Modern Trend Question 1

[TimG]

...

[gnasher]

Weird.

 

I would never double on the first.

I would double on the second, but not at all other vulnerabilities.

I would always double on the third.

Not that weird. The rest of the world has always been out of step with England about the requirements for a takeout double. Although our standards have relaxed somewhat over the past few decades, so have theirs.

 

For me:

- 3 has always been a takeout double.

- I've been bullied into accepting that 2 is a takeout double.

- I can't stomach a double on 1. A double doesn't just show a balanced hand without enough points to overcall 1NT: it shows a different hand-type.

 

My requirements for a double don't vary with the vulnerability.

[the hog]

I would certainly double on the second and third. Pass on the first.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Pass, I hate to double with a min. hand and 3 cards in their suit

#2 Pass, I think double is reasonable, given xxx in diamond, but see #1

#3 Pass, if facing a partner, which did not have the chance to bid, otherwise X,

if I am forced to make at least one t/o on the 3 hands you presented,

than this hand would be ok for me

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I have learned to play Bridge in Ireland, i.e. there was an strong english

influence.

[david_c]

For me it's #2 which is the automatic double. #1 and #3 are both borderline.

[paulg]

Weird.

 

I would never double on the first.

I would double on the second, but not at all other vulnerabilities.

I would always double on the third.

Not that weird. The rest of the world has always been out of step with England about the requirements for a takeout double. Although our standards have relaxed somewhat over the past few decades, so have theirs.

I think it was at a Brighton Summer Congress a few years ago that David Burn covered this, during a morning review of the previous session.

 

He reckoned that the English had been taught that you needed a 5-5-5-1 distribution with at least a good opening hand to make a suitable takeout double. Whereas the Scandinavians were taught, at an age when they could pull bidding cards from the box and perhaps before they could talk, to remove the red double card whenever they held the majors and something approaching an opening bid.

 

Paul

[JLOL]

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

 

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

 

I'm sure you do great when you're dealt a real 4441 hand but have fun waiting for it.

 

Also Clee even though doubling with all 3 hands can work against you when they're declaring it can really work for you. You are doubling a lot more with a larger range of hands so when you do double it can be tough for them. Like on this hand 1 if they probably won't guess the club queen if they have to, and on hand 3 they may misguess an honor partner has etc.

[JLOL]

Also regarding hand 2, I don't believe that Adam's partners bid clubs that often. If they have a 4 card major they will bid it, if they have a diamond stopper and values they will bid it in preference to clubs, and if they have no values LHO will probably let partner off the hook. Usually when partner bids clubs they have 5, this is especially true in competition. Although maybe Adam's partners are happier bidding 4 card club suits in competition than I am since he averages more clubs ;)

[Old York]

Maybe we have different alerting rules in England. If it is your partnership agreement that the double shows "opening values", then this must be alerted here

 

My main concern is to responses to the double. If you devalue your take-out doubles then your partner must deliberately underbid to compensate. This will mean that you are forced to bid twice with a normal hand, just to prove that you were not ridiculously light. This will inevitably lead to bad results.

 

If you are determined to enter the bidding on moderate hands, then we need a new set of responses to these doubles

 

Doubles against Acol players should be fully up to strength, an opening bid here is natural and often conceals extra strength because we open 1NT with 12-14hcp hands, so suit openings often conceal a strong balanced hand. Doubles against Sayc players can be lighter because most 1♣ openings show a weak balanced hand

 

Tony

[hanp]

I think you've got it backwards York.

[blackshoe]

The problem with 1, at least in NA, is that while there may be some experts who double with this, those experts know what they're doing, so does their partner, and the experts properly disclose their methods. The majority of people who double with this hand, however, don't know what they're doing. So either their partner doesn't expect it, and they probably get to the wrong contract, or their partner does expect it, and they have a CPU, because they don't disclose it properly.

 

I pass with hand 1.

 

I pass with hand 2, for much the same reason, though I can understand doubling with both majors.

 

I double with hand 3, and I'd be surprised if somebody didn't.

 

I'd have done the same ten years ago.

[gnasher]

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

 

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

Partner is allowed to overcall at the one level with a five card suit and a seven count; in my partnerships a jump overcall will often be an option too.

 

With the first hand, I might pass and act later if the bidding suggests that they're about to stop at a low level. After, for example,

  1♣ pass 1♠ pass

  2♠

or

  1♣ pass 1♠ pass

  1NT

I'd double.

 

Whilst that strategy may make it easier for the opponents to double us, it also makes it easier for partner to judge how high to compete - he knows that a first round double shows an offensive hand rather than some balanced tat, and that a delayed double is flawed in some way.

 

Finally, of course, if everyone plays solid first-round takeout doubles, you may not notice any disadvantage to doing the same. English pairs who are successful in World and European events don't necessary play in an English style.

[gnasher]

Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

What you'd regard as opening light would just be regarded as normal here, so I don't think anyone would regard it as needing special consideration. That might, in fact, be a good reason for keeping an initial takeout double fairly pure: the more likely we are to have game on, the more reason for making our actions well-defined.

[andy_h]

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

 

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

Partner is allowed to overcall at the one level with a five card suit and a seven count; in my partnerships a jump overcall will often be an option too.

 

With the first hand, I might pass and act later if the bidding suggests that they're about to stop at a low level. After, for example,

  1♣ pass 1♠ pass

  2♠

or

  1♣ pass 1♠ pass

  1NT

I'd double.

 

Whilst that strategy may make it easier for the opponents to double us, it also makes it easier for partner to judge how high to compete - he knows that a first round double shows an offensive hand rather than some balanced tat, and that a delayed double is flawed in some way.

 

Finally, of course, if everyone plays solid first-round takeout doubles, you may not notice any disadvantage to doing the same. English pairs who are successful in World and European events don't necessary play in an English style.

I dunno man. The first hand looks like if you pass the 1st time round, you should just be keeping shut for the rest of the auction. The auctions you specified doesn't exactly suggest that they're about to stop at a low level. Our LHO is still unlimited and coming in after those two auctions get be quite deadly. Yes, I agree that it will make it (very much I might add) easier for the opponents as they already had a chance to exchange information, but I'm not too sure that it will make partner judge better.

Say it was

  1♣ pass 1♠ pass

  2♠

If we X now, doesn't it typically show 2-4-4-3 (very unsuitable for a 1st round X)?

 

Not saying I know what's right, but I feel like getting into the auction with those balanced hands is like a now-or-never, and if it's never we can be getting stolen blind with a lot of partials.

 

And yeah, most people's overcalls these days can be light. But if we pass and LHO responds 1♥/1♠, partner isn't very likely going to overcall at the 2 level, as what we want is to find a fit after our 1st round X (rather than pass and hope partner has a good suit to bid).

 

It's true that partner may still be able to balance, but not sure if we can always hope for him to do that.

[jdonn]

Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

What you'd regard as opening light would just be regarded as normal here, so I don't think anyone would regard it as needing special consideration. That might, in fact, be a good reason for keeping an initial takeout double fairly pure: the more likely we are to have game on, the more reason for making our actions well-defined.

That is such a backwards statement. The more likely you are to have game on, the more likely you have to act on a wider variety of hands.

[gnasher]

If your objective is simply to bid every game that is makeable, you should bid on every deal, regardless of what you have. If, on the other hand, you want to bid the games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish between a 3433 shape and a 4351 shape.

 

I'm not suggesting that hand 1 should pass throughout. If 1♣ is passed out, it's inconceivable that we've missed a game; if we get another go, we will probably have a much better idea of whether game is making.

[Winstonm]

For me #1 and #2 are passes, although #2 is sorely tempting. #3 is a routine double.

 

 

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from?

 

Justin. How strong of consideration should this be? If the opponents are out skating around a lot - trying to steal - then their constructive bidding cannot be real strong. It only makes sense that one can build either a constructive system or a destructive system but they are mutually exclusive.

 

I sincerely respect your judgement in these matters, so I am not attempting to be snippy, but it seems to me a worry about being stolen from should be left to the games with a buttom and blind bets.

[hanp]

Winston where do you get all this nonsense from. Look at some of the top US pairs, Meckwell, Hampson-Greco, Levin-Weinstein, Grue-Cheeck, ... They tend to be extremely aggressive and I assure you their constructive bidding is strong.

[Winstonm]

Winston where do you get all this nonsense from. Look at some of the top US pairs, Meckwell, Hampson-Greco, Levin-Weinstein, Grue-Cheeck, ... They tend to be extremely aggressive and I assure you their constructive bidding is strong.

I get my ideas from the same places you do - the voices - and don't try to tell me you don't hear them.

 

Once again I make a simple observation and it is misrepresented, then the misrepresentation is attacked as nonsense.

 

Case I made was this: IF a system (not partnerships, not aggressive style) is built for obstructive bidding then that system must by its nature be less precise than a system built for constructive bidding.

 

I do not think this is even debatable, much less nonsense. I do not think any great partnerships play a system designed mainly for obstruction.

 

By providing evidence of great constructive bidding by expert partnerships, all you have accomplished is to validate my point that these partnerships DO NOT play systems that are DESIGNED MAINLY FOR OBSTRUCTION. The fact that great players do NOT for the most part play obstructive systems led me to ask Justin why he believes hand stealing important enough argue for offshape doubles.

 

As I know Justin's skill level and the fact he has WCX2 behind his name, I was interested in what he had to say on this subject as he has made a lot of sense on other subjects that led me to alter my thinking - rebidding 1N with a singleton, for example.

 

However, next time I'm in the mood for an insult about a point I never made, I'll be sure to ask for you, Han. ;)

[hanp]

I can hear them too Winston, but the voices always tell me to bid, never to pass. ;)

[Rossoneri]

1. Would probably pass this one out, especially if partner is a passed hand.

2. I would probably pick 1♥

3. Dbl

[jdonn]

If, on the other hand, you want to bid the games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish between a 3433 shape and a 4351 shape.

If you want to bid games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish strong hands from weak hands.

 

I'm not suggesting that hand 1 should pass throughout.  If 1♣ is passed out, it's inconceivable that we've missed a game; if we get another go, we will probably have a much better idea of whether game is making.

You earlier said you would double after 1♣ p 1♠ p 1NT. I'm not sure what it is about that auction that makes you think you have game.

 

Case I made was this: IF a system (not partnerships, not aggressive style) is built for obstructive bidding then that system must by its nature be less precise than a system built for constructive bidding.

What if the opponents do play an obstructive system? What if they play a constructive system with an aggressive style? None of the arguing about what to call it when the opponents are bidding with very little changes the fact that the stronger the hands you pass with, the more often you will get stolen from. And when the strength of the hand you pass with starts to exceed the strength of the hands they open, or even worse the combined strength of the hands they open and respond with, that chance of getting stolen from is getting frighteningly large.

[JLOL]

Winston don't you play preempts? That is an obstructive bid that makes constructive bidding harder when your partner has a great hand. Some great players preempt very aggressively, some don't, but nobody is requiring 2 of the top 3 and rule of 2/3 anymore. It has been proven over time that it's better to make the bid more often than that, at the cost of constructive bidding.

 

Opening with balanced 11s or unbalanced 10s can be justified as a constructive bidding tool, and it happens to steal sometimes. Responding light can be justified as a constructive bidding tool (might find a game if you have like QJxxx xx xx xxxx, might find a better partscore with xxxxxx xxxx xxx void), and it happens to steal a lot.

 

Good bridge involves sometimes making obstructive bids at the cost of constructive bidding. Again that is why weak 2s are more popular than strong 2s now.

 

In my opinion, the hands you get most stolen on are when you and your partner are both balanced weak NT hand types and can't get in, or when the weak hand has the 5 card suit and the strong hand is balanced and the strong hand doesn't act. Unlike Gnasher I think it's probably now or never for the weak NT hand type.

[gnasher]

You earlier said you would double after 1♣ p 1♠ p 1NT. I'm not sure what it is about that auction that makes you think you have game.

What is it about what I've said that makes you think that I think we might have game in that auction?

 

On that auction, not having acted before, I'd double in order to compete the partscore. On another auction, such as one starting

  1♣ pass 1♦ 1♥

or

  1♣ pass pass action

I'd investigate game prospects.

 

Unlike Gnasher I think it's probably now or never for the weak NT hand type.

That overstates what I actually believe, though that may not have been apparent from my earlier comments. It's not so much that I'm happy to pass this hand-type, as that I don't want to widen the range of a takeout double to include it. Nobody would be sanguine about passing 1♣ and then doubling a 1NT rebid.

[benlessard]

Against thieves or at MP you need to be quick on the double but against sound openers passing is surely an option on all of the 3 hands.