Simple Enough

[kenberg]

This thread is named simple enough, why are there so many posts? :P

Well, there seem to be a goodly number of posts trying to sort out who Ken is and what he said.

[Gerben42]

I've never played something else than 2♠ = 8 - 11, 4+♠ here. Now we have a bad 9 and the question boils down to if it's bad enough to respond 1♠. I don't think so, this hand is much better than Jxxx KJx xxx ATx.

 

So I would think the 1♠-bidders are a bit too passive.

 

I cannot imagine bidding 1NT on the actual hand. On the already mentioned Jxxx KJx xxx ATx I consider it because now 2♠ is really pushing it.

 

The reason a minimum Advance of a T/O shows ~0-9 is that a minimum response to an opening bid shows ~6-9 and in addition you must allow Advancer to bid with 0-5 because the T/O Doubler has forced Advancer to bid (except in the rare cases where Advancer will make a penalty pass.)

 

I can just say NO here. You did not take into account here that to the assumed 4-card 1♠ minimum opener, advancer can bid 1♠ AND 2♠.

 

1♠ = 0 - 7

2♠ = 8 - 11

3♠ = preempt (remember pd opened some kind of 4-card 1♠)

 

If you bid 1♠ with the actual hand, you will be badly placed whatever the auction is. Partner will play you for less.

 

I'd go with 1♠. Note that game isn't great opposite a hand like:

 

♠KQxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣Axxx

 

Playing the style above, you'd invite with this.

[kenrexford]

When do you think the time will come to show signs of life, when LHO bids 2/3/4♥, and two passes follow to you?

The solution is not to announce more playing strength than you have. That just yields the same 3/4♥ and an overbid by partner.

 

If partner has, say, the 6-7 covers (honors plus shortness) that you need for a game, he will be able to double or do something else intelligent after 1♠-2/3/4♥-?

 

Not all hands with 8-11 HCP's are created equal. As a simple example, ♠Axxx ♥KJx ♦xxx ♣xxx is a hand with "8-11 HCP" and four spades, but this is simple terrible contextually.

 

If a TOX shows an expectation of three honors and a ruffing value, a ten-loser hand expects, opposite that minimum, to lose six tricks in the wash, for down one at the two-level. Further, if partner will raise your jump to game with four honors and two ruffing values, you will be down one in game. So, does a jump indicate that you need partner to have five honors and two ruffing values? That's quite a technique. Partner apparently needs something like ♠KQxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Axxx?

 

If that is the case, then 1♥-X-P-1♠-P-2♠ must logically show something like six honors and two ruffing values? ♠KQxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣AQxx?

 

This might work, if partner always has four-card support. The problem seems to crop up when partner has a mere three cards in spades (more obviously a concern after a minor opening and a double with 4-3/3-4 in the majors). There just does not seem to be enough room to settle the problem of strength and fit.

[foo]

1♠ is the "book bid" with the OP hand, not some mastermind bid.

In my book the normal bid with 8-11 points and 4 spades is 2♠, 3♠ with the same points and a five cards suit. Yes, I would prefer to have a better shape, who wouldn't? 2♠ is still the proper bid even at MP unless you want 1♠ to mean "from zero to infinity".

8 HCP is a bit light for a 2♠ response here, just as it would be to Invite game opposite a minimum opening bid with 8 HCP.

 

The hands that do invite opposite an opening bid with less than traditional HCP do so because they have other shape based assets commonly called Dummy Points. Here, the T/O X'er has already included Our side's Dummy Points in =their= hand.

Bidding the same assets 2x is a good way to get too high.

 

An Invite opposite an opening bid is (9) 10-11 (12) HCP. Since the T/O X basically shows an opening bid, the same logic applies.

 

The ~0-9 HCP range is not even close to "from zero to infinity". That's hyperbole on your part.

 

When do you think the time will come to show signs of life, when LHO bids 2/3/4♥, and two passes follow to you?

If "life" means "overbid", then you are really asking to be "killed".

In this case, if the auction comes back to us after

(1H)-X-pa-1S;<2H somewhere by Them>-??

we can then X to show that we are at the top of our previously stated range.

 

 

It is completely possible that both sides have a game, and being MP, LHO decides there's not much point in announcing his minor suit that would provide the tricks. Both sides have two fits, who is more likely to win, how could it be the one that is playing dead?

It =is= MP. Bidding your cards as accurately as possible and getting to Absolute Par as fast as possible is what wins. Not overbidding.

Even Red @ IMPs where we "stretch" a bit, we still only stretch =a bit=.

 

 

No one in this thread is advocating "playing dead". Those you are calling "dead" are advocating the "aggressive but tight" strategy that the best poker players use to win. IOW, be =accurate=, not merely aggressive.

[ochinko]

Ok, everyone will agree that the higher the bid, the more precise it should be.

 

From 0 to 11 we have 12 possible states for the variable "hcp". If we compress the meanings 0-7 in 1♠, and 8-11 in 2♠, our 2♠ bid has twice the precision of 1♠ (8:4 states). This looks beautiful to me, and makes the principle easy to remember.

 

If we make it 10:2 (0-9 vs. 10-11) our 2♠ bid doubles its precision, but 1♠ becomes sort of a useless bid by trying to encompass most of the hands that we'll get. A ratio of 5 between the two bids is unproportional and ugly.

 

And I know it's not all in the points, but these are good points, people. The fact that I have an Ace and a King is more important than the fact that I have two Jacks. And these are both good, working Jacks, the one is in the trumps, and the other one sits by a King instead of all alone in a suit.

[foo]

Ok, everyone will agree that the higher the bid, the more precise it should be.

 

From 0 to 11 we have 12 possible states for the variable "hcp". If we compress the meanings 0-7 in 1♠, and 8-11 in 2♠, our 2♠ bid has twice the precision of 1♠ (8:4). This looks beautiful to me, and makes the principle easy to remember.

 

If we make it 10:2 (0-9 vs. 10-11) our 2♠ bid doubles its precision, but 1♠ becomes sort of a useless bid by trying to encompass most of the hands that we'll get. A ratio of 5 between the two bids is unproportional and ugly.

 

And I know it's not all in the points, but these are good points, people. The fact that I have an Ace and a King is more important that the fact that I have two Jacks. And these are both good, working Jacks, the one is in the trumps, and the other one sits by a King instead of all alone in a suit.

You are still having to bid opposite what usually evaluates to a minimum opening bid.

 

Would you make an Invite w/ Jxxx ATx xxx KJx opposite a opening bid?

I bet not.

 

I'm all for esthetics in Bridge, but logic and probability trumps everything else.

Inviting game on random 9 counts opposite a traditional opening is anti-percentage and will get you bad scores. Same here.

 

...and Jxxx ATx xxx KJx does not even evaluate to the playing strength of the average 9 count!

K&R evaluation= 7.7

Danny Kleinman= 8

 

 

These aren't bad or the greatest points, but what really kills the OP hand is the 4333 shape.

The OP hand is a =minimum= in terms of playing strength. It should be bid that way.

[Codo]

Thanks at least one did answer.

As you may noticed, your way of bidding is not too common everywhere (But the most spread I know).

There are some countries/schools who prefer a different approach, like defining 2 Spade as 8-10 HCPS with a 4 card suit. But okay, lets look at the pros for your american approach:

 

A T/O X is supposed to be a hand that =at the least= evaluates to a minimum opening bid in support of what ever suit Advancer chooses.  Just as an overcall is supposed to evaluate to the playing strength of at least a minimum opening bid.

 

Okay, so opposite a hand with about 10 HCP and the perfect 4144 (which is more or less a minimum for the double) you play 2 Spade with 18-21 combined HCP in your 4-4 Fit. Sounds like perfect with our solution. And you had made it much more difficult for your opponents to compete then you did with your 1 Spade bid.

 

If the double has a stronger hand, it is much easier for him to evalute your prospects opposite a narrow defined positive response like 8-10.

Two upsides for "our" approach.

 

The reason a minimum Advance of a T/O shows ~0-9 is that a minimum response to an opening bid shows ~6-9 and in addition you must allow Advancer to bid with 0-5 because the T/O Doubler has forced Advancer to bid (except in the rare cases where Advancer will make a penalty pass.)

 

Okay, so the reason is: If I bid 1 Spade, my Pd raises one level to 2 Spade with 6-9. To make life easy for him, I will play that after a double he should do the same and raise my promised suit just one level too?

Funny, I think it would be much easier to remember to bid 2 Spade with 6-9, so that the same bid carries the same meaning.

 

But okay, anybody who thinks that the approach with 0-7 and 8-10 is too complicated may stick to the old rules.

 

Think of a T/O X as a way to "open" the bidding for the overcalling side just as an overcall does.

 

Yes and as I am able to handle different calls from pd with different responses, I have a set of rules how to respond to the X. They are not the same rules as if I answer to a bid of 1 in a major or 1 NT or a jump. And I do belive that this is common practice in the bidding systems from Lawrence, Hardy et al too.

 

The ranges used here have nothing to do with "fashion" and everything to do with logic.  Culbertson and Goren used the same ranges that Miles, Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, etc etc do now.  Because the range is dictated by the cards.  Not fashion.

 

The logic you presented was: A minimum response shows 6-9 HCPs. Okay, stick to this.

This logic is nice but (in my view) simple silly. You cannot use the same point range for different bidding situations. If you do, you make your bridge much simpler, which has some value. But you make it less accurate too.

 

With you wish to bid all 0-9 HCPs hand with 1 Spade you make your life much more difficult later. Some posters wanted to show later that they have a nice hand for there weak bid. I prefer to bid this hand in one bid, not in two.

 

I accept that much better players then me had won numerous Bermuda Bowls with this approach.

(But maybe they had even won more with another? )

 

I agree with ochinko in his reasoning about the profite of the french approach. But go ahead and win your tournaments despite your worse bidding. :P

[Fluffy]

Would you make an Invite w/ Jxxx ATx xxx KJx opposite a opening bid?

I bet not.

It doesn't mean anything, range is just different, people play it 8-11, not 10-11.

They said it like 5 times already.

[awm]

I've always defined the jump response as showing about 9-11, or 8 with a five-card suit. Several reasons for this:

 

(1) Double doesn't absolutely promise four-card support for the unbid major. Usually I prefer to stay low on my 4-3 fits when possible.

 

(2) Partner will always move over my one-level bid with 16 hcp or equivalent -- people disagree about "courtesy raises" but I think a raise on something like AQxx xx KQJx Axx is pretty obvious (and hey look, opposite our example hand 4♠ still might lose one trick in each suit!). So there's not much chance to miss a game.

 

(3) I think KQxx x Axxx Axxx is a full trick better than a minimum takeout double, and I think partner should be able to bid game opposite a 2♠ jump on such a hand. I feel the same way about AQxx xx KQJx Axx or even KQxx xx KQJx Axx. All are six loser hands with more or less working values.

 

(4) I'd like to avoid the three-level wherever possible. 3♠-1 is a silly score. So I'd like opener to usually be able to either pass or bid game over a 2♠ jump, with re-invites few and far between. On the other hand, I don't want to be forced into game on 11 points, so I can't play the jump as 8-10 (no I don't want to play 3♠ as four-plus spades and 11-12).

[foo]

Folks, I've been trying to post the standards players like The Dallas Aces, The Blue team, and many present WC pairs use. I am not advocating my own "custom" methods.

 

I have also been trying to focus the discussion more on =playing strength= and less on HCP. Tricks, not HCP, win boards. Phrases like "0-9 for a minimum" are =at best= approximations to the real evaluation that takes place.

 

(1H)-X-pa-??

 

You hold: Qxxxx.(x.Kxxx.Axx)

 

Here's three 9 counts I want to be in 4♠ on opposite just about any sane T/O of (1H). I have 7 losers opposite another 7 loser hand + a nine card trump fit + a likely 8+ card side fit. This hand's playing strength is !not! that of the average 9 count given this auction.

 

Likewise, I would GF with Qxxx.xxx.KQx.KQx due to the purity of my hand and value location,

but I would only invite with Qxxx.KQx.(xxx.KQx)

Despite the fact that all three hands evaluate to ~10 playing points.

[hrothgar]

Folks, I've been trying to post the standards players like The Dallas Aces, The Blue team, and many present WC pairs use.

 

I am not advocating my own "custom" methods.

Please tell me that you aren't claiming that there is any similarity between the takeout double styles used by the Blue Team and those used by the Aces.

 

It was bad enough when you were posting nonsense like the following:

 

The ranges used here have nothing to do with "fashion" and everything to do with logic. Culbertson and Goren used the same ranges that Miles, Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, etc etc do now. Because the range is dictated by the cards. Not fashion.

 

But dragging the Italians in to this shows (once again) that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

For the record, here's Culbertson's requirements for a takeout double. (this is taken from page 264 of The New Gold Book of Bidding and Play)

 

The requirements for a takeout double are:

 

    3 honor-tricks divided in three suits; and if any of the suits has less than four cards, the hand should contain strong intermediates.

 

    3 honor-tricks in two suits, provided the hand has a rebiddable suit containing 4 trump tricks or more

 

Exceptions are:  When a hand is exceptionally strong in honor-cards, though having only 2 1/2 honor-tricks, as in the case of example 5 on the opposite page; and in occasional bidding situations that would make a takeout double safer than an overcall would be.

 

Example 5 is

 

♠ AJT9

♥ 4

♦ QJ73

♣ QJT8

 

Culbertson recommends doubling even though you "only" have 2.5 honor tricks. With hand 2

 

♠ A863

♥ 5

♦ A754

♣ A642

 

Culbertson recommends passing if vulnerable.

 

Here's another hand where Culbertson recommends doubling a 1♠ opening

 

♠ 6

♥ AQ73

♦ AKJ654

♣ T8

 

Lets shift over to look at some hands from Mike Lawrence

 

In "The Complete Book of Takeout Doubles" Lawrence recommends a takeout double with the following hands

 

♠ AT94

♥ 6

♦ K982

♣ KT94

 

♠ AJ74

♥ 54

♦ KT4

♣ K965

 

Both these hands contain 2 Quick tricks. Neither is suitable for a Culbertson style takeout double.

[foo]

Ah, my personal gadfly is back. :D I think I may adopt you.

 

yep, bidding theory has advanced since the time of Eli Culberson. 70+ years have passed after all.

 

 

♠ AJT9 ♥ 4 ♦ QJ73 ♣ QJT8

 

♠ A863 ♥ 5 ♦ A754 ♣ A642

the 1st evals to 14 Dummy points and has perfect shape. Easy X.

 

the 2nd is the dreaded "A's and spaces" hand.

OTOH, I see 6/7 of the controls needed for game, 7 losers, perfect shape, and 15 Dummy points. Easy X.

Modern theory respects shape and being control rich more than Culbertson did.

 

 

Here's another hand where Culbertson recommends doubling a 1♠ opening

♠ 6 ♥ AQ73 ♦ AKJ654 ♣ T8

Whereas today we recognize this as a nice 2♦ overcall.

 

 

Lets shift over to look at some hands from Mike Lawrence

 

Lawrence recommends a takeout double with the following hands

 

♠ AT94 ♥ 6 ♦ K982 ♣ KT94

 

♠ AJ74 ♥ 54 ♦ KT4 ♣ K965

 

Both these hands contain 2 Quick tricks. Neither is suitable for a Culbertson style takeout double.

a= Mike says that he would not make a T/O X either with the first hand if it did not have all those T's and 9's (p5).

 

b= Mike says (p6) "I like X. With a doubleton H and only 3 D's, you have to decide if having 11 decent points will compensate of the inferior distribution. I would accept a X on this, but would not insist."

IOW, Mike considers it an optional T/O X that he would make because he's aggressive (He's also a Dallas Ace and a multiple times WC. He just may have better table skills than most to allow him to take greater risks.)

 

Bottom line: Mike's aggressive and says so.

 

from my POV,

hand "a" evals to 13 Dummy Points in support of any suit, is control rich, has useful intermediates, and the missing A's rate to be in front of rather than behind the K's. X seems easy.

 

hand "b" is a system problem. I don't like making T/O X's on 8 loser hands w/o some other compensating extras. This hand doesn't have them. I'd pass.

 

 

Whatever your point here was, I'm not sure you proved it or anything beyond the fact that Bridge has evolved in the last 70+ years. Although we T/O X =slightly= more aggressively than Culbertson did, the basics have not changed much.

...and bye the bye, if you are going to make more aggressive T/O X's, you'd best become more conservative about Advancing them.

[kenrexford]

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

 

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support. This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade. However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction. This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors. Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

 

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract. How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's? Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

 

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction. The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

 

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration. That allows game tries with definition. Consider the two auctions:

 

1♥-X-P-2♠-

P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

 

1♥-X-P-1♠-

???-2♠-P-???

 

In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps. That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

 

Sure, you have the same quantitative bash in the approach where a jump to 2♠ shows a fifth spade and about 9 losers, but these hands usually can be bid with a quantitative bash, as Advancer usually has 5332 pattern and two cards. No neat GT's needed. (3♠ looks more like 5-card and needing a reason to not play game -- 5332 and three cards is quite large here.)

 

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

[ochinko]

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

 

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support.  This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade.  However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction.  This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors.  Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

 

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract.  How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's?  Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

 

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction.  The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

 

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration.  That allows game tries with definition.  Consider the two auctions:

 

1♥-X-P-2♠-

P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

 

1♥-X-P-1♠-

???-2♠-P-???

 

In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps.  That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

 

Sure, you have the same quantitative bash in the approach where a jump to 2♠ shows a fifth spade and about 9 losers, but these hands usually can be bid with a quantitative bash, as Advancer usually has 5332 pattern and two cards.  No neat GT's needed.  (3♠ looks more like 5-card and needing a reason to not play game -- 5332 and three cards is quite large here.)

 

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

1. You seem to forget the fact that the advancer is forced to bid on the first round, so 1♠ could be bid with only three spades when there is no better bid. This makes it impossible for the doubler to distinguish between 3 and 4 cards support if you want 2♠ to show 5. So 2♠ from the doubler don't actually agree any fit.

 

2. Preempt is when you bid without high cards strength. 2♠ is no preempt if it promises 8 points. You, on the other hand preempt yourself with your example bidding:

 

1♥-X-P-1♠-

???-2♠-P-???

 

You would do that as a doubler with what, 16-17 points? And what would you say when you see the poor dummy has xxx xxxx xxx xxx? Will you curse your bad luck or try to improve your methods?

 

That case is far more dangerous than to be "preempted" with 8 points. Not only you would have more trumps, as partner guarantees 4, not only you have more points (lets say 11 from you, and 8 from partner) but these points would be split between the hands, and provide you with vital entries. There's no comparison for your chances of making 2♠.

 

As for the case that doubler could have only 3 spades, his hand should be good enough to play with a Moisian fit. It's not like partner wouldn't know what is expected from a double, right?

 

As for the NT just how on earth are you going to explore whether you belong there and at what level if you play it that 1♠ could show absolutely everything short of an opening hand?

 

I can assure you I am not less worried than you to describe my hand properly. Jamming the opposition is but a side effect, although a welcomed one.

[awm]

A few points:

 

(1) 1♠ could be bid on three spades, but this is actually very rare. Usually advancer has a four-card suit he can name, or enough values to bid 1nt, or to pass the double. It's not really that important to cater to the fact that 1♠ "might be three."

 

(2) You do need to have a point range for 1♠. Doubler has to be allowed to pass with a minimum double and only three trumps, since in this case you can get into really serious trouble at the two-level. With a really shoddy double and four trumps it may also be best to pass. I don't think playing 1♠ advance as forcing is practical.

 

(3) I agree that there can be a problem over the 2♠ jump if doubler has only three spades and mild extras. This is why it's good for 2♠ to have a fairly tight range if only four trumps whereas the bottom end of this range loosens up considerably when advancer has five trumps (since now we can play 3♠ over doubler's 3-trump game try without too much concern). The typical auction is 1♦-X-P-2♠; P-3♦-P... where 3♦ announces extras with only three trumps and asks advancer to do something reasonable. Advancer can still bid 3♠ to say "well I have five spades and a pretty minimum hand" and advancer guarantees game values opposite this bid when holding only four spades (will rebid 3NT or some other call if no stopper).

[foo]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

 

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

[Fluffy]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

 

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

This is kidna the opposite of what I think.

 

Either you never double because you don't have 4c major, in wich case you don't compete enough; or you double even holding doubleton minor, and then, if you offer just 1 suit why don't you jsut bid 1♠ instead?

[kenrexford]

1. You seem to forget the fact that the advancer is forced to bid on the first round, so 1♠ could be bid with only three spades when there is no better bid. This makes it impossible for the doubler to distinguish between 3 and 4 cards support if you want 2♠ to show 5. So 2♠ from the doubler don't actually agree any fit.

 

2. Preempt is when you bid without high cards strength. 2♠ is no preempt if it promises 8 points. You, on the other hand preempt yourself with your example bidding:

 

1♥-X-P-1♠-

???-2♠-P-???

 

You would do that as a doubler with what, 16-17 points? And what would you say when you see the poor dummy has xxx xxxx xxx xxx? Will you curse your bad luck or try to improve your methods?

 

That case is far more dangerous than to be "preempted" with 8 points. Not only you would have more trumps, as partner guarantees 4, not only you have more points (lets say 11 from you, and 8 from partner) but these points would be split between the hands, and provide you with vital entries. There's no comparison for your chances of making 2♠.

 

As for the case that doubler could have only 3 spades, his hand should be good enough to play with a Moisian fit. It's not like partner wouldn't know what is expected from a double, right?

 

As for the NT just how on earth are you going to explore whether you belong there and at what level if you play it that 1♠ could show absolutely everything short of an opening hand?

 

I can assure you I am not less worried than you to describe my hand properly. Jamming the opposition is but a side effect, although a welcomed one.

1. As mentioned, the number of times where 1♥-X-P-? yields a three-card spade suit bid is relatively low. More importantly, the number of times when it yields a three-card spade bid and Opener makes another non-jump call is even lower. I'd rather risk playing a 4-3 fit when Opener rebids something than risk a 3-4 fit immediately. I think the odds of the 7-card fit are higher as an immediate action than they are as a delayed action, primarily because Opener's new call, if he makes one, indicates that his pattern is more distributional than average and, accordingly, that our distribution perforce must be on average likewise more distributional.

 

2. The term "preemption" does not literally mean "I have a weak hand." It means that we are preempting ability to make bids at a lower level. A strong 2♣, with a 2♦ waiting response, with a 3♦ rebid by Opener, is quite preemptive. Try6 distinguishing 4-card and 5-card majors in this auction. The question is not whether a call that "preempts" ourselves leads us to a "dangerous" contract. The question is whether the preemption makes it unduly difficult to find the ideal strain and ideal level.

 

3. How does one explore 3NT after a 1♠ call? Well, now that's a good question. I suppose that's a real problem, and a great point. I personally do not run into that problem too much, as I have a "solution" that I typically use. A 1NT overcall of a major does not guarantee a stopper. It simply promises strength. With only three spades, something like 3244, I'd overcall 1NT.

 

If Responder passes 1NT, and the opponents cash a bazillion hearts, such is life.

 

However, if Responder has a chunky hand, like this one, he would use systems on, with a slight tweak.

 

Without four spades, but game-ish, he'd "transfer" to hearts (Opener's suit). If I held a minimum with a legitimate stopper, I'd bid 2NT. With a minimum but no legitimate stopper, I'd "accept" the transfer, bidding 2♥, which is scrambling. With a maximum, I bid 3NT with hearts double-stopped, 3♥ with hearts single-stopped, or something natural with no heart stop.

 

With four spades, and game-ish, partner would bid 2♣. If I have four spades, I bid them. If I have no spade suit, I bid 2♦. If partner has game interest, he can bid 2NT or 3NT, but 2♥ would checkback on the heart stop. With a minimum and no stop, I can bid 2♠ (I must have three spades if I have no stopper). With a minimum and a legitimate stopper, I bid 2NT. With a maximum, I bid 3NT (double stop), 3♥ (single stop), or a new minor (no stop).

 

The rare downsides are when we play 1NT and are set and when we wrong-side 3NT. However, this problem is very rare, and it solves a world of hurt.

[foo]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

 

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

This is kidna the opposite of what I think.

 

Either you never double because you don't have a 4c major, in which case you don't compete enough; or you double even holding doubleton minor, and then, if you offer just 1 suit why don't you just bid 1♠ instead?

When holding a hand that should overcall, I overcall.

 

When holding a hand with support for all the unbid suits, particularly with 4 cards in the unbid major(s) and at least 3 cards in the unbid minors, I make T/O X's

 

Great hand strength or some other weirdness does occasionally cause me, like anyone else, to reach for the "least lie" to tell.

 

Sometimes that even means I pass because I do not systemically have the right bid available.

C'est La Vie.

 

Trust me, I both X and overcall plenty.

[Guest Jlall]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

[foo]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

That hand is well within that "what's the least lie I can tell" catagory.

I do not like passing pure 5 loser hands.

 

Since AKx has the trick taking strength of many 4 card holdings, and so does Qxxxx, I'd very likely treat this as a 4144 ATT and make a T/O X with it.

 

Make the hand Qxx.x.(KQxx.AKxxx), and I start to really dislike making a T/O X with it and would probably Overcall 2m instead.

 

Make it Qxx.x.(AKxx.KQxxx), and at Favorable I might even trot out Unusual 2N with it.

 

As I said, with these sorts of hands, it's about finding the least lie.

[jdonn]

So pretty much your doubles promise a 4 card major except for when you have 3, got it :(

 

Out of curiosity, since when is passing with a hand that does not meet your own criteria for bidding a "lie", as the fact you are looking for the least lie implies you think pass is one.

[cherdano]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

 

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

I guess this is an obvious 1N for Ken.

[Codo]

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support.  This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade

 

What problemhand do you construct where you have a problem? Lets take Jusiins example for a double with just 3 card support:

Akx,x, KQxx,Qxxxx.

Which problem exactly do you face with the approach that 2 Spade shows 4 Spades and 8-10 HCPs? Do you think that you miss 5 in a minor?

If you have a slightly weaker hand, still good enough too double. What is your problem with a 4-3 Fit at the second level with a known shortness in the hand with just 3 trumps?

 

.  However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction.  This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors.

 

There is an easy solution for this: (1 ♦) X (pass) 2 ♦ shows both majors 4/4 and 8-10 HCps or a strong hand with 11+ HCPs. Works easy and good and is part of SEF.

 

  Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

There may be a hand in thousand where you have a better fit in a minor which even plays so much better (2 tricks more) then your major. But if this happens, you won´t find these hands with your approach too.

 

 

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract.  How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's?  Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

 

If pd has something like xxxx, AQx, Kxxx,xx me may had bid 1 NT and not 2 Spade at his first opportunity? There may be few hands where NT is better and you reach Spades, but this happens even in undisturbed auctions.

 

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction.  The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

 

It is no rpoblem, because your hand is very well defined. Pd knows, that you have exactly 4 spades and 8-10 HCPs. And he has 3 ♥ and 3 ♠ avaiable to show different hand types for his invitation, so no bash at all.

 

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration.  That allows game tries with definition. 

 

Again, how close should the definition be? Much closer then 8-10 and 4 card Spade suit is not possible.

Consider the two auctions:

 

1♥-X-P-2♠-

P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

 

1♥-X-P-1♠-

???-2♠-P-???

In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps.  That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

 

And in your system he needs a lot of bids to show his different hand types: He can have 0-9 HCPs and 3-4 Spades.

In the SEF Approach he had already shown his hand, so he can simply judge whether he thinks that his hand belongs in 3 or 4 SPade or in 3 NT opposite the invitation.

 

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

 

I don´t think so. The worries that opener will jam the auction is there, sure, but imo the main advantage for the french approach is, that I prefer to make a very describtive bid of the hand as soon and as often as possible.

[Codo]

1. As mentioned, the number of times where 1♥-X-P-? yields a three-card spade suit bid is relatively low.  More importantly, the number of times when it yields a three-card spade bid and Opener makes another non-jump call is even lower.  I'd rather risk playing a 4-3 fit when Opener rebids something than risk a 3-4 fit immediately.

I think the odds of the 7-card fit are higher as an immediate action than they are as a delayed action, primarily because Opener's new call, if he makes one, indicates that his pattern is more distributional than average and, accordingly, that our distribution perforce must be on average likewise more distributional.

 

 

1. I strongly belive that it is much better if the weaker hand has the four card suit but even more important: I wish that the hand with the 3 card support has the shortage in their suit. And this happens if we play in our 4 card suit.

2. Most doubles hold a four card major. There are hands where you double with just three, but in the majority of all auctions you reach your 4-4 major fit.

3. If you double and bid a new suit, this does surely not show a 4 card suit, searching for another 4/3 fit. This shows a one suiter which was too strong to bid your minor direct.

 

2. ... Try6 distinguishing 4-card and 5-card majors in this auction.  The question is not whether a call that "preempts" ourselves leads us to a "dangerous" contract.  The question is whether the preemption makes it unduly difficult to find the ideal strain and ideal level.

 

We agree at last. So what do you belive your pds take out double looks like? The perfect X has a4144 with 10+ HCPs, right? If pd has less distribution, he has more HCPs. Easy. So, if you bid your 4 card suit to the second level and your 5 card suit to the third, you are ALLWAYS protected by the law, so you should bid 3 Spade with 5 Spades and 2 Spade with 4 Spades. Easy, isn´t it?