Two balancing problems

[gnasher]

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

 

That's why I said

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

[Pict]

Double (1) and 3H (2).

 

Bidder's game they say.

[hanp]

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

 

That's why I said

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count.

[lamford]

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

 

That's why I said

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

Apologies. I mistakenly thought that because you had transposed the "o" and "e" in poeple you might have carelessly transposed the "either" and "as".

 

[Actually, I did not think of the other meaning and am just making this up now!]

 

I wonder if playing it as "either or" is sound; partner puppets with 2NT and you reply 3S with the strong three-suited takeout and bid the more convenient suit with the two-suiter...

 

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

 

If our methods were that 2S was a two-suiter, and I would be interested in the thread where Fred recommended this, then you do need double now to be any takeout of spades.

[hanp]

If our methods were that 2S was a two-suiter, and I would be interested in the thread where Fred recommended this, then you do need double now to be any takeout of spades.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...5&st=0&hl=drury

 

It's old.

[lamford]

Many thanks. Very interesting.

[gnasher]

Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count.

He already knows that I can't count.

[gnasher]

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

Would he know that? Might we not have a three-suiter which was too weak to bid in a live auction, but strong enough to bid once RHO limits his hand?

[lamford]

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

Would he know that? Might we not have a three-suiter which was too weak to bid in a live auction, but strong enough to bid once RHO limits his hand?

Opener has a 14-16 count, and we have a 20-count. Partner's average is around 2.5. He may conclude that if we had a hand too weak to bid in a live auction that the opponents would have at least tried for game.

 

QUOTE (hanp @ Sep 18 2010, 09:14 AM)

Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count. 

 

He already knows that I can't count

[gnasher]

So you're suggesting that pass followed by double is two-way, showing either a moderate three-suiter or a very strong balanced hand?

[lamford]

So you're suggesting that pass followed by double is two-way, showing either a moderate three-suiter or a very strong balanced hand?

I think that partner should be able to tell, and it is similar to, I think, a dburn suggestion that double of a pass or correct bid is either penalties or takeout, for example after a Lucas Two and a 3C response.

 

If 2NT on the previous round [after (1NT) - Pass - (2H)] would be strong balanced - as I think FrancesHinden prefers - then there is no need to be able to show strong balanced now. It does seem that passing throughout on the 20-count is not quite right!

[gnasher]

It does seem that passing throughout on the 20-count is not quite right!

It's hard to argue with that.

 

I'm not convinced about the strategy of delaying your takeout double until the second round. What other auctions are there where we sit there in respectful silence waiting for the opponents to give us permission to bid?

 

I think there's a good case for playing an immediate double of 2♥ as takeout of spades. That lets us get into the auction safely, gives us a chance to mess up their invitational sequences, and avoids having a horribly wide range for

  1NT pass 2♥ pass

  2♠ pass pass double

 

It's true that showing a takeout double immediately will sometimes help them in the play if they bid game, but I don't think that will happen very often. If one of us has a takeout double, it's not that likely that they have the valeus for game anyway, and if they do the game will often be making anyway, with our side's values under the opening bidder.