, or he can use negative double and rebid hearts if 3♥ was something else. 2♥ was a huge overbid.

 

Having overbid with 2♥ it seems clear that passing now the double of 4♣ is not an option, I mean, partner expects so much more from our hand, how can he bid normally? But I have to admit, I would never be in this boat as I wuold never bid a forcing 2♥. If 2♥ was a negative free bid, I would have passed 3♣.

 

Another oddity is west decision not to raise 2♥ immediately to 3♥. I mean he has support, a ruffing value, and minimumish hcp. If he raises 2♥ immediately to 3♥ I don't think anyone would ever be doubling 4♣ and you maynot hear a 4♣ bid.

 

Board 38. Over 2♦, south as a DOUBLE (long spades, 4 ♥). Just the picture he wants to paint. But bidding 2♥ is not horrible. I think North has to bid at least 3♥ over 3♣ if south doubled 2♦ or bid 2♥. I would go with 3♥. After north "raises" hearts, if south doubles 4♣ that is it for north, he has shown his hand. Having whimped out and never bid ♥, over 3♠ he has to correct to 4♥ I think, and even if he passed (as here), over 4♣X he has no choice but to bid 4♥ then.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1: Misunderstanding, one (West) thought 2H was forcing

the other (East) thought 2H was non forcing, thats it,

discuss it and agree to one or the other

#2: South bid his hand more than once, 3S was already

insane, and the bid gets matched by the X, South

got what he deserved, and North should ask South,

if he did learn the lesson, if not, he should change

partner

For whats it worth: North should bid 3H, he knows

about the heart / spade fit, but if he knows that South

overbids, pass is his only sensible choice

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bid_em_up]

36. East 2♥ bid is horrendous, unless he is playing negative free bids. There are a number of options if not playing negative free bid. Over 2♣ he can bid 3♥ if that is weak jump shift, or he can use negative double and rebid hearts if 3♥ was something else. 2♥ was a huge overbid.

He can also always pass if none of the above options are available. I don't think neg X followed by 3H shows this kind of hand. If a wjs option of 3H isn't available, this hand should pass, imo.

[bid_em_up]

Board 38. Over 2♦, south as a DOUBLE (long spades, 4 ♥). Just the picture he wants to paint. But bidding 2♥ is not horrible. I think North has to bid at least 3♥ over 3♣ if south doubled 2♦ or bid 2♥. I would go with 3♥. After north "raises" hearts, if south doubles 4♣ that is it for north, he has shown his hand. Having whimped out and never bid ♥, over 3♠ he  has to correct to 4♥ I think, and even if he passed (as here), over 4♣X he has no choice but to bid 4♥ then.

Really, Ben....

 

Over 1♣, South has a clear double. Forget what he does over 2D.

 

Stiff Club, 543 in other 3 suits, 17 hcp, what the heck is 1S? This isn't MP, an immediate double gives your side your best shot at finding your best fit.

 

And even if it was MP, this hand is still strong enough to double then bid spades.

[cherdano]

I wouldn't even bid a non-forcing 2♥ on the first one. West's non-raise of 2♥ is odd to say the least.

 

The second one looks right out of Simon's book. The strong hand (South) is overbidding his hand by about an ace and some shape (what the heck is 3♠?), and the weak hand doesn't realize that he is worth a bid

- probably after 2♥

- certainly after 3♠, and

- that he definitely has to bid a major suit game over the double.

[inquiry]

Board 38. Over 2♦, south as a DOUBLE (long spades, 4 ♥). Just the picture he wants to paint. But bidding 2♥ is not horrible. I think North has to bid at least 3♥ over 3♣ if south doubled 2♦ or bid 2♥. I would go with 3♥. After north "raises" hearts, if south doubles 4♣ that is it for north, he has shown his hand. Having whimped out and never bid ♥, over 3♠ he  has to correct to 4♥ I think, and even if he passed (as here), over 4♣X he has no choice but to bid 4♥ then.

Really, Ben....

 

Over 1♣, South has a clear double. Forget what he does over 2D.

 

Stiff Club, 543 in other 3 suits, 17 hcp, what the heck is 1S? This isn't MP, an immediate double gives your side your best shot at finding your best fit.

 

And even if it was MP, this hand is still strong enough to double then bid spades.

I would NEVER double with south;s hand over 1♣. I bid my five card card suit then double the next time. Double does not give us the best chance to find our best fit. Give partner 4!D and 3-3 in the majors, what does he bid? IF he bids a Diamond, we might play 4-3 intesad of 5-3. If he guess to bid a major, he might guess hearts, and we are back to 4-3 fit.

 

This hand is clearly strong enough to bid first and then double second. This is not just some wild idea of mine. This is also the approach suggested by others, for instance Robson/Segal in their Partnership bidding book.

[bid_em_up]

I would NEVER double with south;s hand over 1♣. I bid my five card card suit then double the next time.  Double does not give us the best chance to find our best fit. Give partner 4♦ and 3-3 in the majors, what does he bid? IF he bids a Diamond, we might play 4-3 intesad of 5-3. If he guess to bid a major, he might guess hearts, and we are back to 4-3 fit.

 

I suppose there is something that prevents us from bidding spades over 1♦ or 1♥? Can you tell me what it is? Or even 2♠ over RHO's expected 2♣? 1♠ over 1♥? Or even 2♠ after 1♥ then 2♣?

 

Really, try and come up with a better argument than this.....

 

This hand is clearly strong enough to bid first and then double second. This is not just some wild idea of mine. This is also the approach suggested by others, for instance Robson/Segal in their Partnership bidding book.

 

Strong hand bids first, then doubles later? On a 5-4-3-1? News to me. Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1. I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding.

[skjaeran]

I would NEVER double with south;s hand over 1♣. I bid my five card card suit then double the next time.  Double does not give us the best chance to find our best fit. Give partner 4♦ and 3-3 in the majors, what does he bid? IF he bids a Diamond, we might play 4-3 intesad of 5-3. If he guess to bid a major, he might guess hearts, and we are back to 4-3 fit.

 

I suppose there is something that prevents us from bidding spades over 1♦ or 1♥? Can you tell me what it is? Or even 2♠ over RHO's expected 2♣? 1♠ over 1♥? Or even 2♠ after 1♥ then 2♣?

 

Really, try and come up with a better argument than this.....

 

This hand is clearly strong enough to bid first and then double second. This is not just some wild idea of mine. This is also the approach suggested by others, for instance Robson/Segal in their Partnership bidding book.

 

Strong hand bids first, then doubles later? On a 5-4-3-1? News to me. Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1. I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding.

Mainstream bidding?

That just depends on where on the globe you're playing.

I'd not expect many norwegian players to make a t/o double on these 5431 hands after they've advanced from the beginner stage. I'll admit that some would double with a good 17 count (I'd not), but never with less.

[inquiry]

Strong hand bids first, then doubles later? On a 5-4-3-1? News to me. Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1. I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding.

Well, it is main stream bidding for me. I realize there are those who will choose double over bid their longest suit with some arbitrary number of points. Maybe 16, maybe 17 like your insistance in this case.

 

Just for those who have not read Roboson/Segal, they recommend:

 

The reason is that we believe it is best in this sequence if you play a takeout double not only as ‘shape-suitable’ (that is, with support for all the unbid suits), but also as ‘shapespecific’. In particular, we suggest that, in general, your double should deny a five-card major or a six-card minor.

 

I will make doubles on "strong hands" too, it is just that this 17 hcp hand is no where close to strong enough for me to double and then introduce spades, which woudl be a "GOSH" auction (Good one suited hand). Who knows what is mainstream. I think mainstream is closer to what I advocate than what you advocate. To test mainstream, I defined the following BBO test, I had the first seat open 1C, and gave the next hand 17-18 hcp, 5S headed by Q or better, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, and one club. On the first BBO tourament datbase I tested, 21 of 37 people choose to double, the other group took 1♠ overcalls. Not a rousing success for either. The average lehman of those who doubled was 48.93, of those who overcalled one spade was 52.25.

 

This sample is too small to draw a comparison, but it should be possible to use such an approach to see how "mainstream" one approach is over the other. But certainly, it suggest that bidding your longest suit is not such an odd idea as your "not mainstream bidding" suggest. In fact, I dare say, my esperience kibitizing great players is that better players will bid and then double with this hand than double initially. With bridgebrowser I can limit the search to people with lehmans above some arbitrary number. I might give that a try to see.

[BillHiggin]

The appropriatness of the "overcall then double" to emphasize your real suit while showing tolerance or better for the others was published by Robert Ewen in "Doubles For Takeout, Penalties and Profit in Contract Bridge" first published in 1973 (and easier reading than Robson-Segal). Hardly counts as hyper-modern stuff.

 

The actual sequence chosen by South on #38 was not well thought out (I am trying to be kind - but it is hard when shown such an auction).

[goobers]

So for board 38, assuming you bid suit, then double, how many people are bidding 1♠ then double, as opposed to 1♠ then 2♥?

 

Edit: Oops, assuming ♦ have not been bid by E

[mikeh]

I appreciate that these hands were (appropriately) posted in the B/I forum, and I commend the poster..... it is all too easy to get intimidated by the attitude of the expert posters... and I am definitely including me in terms of the comments I sometimes make :P

 

I agree with those who say, that on the first hand, E needs some basic bidding lessons. Yes, we all want to bid with the east hand over 2♣, but the fact is that we simply cannot bid 2♥, showing strength we do not have (unless we play negative free bids, and no B/I player should try these.. and I say that not because I believe NFB to be inferior at imps, as I do, but because it is more useful to learn 'normal' bidding well before branching out).

 

I also do not believe that double is appropriate, altho I have more sympathy for double (negative) than I do for 2♥... if we double, we expect to pull any number of ♠s to ♦s... but the risk of hearing 4♠ by partner (on hands on which 5♦ fails) or, worse, hearing partner make a double of the opps based on a different hand expectation is too much.

 

I think that many B/I players fail to understand the degree to which bidding is a partnership dialogue. They tend to see the problem in terms of their own hands, and come up with bids that, to their minds, temporarily solve the problem, without appreciating the message theit bid sends to partner.

 

Once 2♥ was bid, the entire auction becomes uncontrollable, because West will forever more play East for a different, and stronger, hand. I'm not applauding the rest of the auction, but I am saying that 2♥ was abysmal.

 

On the second hand, I like S's first two calls: I hate E's reverse opposite a partner who passed 1♠.. why not rebid 2♣?

 

N was asleep: when partner bid 2♥, he showed a goodish hand (not necessarily as good as was held) with 4♥, and North is looking at 5, count them, 5 ♥s. He could and should bid 3♥.

 

3♠ was insane... I am sorry, but it was. Partner had 2 chances to show some sign of life and did not. S should pass, not bid.

 

Now, if it turns out that N has underbid, as he did, then S should, later, suggest this to North, and maybe ask N to seek guidance from an expert or two. What S should not, under any circumstances, do is to bid N's hand for him: to bid on the assumption that N should have bid and failed to do so.

 

Firstly, sometimes N is bidding correctly.. he has no values and no fit and the 3♠ adventure goes for a number. Secondly, even if S guesses correctly, that N missed a bid, this 'solution' merely reinforces N's passivity: why bid when partner will bid for you?

 

As for the double: precisely which 4 tricks did S expect to cash? Yes, before the auction started, he held a good hand, with defence. But, as the auction went (remember, E showed a powerful shapely hand short in the majors, and N showed a zero count), S had to be in a steroid-induced rage to want to punish the opps...ok, I got carried away with that bit.. but you see my point? Doubling partscores into game at imps is NOT done because you hold a good hand. It is done because you know that, on the auction, you are beating the contract.

[bid_em_up]

Strong hand bids first, then doubles later?  On a 5-4-3-1?  News to me.  Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1.  I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding.

Well, it is main stream bidding for me. I realize there are those who will choose double over bid their longest suit with some arbitrary number of points. Maybe 16, maybe 17 like your insistance in this case.

 

Just for those who have not read Roboson/Segal, they recommend:

 

The reason is that we believe it is best in this sequence if you play a takeout double not only as ‘shape-suitable’ (that is, with support for all the unbid suits), but also as ‘shapespecific’. In particular, we suggest that, in general, your double should deny a five-card major or a six-card minor.

 

I will make doubles on "strong hands" too, it is just that this 17 hcp hand is no where close to strong enough for me to double and then introduce spades, which woudl be a "GOSH" auction (Good one suited hand). Who knows what is mainstream. I think mainstream is closer to what I advocate than what you advocate. To test mainstream, I defined the following BBO test, I had the first seat open 1C, and gave the next hand 17-18 hcp, 5S headed by Q or better, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, and one club. On the first BBO tourament datbase I tested, 21 of 37 people choose to double, the other group took 1♠ overcalls. Not a rousing success for either. The average lehman of those who doubled was 48.93, of those who overcalled one spade was 52.25.

 

This sample is too small to draw a comparison, but it should be possible to use such an approach to see how "mainstream" one approach is over the other. But certainly, it suggest that bidding your longest suit is not such an odd idea as your "not mainstream bidding" suggest. In fact, I dare say, my esperience kibitizing great players is that better players will bid and then double with this hand than double initially. With bridgebrowser I can limit the search to people with lehmans above some arbitrary number. I might give that a try to see.

Bridge Base Forums -> Bridge-Related Discussion -> Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion ->

 

..^

^^^

..||

..||

 

 

In all seriousness Ben, did you miss this part of the discussion?

 

Why else are you talking about what Robson/Segal would do? Or what great players would do? Or what players with a Lehman's over some # would do?

 

This is a beginner/intermediate forum. As such, I reiterate my statement that it is MAINSTREAM for the correct call to be double. Big hands with support for all three other suit should double then bid. End of story.

 

Maybe I should have stated that "it is mainstream that beginners/intermediates should X with this hand type", but given that we are ALREADY in the beginner/intermediate forum, I considered it to be unnecessary.

 

On the other hand, you are advocating an esoteric theory (and one that, in my opinion, sucks, but hey, its just my opinion), that requires both players to be on the same wavelength and to be "students" of R/S methods.

 

Come on. Get. Real.

[inquiry]

Come on. Get. Real.

I don't consider these methods specific to R/S, nor do I consider them something not suitable for players of any ability.

 

I have complete a Bridgebrowser study. For this study, I had the opening bid be 1C in first seat, the next hand had 5S-4H-3D-1C and 17 or 18 hcp. I searched the largest OKBRIDGE DATABASE (23 million hands) and thtree large BBO databases (totally 15 million hands).

 

On OKBridge, the doublers outnumbered the 1S bidders by just less than to 2 to 1 with the right requirements (I limited 1C to 15 hcp or less). So for the people that play on OKBRIDGE, a significant majority agree with "double" on these hands.

 

On BBO, the doublers also in the majority, but it was far from a vast majority, It was more like 6 to 4 ratio, in the largest BBO database, it was 68 doublers to 54 1S bidders.

 

I will speculate that OK bridge is more heavily weighed towards US players where this double with "good hands" and overcalls are limited to 15 or 16 hcp prevails. This is bad bridge in my opinion, and that was my opinion before I ever touched R/S. I will preach shape before points (with exceptions if you are truly too strong) to novice, beginners, intermediates and anyone else who cares to listen. I surely don't think this is such a difficult concept that it is over a beginner head... how hard can it be to say "bid your longest suit first" for goodness sake. You get real.

[cherdano]

Bridge Base Forums -> Bridge-Related Discussion -> Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion ->

 

..^

^^^

..||

..||

 

 

In all seriousness Ben, did you miss this part of the discussion?

 

Why else are you talking about what Robson/Segal would do? Or what great players would do? Or what players with a Lehman's over some # would do?

 

This is a beginner/intermediate forum. As such, I reiterate my statement that it is MAINSTREAM for the correct call to be double. Big hands with support for all three other suit should double then bid. End of story.

 

Maybe I should have stated that "it is mainstream that beginners/intermediates should X with this hand type", but given that we are ALREADY in the beginner/intermediate forum, I considered it to be unnecessary.

 

On the other hand, you are advocating an esoteric theory (and one that, in my opinion, sucks, but hey, its just my opinion), that requires both players to be on the same wavelength and to be "students" of R/S methods.

 

Come on. Get. Real.

Just because you are not used to this style, who says it is too difficult to play for beginners?? What is so difficult about (1C)-1S-(3C)-P-(P)-X to show a very good 1♠ overcall with support for the unbid suits? The double is just a takeout double, showing extra points compared to the previous bidding, like any takeout double.

 

Why is it too difficult for beginner/intermediates to play that double-then-bid-a-suit needs a really good hand and a good suit, since you may be forced to bid your suit at the 3-level? Why do you want to teach them a style that is completely detached from anything they can see on vuegraph, or recommended on bidding panels by good players, in a situation where there is actually a reasonably well-defined consensus? I promise you that the plan to double and bid 3♠ over a club raise would find hardly any votes in an expert bidding panel.

 

(I agree that the Robson/Segal style of a almost never doubling with a 5-card major may not be mainstream, but it's a lot closer than to the style you are suggesting, as far as I can tell.)

 

Arend

[mikeh]

I see bid em up and ben in an all-out war here, but maybe the division between them isn't as profound as it would seem from reading their heated language.

 

Given that this is a B/I thread, maybe it would be useful to see if there is some shared ground here.

 

I may be mistaken in interpreting bid em up's thinking (and I am sure he will hasten to set me straight if I am), but it seems to me that both he and Ben would agree that there comes a time when it is correct to double with a 5 card major, rather than to overcall.

 

Personally, the dividing line between double and overcall is set very, very high if I hold only a 5 card suit, and I suspect that it is for Ben as well. Whereas, I suspect that the dividing line is somewhat lower for bid em up.

 

At 17 hcp, and a good 17 at that, coupled with a 4 card ♥ suit, this hand seems to be over bid em up's line while below mine and Ben's.

 

I would be interested in knowing the smallest change one could make to the hand to get bid em up to agree with an initial 1♠ overcall and, correspondingly, the smallest change to get Ben to double first.

 

To get the ball rolling, if we moved a small ♥ into the ♠ suit, such that we held KQJxxx AQx AJx x, I would double then bid. If we left the shape alone, I think it would need a more significant change: maybe AKQxx AJxx AJx x, but even there I would be tempted to bid 1♠.

 

As for Ben's stats, while bridgebrowser studies can be of assistance in determining how the vast majority of online players bid, it is of remarkably little assistance in determining how experts bid (I don't mean self-rated experts). Experts are such a tiny fraction of the online community (based on what I have seen) that their methods are swamped by the sheer number of indifferent players. And I disagree with his premise that US players tend to double, rather than overcall, with good hands... if he means, by that, that this is a tendency amongst US experts. It sure used to be, but those days are ancient history for most experts.

 

For the B/I players amongst us, I do commend the idea that we can overcall with very strong hands... but it is important that partner appreciate this, and not be afraid to raise with weakish hands and a fit, and for both to understand that bid and double shows (prototypically) a powerful 6331 or 5431 etc.

[skjaeran]

I may be mistaken in interpreting bid em up's thinking (and I am sure he will hasten to set me straight if I am), but it seems to me that both he and Ben would agree that there comes a time when it is correct to double with a 5 card major, rather than to overcall.

 

Personally, the dividing line between double and overcall is set very, very high if I hold only a 5 card suit, and I suspect that it is for Ben as well. Whereas, I suspect that the dividing line is somewhat lower for bid em up.

 

At 17 hcp, and a good 17 at that, coupled with a 4 card ♥ suit, this hand seems to be over bid em up's line while below mine and Ben's.

 

I would be interested in knowing the smallest change one could make to the hand to get bid em up to agree with an initial 1♠ overcall and, correspondingly, the smallest change to get Ben to double first.

 

To get the ball rolling, if we moved a small ♥ into the ♠ suit, such that we held KQJxxx AQx AJx x, I would double then bid.

This is still a 1♠ overcall to me. Yeah, I know I put the limit for double then bid a suit higher than most people.

 

 

If we left the shape alone, I think it would need a more significant change: maybe AKQxx AJxx AJx x, but even there I would be tempted to bid 1♠.

Me too.

 

]And I disagree with his premise that US players tend to double, rather than overcall, with good hands... if he means, by that, that this is a tendency amongst US experts. It sure used to be, but those days are ancient history for most experts.

I think that's accurate. To me it seems that even advanced american players will double on 5431 and 13 hcp, whereas that's an obvious overcall in Norway. With 4531 and 13 hcp I'd overcall 1♥ over 1♣. Partner will bid 1♠ on a 4c suit. We might play in a 4-3 ♠ fit on occasion - that's the same as when bidding constructively, but we'll never play in a 4-3 fit and miss a 5-3 fit.

[bid_em_up]

Mike,

 

I will try to explain my point of view on X as opposed to 1♠ using a couple of your own quotes from other threads:

 

At imps, the cardinal rule, when choosing a final strain (as opposed to level), is safety. If game is out of reach, aim for the safer partial, not the higher scoring one.. and carry this theme through game and slam decisions.

So aren't we more likely to be in the right strain by starting with an immediate double? We actually win automatically in 2/3 chances (whenever partner bids hearts or spades), and it is entirely possible this hand actually belongs in diamonds.

 

So I opt for the slight overbid of 2♠. While we may end up too high, we will always find the right strain, and, when it is close, it is usually better to be in the right strain one level too high than at the right level but in the wrong strain.

 

In both of these quotes, you appear to state (my loose interpretation) that we are always better off playing in the right strain. Imo, an immediate 1♠ bid really should say "I think this hand will play best in spades unless you (partner) have a better place to play" and yet, at this point in the auction, there is absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. Partner may well have a better place to play on this hand, but have no reason to bid over 1♠.

 

In fact, I believe that if you were to run another simulation, you are likely to find that 4♥ is the most likely game prospect, not 4♠ (and 5♦ isn't entirely out of the picture, either).

 

On this particular board, these are the original combined N/S hands

 

[hv=n=s109xh98763d865ck8&s=skqjxxhaq54daj9cx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Change the North hand just a fraction to either:

 

[hv=s=s9xhk98763d8cxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

or

 

[hv=s=s9xhk98763d8cxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

Obviously 4♥ is a reasonable game on either of these hands, and yet....we may be passed out in 1♠ if we bid 1♠ instead of immediately doubling. Because of this, I much prefer putting both majors in play at my first opportunity to do so, rather than at a second chance later in the auction........that may never come. Of course, the possibility also exists that you may well be going down in 1♠, where even if you have no game, you may be making a partial in hearts or diamonds.

 

The only assured way of finding our likely best fit IMMEDIATELY is to double. While partner certainly may bid diamonds, this hand is still good enough to force for one more round by bidding 1S. But he may always bid 2D over the X, or 2H, or 2S, or 3D or 3H preemptively. It is these types of hands that the X is much more likely to cater to and improve our subsequent auctions (again, just my opinion), than the hands where partner happens to be a weak 3-3-3-4 and is forced to pick a 3 card suit.

 

If, by chance the bidding is at 3♣ by the time it gets back to me, with partner having failed to bid, I still dont have to bid 3S (as someone else blindly suggested), I can still X again for takeout, or decide that its the opponents hand and pass.

 

In fact, I have been so overwhelmingly convinced that X is the correct first call at IMP's, that in my current partnership, we will double on any 5-4-3-1 hand without any HCP requirement beyond being a normal takeout double. It took a long time for me to overcome my sentiments regarding the advantages/disadvantages of doing so, but the overall results have proven (at least to me) that this is the best way of treating these hands.

 

Note, I am only convinced of this @ imps, where the scoring differential between a minor suit contract and a major suit contract isn't significant. At MP, since majors outscore minors, and higher scoring contracts win higher percentages, I would still prefer to bid the major first unless the hand is actually strong enough to double then bid.

[SoTired]

Boy, there is a lot of subjective opinions here. Like who to classify as an "expert?" MikeH's definition I would call a "top expert".

 

Another thing is how beginners are taught versus how top experts play.

 

Beginners are taught only basic bidding. As a player advances, the player learns more bids both broader and deeper. For example, a beginner is taught Stayman and Jacoby Transfers. As they advance they might learn 4-suit transfers and Texas (broader). As they advance some more they might learn how to handle slamish 5-card minor and 4-card major hands (deeper).

 

I believe most beginners are taught that a simple overcall is limited to 16HCP. That with more the player dbls and then bids their suit. Bidding their suit and then doubling is a more advanced topic mainly because the second double may not always be available as takeout.

 

Beginners are constantly coming here with "how do you bid this hand" because their lessons did not cover anything but how to bid the common hands. It is a disservice to this forum to use that question as a chance to trot out your favorite pet convention/treatment or for a top expert to contradict commonly taught strength levels because an expert bidder knows how to handle different strength hands with their 2nd and 3rd bids. "If the bidding is this, I can dbl, and if that, I will q-bid, and if the bidding goes this way, then I'll bid a new suit which in this situation is not natural, etc, etc." Oh, Yes... Don't forget that over/under bids are forcing unless the pot size is twice the vulnerable slam bonus minus the freckle count.

 

(I made that last part up)

[bid_em_up]

Another thing is how beginners are taught versus how top experts play.

 

Beginners are taught only basic bidding.....

 

I believe most beginners are taught that a simple overcall is limited to 16HCP. That with more the player dbls and then bids their suit. Bidding their suit and then doubling is a more advanced topic mainly because the second double may not always be available as takeout.

I guess this sums up what I was originally trying to get at in my initial reply to Ben.

 

1st, Ben, I will apologize for being snarlish in my responses, yesterday. Having a bad day, combined with a headache and allergies, I was not @ my best. Sorry.

 

My original intent was that Ben seemed to imply that the 1♠ bid is acceptable in his original post. I will not disagree that in the context of R/S that 1♠ is perfectly fine. But again, it is not what beginners or intermediates are normally taught, at least not in the US (I won't pretend to know what is taught in Norway or Germany or any other country, since I don't live there....but I would expect it to be the same if they are being taught SAYC or 2/1, which are the methods I will normally infer unless stated otherwise).

 

Beginners & Intermediates are taught to double and bid their 5 card suit with 17+ hcp. This hand actually evaluates to about 20 playing points, assuming a fit can be located (17 hcp, 3 distributional) so clearly qualifies for X then bid, from a beginner/intermediate perspective.

 

Given that we are in the B/I forum, I don't know that "we" should be giving creedence to bids which require advanced methods, such as R/S, and especially not without giving acknowledgement that we are using such methods. I feel that most beginner/intermediate players who may come to these boards, would like an answer that is most likely to correspond to their current methods or what they have been taught. It really isn't an issue so much of what I think bid then X or X then bid should mean, we can each come to our own agreements or judgements on that ; it is an issue of what has the beginner/intermediate player more likely to have been taught and then try to answer appropriately. I hope that makes sense, I can't seem to word it any better.

 

If I was still a beginner, or intermediate (and some days, I feel like one) and I came to this forum, and saw Ben or Mike advocating a 1♠ bid without any further discussion or explanation of why they are bidding 1♠, then I would be forced to assume that 1♠ is absolutely the correct call on this hand, no matter what methods I am playing.

 

Since Ben is a BBO yellow (and a fine player), and Mike obviously is a world class player, their words will naturally carry more weight on the subject than any one elses....which is why I was so vehement that 1♠ is wrong, and especially in this forum. I have no problem with actually discussing such methods in this forum, as long as it is clear that the bid I am making is within the context of such methods, and not as a matter of claiming that 1♠ is gospel.

 

Arend, I do not/did not claim that beginners/intermediates are incapable of understanding R/S or that it is too difficult for them (at least I don't think I did). But unless it is specifically stated that I am playing these methods, then what is the beginner/intermediate player who comes to the forums, sees Ben/Mike/you claim 1♠ is correct (or at least acceptable) which is contradictory to everything that they have been taught, with no further explanation, supposed to think?

 

They may or may not realize that unless they make other modifications to their methods or agreement regarding overcall ranges, hand patterns, etc. that the 1♠ bid simply just does not work in their current methods and instead, will now think that bidding 1♠ is both perfectly acceptable and the correct bid (heck, Mike and a BBO yellow said so, it must be true).

 

Again, I apologize for the earlier rants or any ill feelings I may have caused.