WBU Swiss Pairs 2

[shyams]

Having read all the messages subsequent to jallerton's original question (Was the X of 1♦ alerted?), it is still not clear to me. Do EBU rules require the X of 1♦ to be alerted if the meaning is as described in this case?

[gnasher]

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

It's not clear to me that it's more important to tell him about a 4-card major, for which he will have a fit comparatively rarely, than to tell him that we have a five-card major, for whihc he'll have a fit comparatively often.

 

I can feel a simulation coming on.

[jallerton]

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much.  The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

 

Of course better players who understand such things play other methods.  But are you really seriously suggesting that if you go to the Little Raynford Congress the number of people playing 1♣ (1♦) Dbl as showing four hearts will be greater than the number of people playing it as one four card major?

 

I know it is easy to decry my experience, and basically suggest I am either lying or stupid.  But I play a lot of bridge, and I know what people play against me and with me.  I do not think it completely obvious that I am lying.  Whether I am just so stupid I do not know what they are playing is a different matter.

<snip>

Nobody was accusing you of either lying or being stupid. Maybe I am being "stupid" but having re-read the thread, I can't see why or how you would have drawn such a conclusion. Nobody was accusing RMB1 or Gnasher or making up what they said either.

 

You report that you have encountered "thousands and thousands" of players who use this method. As you would even assume this method was in force if undiscussed in a new partnership, then of course I accept what you say, notwithstanding the fact that I have not knowingly come across such a method myself.

 

Equally, you should accept that VixTD and I were simply recounting our own respective experience and were not "misinforming people so much" about what our own experience has been. Before reading this thread I was (to quote Robin) "blissfuly unaware" of this method. Like VixTD I have not come across this method in any literature and even when I did a basic Google search yesterday, the only method I could find being advocated for 1♣-1♦-dbl was both majors.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure how much longer I'll be allowed to go on before someone moderates this out of existence, but here are some simulation results.

 

Conditons:

- South has a 1♣ opening, playing four-card majors and a strong notrump

- West has a 1♦ overcall

- East has 3+ diamonds (ie he will probably raise)

The frequencies of the different major-suit fits were:

East has [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3 diamonds [space] 4+ diamonds
5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]21.9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]27.0
4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]12.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
No fit, std methods ambiguous * [space] 8.8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3 
No fit, no ambiguity [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 50.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]37.2

* These are deals where responder has one 4-card major and opener has exactly three of those. In standard methods, this leads to ambiguity about whether there is a fit or not. Playing that 1M promises five, this ambiguity does not exist.

 

These figures suggest that playing 1M promises five gains over standard methods several times more often than it loses.

 

I realise that the benefit of finding a 4-4 fit is greater - if our 5-3 fit gets preempted, it will be easier to find than if our 4-4 fit gets prempted. Still, it seems to me that playing 1M as promising five does have merit.

 

Note that this applies specifically in a four-card major, strong notrump system. I wouldn't consider it otherwise.

 

My code is below.

source format/none

# Counters
set fit_54 0
set fit_53 0
set fit_44 0
set fit_none_std_ambig 0
set fit_none_unambig 0

main {
[space]if {! [4cm_1c south] || ! [1d_overcall west]} {
[space] [space] [space]reject
[space] [space]}

[space]# East has 4+ diamonds
[space]if {[diamonds east] < 4} {
[space] [space] [space]reject
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]set hn [hearts north]
[space]set sn [spades north]
[space]set hs [hearts south]
[space]set ss [spades south]

[space]if {($hn >= 5 && $hs >= 4) || ($sn >= 5 && $ss >= 4)} {
[space] [space]incr fit_54
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]if {($hn >= 5 && $hs == 3) || ($sn >= 5 && $ss == 3)} {
[space] [space]incr fit_53
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]if {($hn == 4 && $hs == 4) || ($sn == 4 && $ss == 4)} {
[space] [space]incr fit_44
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]if {($hn == 4 && $sn < 4 && $hs == 3) || ($sn == 4 && $hn < 4 && $ss == 3)} {
[space] [space]incr fit_none_std_ambig
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]incr fit_none_unambig
[space]accept
}

deal_finished {
[space]puts " 5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_54"
[space]puts " 5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_53"
[space]puts " 4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_44"
[space]puts " No fit, std methods ambiguous [space]$fit_none_std_ambig"
[space]puts " No fit, no ambiguity [space] $fit_none_unambig"
}

proc 4cm_1c {hand} {
[space]set hcp [hcp $hand]
[space]set c [clubs $hand]
[space]set d [diamonds $hand]
[space]set h [hearts $hand]
[space]set s [spades $hand]
[space]set hcp_adj [expr $hcp + $c - 4]

[space]# clubs at least 4 
[space]if {$c < 4} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]# longest suit first; majors before minors
[space]if {$s >= $c || $h >= $c || $d > $c} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}

[space]# 1C with 4-4 minors; 1D with 5-5 [space] [space] [space]
[space]if {$d == $c && $d > 4} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]# balanced 12-14 or 18-19, adding 1 for a 5-card suit
[space]if {[balanced $hand]} {
[space] [space]if {$hcp_adj < 12 || ($hcp_adj > 14 && $hcp_adj < 18) || $hcp_adj > 19} {
[space] [space] [space]return 0
[space] [space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space] [space]return 1
[space] [space]}

[space]# unbalanced, approximately in the right range
[space]if {$hcp_adj < 12 || $hcp_adj > 21} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]return 1
[space]}

proc 1d_overcall {hand} {
[space]set hcp [hcp $hand]
[space]set c [clubs $hand]
[space]set d [diamonds $hand]
[space]set h [hearts $hand]
[space]set s [spades $hand]

[space]# diamonds at least 5
[space]if {$d < 5} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]# longest suit first; majors before minors
[space]if {$s >= $d || $h >= $d || $c > $d} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]# not a takeout double
[space]if {$hcp > 10 && ($s >2 && $h > 2)} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}

[space]# in the right range
[space]if {$hcp < 8 || $hcp > 18} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}

[space]# not strong balanced
[space]if {[balanced $hand] && $hcp > 14} {
[space] [space]return 0
[space] [space]}

[space]return 1
[space]}

[jallerton]

Having read all the messages subsequent to jallerton's original question (Was the X of 1♦ alerted?), it is still not clear to me. Do EBU rules require the X of 1♦ to be alerted if the meaning is as described in this case?

Well it's not clear to me either.

 

According to paragraph 5G5(a) of the Orange Book, 'negative' doubles are not alertable. However, in my view (see above), this is not a traditional negative double.

 

According to paragraph 5E2 of the Orange Book, double of 1♦ "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". A "take-out double" is defined elsewhere in the Orange Book as:

 

4H6Take-out doubles

A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

 

The first sentence might suggest that perhaps this does qualify as a takeout double, but if it does then one could equally argue that a double showing (say) 4+ hearts also "suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand", albeit putting more of an emphasis on a particular suit.

 

The second sentence suggests that if double is permitted on a minimum hand with 2-4 (or 4-2) in the majors then it is not a "take-out" double.

 

An alternative description of the double played by the N/S pair in this thread is "exactly 4 cards in one (or both?) of the majors". Described that way, it sounds like a convention rather than anything else.

 

So on balance I think it ought to be alertable (though I wouldn't be surprised if Bluejak were to disagree with this conclusion!)

[Pict]

I'll just ask, what about 3-4 rather than 2-4? When can I edge some values versus shape into my double without alerting?

 

I don't feel all that strongly about the current EBU alerting for doubles, though it is clearly non-intuitive. It's just a bit over the top to see suggestions that it is a terrific and widely admired achievement. How could it be?

 

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4. Who these thousands are, I don't know.

[campboy]

I'm not sure how much longer I'll be allowed to go on before someone moderates this out of existence, but here are some simulation results.

 

Conditons:

- South has a 1♣ opening, playing four-card majors and a strong notrump

- West has a 1♦ overcall

- East has 3+ diamonds (ie he will probably raise)

The frequencies of the different major-suit fits were:

East has [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3 diamonds [space] 4+ diamonds
5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]21.9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]27.0
4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]12.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
No fit, std methods ambiguous * [space] 8.8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3 
No fit, no ambiguity [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 50.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]37.2

* These are deals where responder has one 4-card major and opener has exactly three of those. In standard methods, this leads to ambiguity about whether there is a fit or not. Playing that 1M promises five, this ambiguity does not exist.

 

These figures suggest that playing 1M promises five gains over standard methods several times more often than it loses.

Well, that depends. These figures suggest that if your partner makes a response showing four+ of the major, you have exactly three, and RHO raises then there is a very good chance that partner actually has at least five. If you act on the assumption that he does then you only lose out to the alternative method when you play in a 4-3 fit, but you gain over the alternative method when you find your 4-4 fit. 4-4 is much more likely than 4-3 by your figures.

[Vampyr]

I don't feel all that strongly about the current EBU alerting for doubles, though it is clearly non-intuitive.  It's just a bit over the top to see suggestions that it is a terrific and widely admired achievement.  How could it be?

 

It is easy to understand, explain, and get right. These are the important qualities.

 

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4.  Who these thousands are, I don't know.

Well, with my favourite partner I play these doubles as takeout or, more generally, a hand that has no better descriptive call. A variety of shapes can be held.

[jdonn]

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

[gnasher]

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

Yes, I can think of only one or two people who play that way.

[VixTD]

I asked six players at my club last night who I thought fell into the category of player we're talking about what they would expect partner to have in the auction 1♣ - (1♦) - X. Three said at least 4-4 in the majors, the other three said at least 4-3 in the majors, but preferably 4-4.

 

Gnasher, I'm sorry to keep pressing the point, but what is the advantage of using double to promise one four-card major? All this seems to do is tantalise partner holding something like ♠K10xx♥Qx♦xx♣AKxxx when RHO raises to 2♦. If partner has spades, we want to compete in our eight-card fit rather than letting them play in theirs, whereas if partner has hearts we are better out of it.

 

If you're going to reserve 1♥/♠ responses to show 5+, why not double with any other hand with values to compete and no five-card major? If you include 1NT hands in the double, might this free up 1NT for other purposes, perhaps promising 4-4 in the majors, so you don't lose that option?

[gwnn]

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

I remember a nice trick to find out what people really think about someone, you should not ask them 'What do you think about him', but rather 'What do people in general think about him'.

[Bbradley62]

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4.  Who these thousands are, I don't know.

Well, with my favourite partner I play these doubles as takeout or, more generally, a hand that has no better descriptive call. A variety of shapes can be held.

Same here.

[Vampyr]

Until this week I assumed the majority of players used double to show both majors.

I still think this is true.

[MBV53]

I don't think two out of six would bid 4d. eventhough 4d is a logical alternative,majority passes that hand. TD ruling 4cn= appears to be perfect.

MBVSubrahmanyam.

Sr. National Director,

Chief Director, India.

[Finch]

Note that this applies specifically in a four-card major, strong notrump system. I wouldn't consider it otherwise.

Obviously you wouldn't dream of playing this in a 5-card major system, or even an open-the-minor-first-on-44-hands system, but why does it matter what NT range you are playing?

 

One difference I can see is that after 1C (1D) action (2D) there's much to be said for playing support doubles in a strong NT base, but double as a strong NT in a weak NT base. So playing strong NT it's easier to sort out the size of a major suit fit quickly, so this method might be better in a weak NT base.

 

But then possibly support doubles are a poor idea in any strict 4CM system because you should be raising to the 2-level on 3-card support in competition very freely anyway; perhaps you want to use the double for something else in a strong NT system.

 

p.s. I'm not sure I really agree with your conclusion, because playing a 4-3 fit is not necessarily a bad thing anyway in favour of actually finding my fit.

[Finch]

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

Not I.

 

I am pretty certain I don't know for certain how "thousands and thousands" of people play this sequence. It doesn't come up that often at the table, and sometimes when it does I don't necessarily find out how the opponents play it. I do know that one of a major is very frequently bid on a 4-card suit, which comes up far more frequently.

 

I was originally taught a form of basic Acol, when that came to include non-penalty doubles at the 1-level, I was taught it showed 4-4 in the majors and later that it might also be a weak 5-4.

 

I have to confess that, like jallerton, I was completely unaware of the "a four-card major" treatment.

 

{I play 5-card majors with gnasher}

 

In order of popularity, the meaning I see used for this double is

 

1. both majors

2. we haven't discussed it

3. neither major

4. penalties

5. other

[Finch]

As for the original ruling, if I were adjusting to a contract of 4C then I would think about including a percentage of 4C-1. I can't remember if we were told somewhere earlier in the thread anything about North, but based on the standard of bridge shown in some of the other threads (and David's comment about there being many very poor pairs there) I would expect it to go off quite often.

[Finch]

I've been thinking about the play in 4C a bid more. It's a nice play problem. On the auction as given, you've really got no idea what the major suit lengths are. Here are some possible lines on a top diamond lead:

 

1. Draw trumps, play ace of hearts, heart to the queen (one off).

 

2. Ace of diamonds, diamond ruff, trump, diamond ruff, trump, run the 10 of spades. Win the third round of spades and play a heart to the queen, then finesse on the way back (making). Playing for the drop on the second round also possible but less likely (one off).

 

3a. Eliminate diamonds, draw trumps, exit in spades, cross in trump and play a heart to the 10 (making).

3b. Eliminate diamonds, draw trumps, exit in spades, corss in trumps and play a heart to the 8 (one off).

 

3a & 3b are the 'obvious' lines and they are each equally likely to be successful.

[gnasher]

Note that this applies specifically in a four-card major, strong notrump system.  I wouldn't consider it otherwise.

Obviously you wouldn't dream of playing this in a 5-card major system, or even an open-the-minor-first-on-44-hands system, but why does it matter what NT range you are playing?

Yes, when I said "4-card majors", I meant the style where you open a major if you've got one.

 

The method gains (arguably) on the hands where opener has no 4-card major.

Playing a weak notrump, these hands are less frequent.

 

p.s. I'm not sure I really agree with your conclusion, because playing a 4-3 fit is not necessarily a bad thing anyway in favour of actually finding my fit.

I haven't yet reached a conclusion (in fact, your and Campboy's comments about 4-3 fits seem quite a good argument against the method). Anyway, it sounds like you're disagreeing with one of of my premises.

[jallerton]

I've been thinking about the play in 4C a bid more.  It's a nice play problem.  On the auction as given, you've really got no idea what the major suit lengths are.  Here are some possible lines on a top diamond lead....

The play is of interest, but your analysis on a top diamind lead may not be relevant. I suspect that a more likely defence for the cateory of players who bid like East/West would be to cash ♠AK and then switch to ♦K. Now a competent declarer might find the folowing line:

 

Ace of diamonds, diamond ruff, trump, diamond ruff, cash ♠Q, trump, lead ♥Q. If this is covered, declarer wins, crosses to dummy in trumps and leads another heart towards ♥108. Now even if West plays low and declarer misgueses by finessing ♥8, she still makes because East is endplayed on winning ♥9 - all assuming East has resisted petering on the first round, of course!

 

I agree that it is just about plausible that 4♣ will go off, but TDs should be aware that the application of "sympathetic weighting" will often eliminate unlikely scenarios favourable to the offending side in the final ruling. This appears to have been the basis of the ruling in practice:

 

I gave serious consideration to perhaps 10% of 4♣ -1, but my co-director adjusted to 100% of 4♣ =.