takeout doubles without shape

[peachy]

Just goes to show that playing at a high level doesn't mean you are world class. The pair who passed 3H- barely intermediate. Other partnerships barely advanced. To count as an expert, need to know your partner very well and opponents somewhat and most cardplays. Worldclass- know partner, opponents as well as possible, all cardplays- variations will occur with contract and play due to bidding system, slight aggressiveness variations, opponents counter action.

I admit that it is rare for me to understand a Cloacal post, but this one is in a class of its own!

Heh, not to mention he thinks Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup which are World Championships, would have intermediates playing...

[raist]

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

 

 

Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

i can sort of understand doubling with 4-4 in the majors

as you are likely to find a major fit with partner

 

 

but what about 4333s? (with 3 in their minor of course)

how many of you would reguarly double with 12-13 counts of that shape with no J or Q in opp's minor?

[JLOGIC]

but what about 4333s? (with 3 in their minor of course)

how many of you would reguarly double with 12-13 counts of that shape with no J or Q in opp's minor?

I would always over 1m

[JLOGIC]

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

 

 

Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

Why should we want to defend 1N "any time" if we have a major suit fit? This hand type makes it likely that 2M and 1N make when the points are divided and we have a fit.

[gnasher]

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

 

 

Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

Why should we want to defend 1N "any time" if we have a major suit fit? This hand type makes it likely that 2M and 1N make when the points are divided and we have a fit.

No only that, but taking all of your tricks in defence against 1NT is much harder than taking all of your tricks as declarer in 2♠. So even if we "should" beat 1NT a trick, sometimes we don't.

 

Also, Ben, why do you assume that when we have a major-suit fit they're going to let you double 2♣ or 2♦? It may well go 1♦-3♦ or 1♦-2♦-3♦ or 1♦-2♣-3♣.

 

I'd far prefer to double 1♦ on this than on a 3433 14-count.

Edited August 30, 2010 by gnasher

[hanp]

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

 

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

 

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Where the opening bid was instead one strong club, all three players doubled to show both majors (in two cases) or "diamonds or both majors" (in one case).

I would also double 1D but I consider it close. In the Netherlands most strong partnerships open 1C and I would double that more comfortably. I think doubling a strong 1C (for the majors) is so automatic that I don't understand why it is worth mentioning.

 

Since partner had:

 

♠Q1053  ♥J103  ♦7  ♣KQ1086

 

and since the lie of cards was moderately favourable, game (4♠) was cold. It was reached at one table out of eight, when the response to the takeout double was 1♠ (giving you some idea of what a modern partner expects for a takeout double) and the doubler raised this to 2♠ after 1NT to his right; advancer now bid game.

 

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

 

What can we learn from all this? If we knew that, we'd presumably have learned it by now.

 

It doesn't seem too hard to learn from this. The top players double very aggressively, and compete aggressively over a strong club. When doubling they don't worry too much about a doubleton in an unbid minor, and as advancer they don't expect their doubling partner to have the world.

 

If I was an aspiring bridge player, I would look closely at what the top players were doing. If what they were doing seemed to help them win, I would copy it.

[JLOGIC]

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

[dburn]

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

This at any rate is conclusive evidence that Han is a true mathematician. In my original post I said that at five tables out of eight the South players doubled one diamond, and at three they doubled one club. Non-mathematicians will be able to compute from this the number of passers, but for Han's benefit we will say that the cardinality of the set of passers equalled the cardinality of the empty set.

[aguahombre]

ouch.

[benlessard]

I have a hard time finding a shape where partner cannot bid and 2M (our side)/1Nt (them) make. Not saying they dont exist but ...

 

 

(1D)----(1S)

(1NT)---AP

 

And partner with 5H can balanced quite weak. Defending againt VUL with 4/4 H fit when the lead is H doesnt bother me that much.

 

If it goes

 

1D---1Nt (partner can double safely here since we are NV/im a passed hand and there is presumption of a fit)

 

1D---1H (again partner can X or 1S agressively)

 

I just dont see the upside of competing agressively with balanced hands when you can balanced/pre-balance with unbalanced hands.

 

 

Ive we are red against W i can see the upside.

 

Missing a game hurt more.

Defending 1NT is less tempting

Partner with a borderline line will pass instead of bid.

[gwnn]

In the Netherlands most strong partnerships open 1C and I would double that more comfortably.

;) :)

[lexlogan]

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

[hanp]

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

This at any rate is conclusive evidence that Han is a true mathematician. In my original post I said that at five tables out of eight the South players doubled one diamond, and at three they doubled one club. Non-mathematicians will be able to compute from this the number of passers, but for Han's benefit we will say that the cardinality of the set of passers equalled the cardinality of the empty set.

:)

 

Now this post has just the right length for me.

[junyi_zhu]

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

Really? I thought you are way better than most playing Venice cup.

[junyi_zhu]

I have a qn regarding "modern" takeout double styles

it seems that many double with balanced 12-13 hcps these days over a 1minor opening without really having shortness in the the minor suit

very often with 4333 shape or so

 

i understand that the "modern" style of light openings can be quite effective

i'm wondering if the "modern" takeout double is also an effective style? or is it just ill-disicplined and poor bidding?

 

anybody can say from personal experience or with some semi-conclusive proof from running simulations ?

The basic idea of this style is simple, when opps tend to open and respond very light, you really want to get across your value as early as possible. When you pass first and balance later, you lose a lot of space to investigate the right suit or games. That's why a lot of off shape doubles come nowadays. That's also why people tend to open light, because if you don't, your opps will and you are often not in a good position later.

Still, I am actually not that extreme. I tend to double with a minimum with at least 3 cards in unbid suits with a few exceptions (for example good unbid major and doubleton honor in minor). Also, I tend to overcall with 4 cards at one level when possible. Of course, this overcall may not show your shape immediately, but it also place you well in some sense because you show your value early. For example, with

xxx xxx AKQx Kxx, IMO, it's a perfect 1D overcall instead of a double against 1C.

Playing this style, the responder really don't have to jump with 8-10 HCP and a bad 4 card suit. Often, the right bid with Qxxx Axx Kxx xxx against partner double over 1C is 1S, not 2S. Also, it's often right to bid 1NT with some stopper in opener's suit and a 4 card minor. like this hand: Axx xxx Qxx KJxx, it's better to bid 1NT facing 1D x pass, although it plays better facing a traditional double with 4-4-1-4. More likely what you are facing nowadays is 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-3-3, or even 4-4-3-2.

Actually I guess that in the future, the 1NT overcall strength will be lowered to 14-16 when white for many.

[glen]

... in the future, the 1NT overcall strength will be lowered to 14-16 when white for many.

It will if ideas like in the latest Bridge World of using 1x=1NT=Double as a transfer takes off

[jdonn]

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

Really? I thought you are way better than most playing Venice cup.

nah

[Mbodell]

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

This. When partner is "also" short in opponents suit they will compete very aggressively. Do those who like this style also think it is a good style when played by int- players with poor to middling judgment? Or does it take a more sophisticated appreciation for auction, hand valuation, table presence, etc. to compete well.

[jdonn]

What style is supposed to be good by design for players with poor judgment?

[bluecalm]

In my opinion this style is not only much better but also much easier/safer to play.

The reason is that you avoid very awkward balancing situation as well as situations when you first pass and then feel you should somehow show your strong hand.

You often penalize partner for his light overcall in the process.

For example if you pass with after 1♦.

KTxx

ATxx

xxx

Ax

 

and it goes:

 

1♦ pass - 1♥ - 1♠

3♦ ???

 

Here you wouldn't be comfortable bidding only 3♠ but going to game may result in -500 and opponents are in good position to judge it.

 

The same goes for overcalls. It's better to overcall at first opportunity than balance at higher level or worse jump around after partner's action.

In short: bid at the first opportunity and then shut up unless you have something really exceptional.

[JLOGIC]

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

Really? I thought you are way better than most playing Venice cup.

I was being sarcastic, mainly just making fun of han, but I don't want to hijack this thread with the inevitable convo this will lead to so my bad.

 

Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

 

I feel like I bid pretty normally in response to it, just don't do stuff like upgrade 3 small in the enemy suit, it is partner who should upgrade if you invite and he has a stiff and 4 trumps. Eg if it went 1D X p ? and I had AJxxx x xxx Kxxx I would not go insane. If partner had a stiff diamond and a min t/o X they would probably be bidding them, but even if they somehow failed to partner can evaluate his own stiff.

 

Basically I think the t/o Xer should be upgrading over an invite with a classic t/o X shape a lot, that is a lot of extras if you can be 4333.

 

I guess the main difference would be I wouldn't introduce a minor in a competitive auction on a 4 card suit since it could be a 4-2 fit. I would either pass, or make a responsive X if possible. Responsive doubles can help you sensibly land in the right fits imo. I also wouldn't go crazy because I had a 6 card suit in a minor, again if we have a 10 card fit and partner has minimum HCP the opps will be bidding a lot (and if he has 4 trumps and extra high cards he will bid more in competition most likely).

 

Sorry if that's not a great explanation of how I advance to a takeout double, it's kind of a difficult question since it covers so much ground. If you have any other specific questions about it I would be happy to answer what I do at least.

 

Do those who like this style also think it is a good style when played by int- players with poor to middling judgment? Or does it take a more sophisticated appreciation for auction, hand valuation, table presence, etc. to compete well.

 

I think it's fine if you are not thinking partner has an opening bid with 4441. If you just start by assuming he has a 4432 12 count or something and bid accordingly, you should be fine. Obv if the opponents show a lot of trumps then you need to know how to adjust your bidding accordingly.

 

Competitive auctions will always be hard for int- players with poor judgement since they are all about judgement. That said, I don't think the solution is to simply pass on some hands where you should be competing. Sure it makes life easier when you do compete, but I think you will miss out on a lot of partials this way, or even worse have to judge whether or not to balance (which is much higher risk and requires good judgement also).

 

I don't think bidding this way takes any special agreements.

[JLOGIC]

For example if you pass with after 1♦.

KTxx

ATxx

xxx

Ax

 

and it goes:

 

1♦ pass - 1♥ - 1♠

3♦ ???

 

Here you wouldn't be comfortable bidding only 3♠ but going to game may result in -500 and opponents are in good position to judge it.

This is a really bad example since you have 3H available heh, but I agree with what you are saying.

 

Getting in early on hands and then not feeling pressure to bid/catch up later solves a lot of later problems that people often have that require even more judgement. And more importantly, on some hands someone has to bid in order to get to their making partial. If both players are simply passing on hands like this you will lose a lot of 6 imp swings imo (or even worse at MP).

[bucky]

Just goes to show that playing at a high level doesn't mean you are world class. The pair who passed 3H- barely intermediate. Other partnerships barely advanced. To count as an expert, need to know your partner very well and opponents somewhat and most cardplays. Worldclass- know partner, opponents as well as possible, all cardplays- variations will occur with contract and play due to bidding system, slight aggressiveness variations, opponents counter action.

I think these comments are a bit too harsh. Yes, I am surprised to see a pair landing in 3H at top level game, but that doesn't deserve words like "barely intermediate". In fact, this is a very subtle area of bidding inference and agreement. In general, when the advancer bid spades then hearts, he/she is offering 2 places to play, presumably 4-4 in both majors. On the other hand, if the hand with 4-4 is good enough to jump to 2-level initially, maybe for some partnerships it is good enough to cuebid first, for other partnerships it is not. We know that bidding screw-ups do occur at all levels, and I wouldn't hasten to deliver the judgment based on one bidding disaster in a not-so-familiar sequence for many partnerships.

[lexlogan]

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

This. When partner is "also" short in opponents suit they will compete very aggressively. Do those who like this style also think it is a good style when played by int- players with poor to middling judgment? Or does it take a more sophisticated appreciation for auction, hand valuation, table presence, etc. to compete well.

I think you might get away with this style with a fairly passive partner, but I can assure you from experience you'll set an active partner up for disaster. Bridge is a partnership game. If I'm playing with someone I can count on to have a six card suit when he opens a weak two, I bid one way; if I know he may have only 5 under certain conditions I pull in and let the initial bid do the damage. Likewise, if I can count on partner to have an opening bid in support of any suit when he doubles, short perhaps a card in a minor, I can bid aggressively; if I knew partner liked to doubled on a flat 11, or 9 hcp (no ace) and a void I would exercise restraint. Making such bids without warning will get us a bad board immediately AND damage the partnership AND have partner stewing instead of concentrating on the next hand.