Bid one with me

[pclayton]

zhu consider this:

 

This hand was given to a panel of 6 experts who had about 16 national championships to their credit as well as 2 world championships (Mildred Breed). All said they would never double under any circumstance. In fact, 4 of the six said they would rather pass than double!

 

Zhu: "So a take-out double is really the best bid for this hand. "

 

I admire your "pluck", but you are bucking about 75,000 master points with your position. WinstonM

you are not talking about bridge. In front of bridge logic, any amount of master points are nothing.

I dont think its a question of logic, its a question of credibility.

 

We are being asked what the best call is - a subjective evaluation. Who better to answer than former national and world champs?

[junyi_zhu]

zhu consider this:

 

This hand was given to a panel of 6 experts who had about 16 national championships to their credit as well as 2 world championships (Mildred Breed). All said they would never double under any circumstance. In fact, 4 of the six said they would rather pass than double!

 

Zhu: "So a take-out double is really the best bid for this hand. "

 

I admire your "pluck", but you are bucking about 75,000 master points with your position. WinstonM

you are not talking about bridge. In front of bridge logic, any amount of master points are nothing.

I dont think its a question of logic, its a question of credibility.

 

We are being asked what the best call is - a subjective evaluation. Who better to answer than former national and world champs?

I have clearly presented my logic thinking of this hand, none of you guys including those champions have ever given any bridge logic why you don't double. They just claim they don't. And I know why they don't, because they think this hand is too distributional, which is an illusion, because take out doubles can be based on some rather distributional hands, as long as you have no difficulties in later auctions, and this is really such a hand because your club suit is strong enough to correct any amount of hearts bids to clubs and you have enough defensive tricks if partner wants to pass. Bridge is a game full of illusions, and only those who can get rid of the nonsense can improve I believe.

[pclayton]

All vulnerable at imps. You hold: 4, 83, AK84, AKQ964. The auction is:

 

W You E Pard

2S* ?

 

I've wracked my brain and I'm having a real hard time coming up with any reasons why a double would work better than 3♠. Jun-yi is committing this hand to 5♣ over 4♥. Frankly, I'd have a little respect for the double if you sit for 4♥. However, here's a list (probably incomplete) why I think 3♠ is better.

 

1. With this trick monster, 3N looks like a very playable spot. If pard doesn't have a spade stop, then pard bids 4♣ or even 5♣ (pass / correct) and we can play it there.

 

2. With approximately an opening bid across from us, pard probably won't initiate a slam try. Sure, we might get to a nice 6♣ or 6♦ when we pull 4♥ to 5♣. But what if pard bids 3N? Certainly we are not pulling. Perhaps explain why we missed a good slam opposite: AJx, Axx, Qxxx, Kxx. What else can pard do but 3N? OTOH, this hand looks real nice opposite a 3♠ cue.

 

3. With a weak hand across from us, we still might make 3N. Axx, xxxx, xxx, Qxx gives us a good play. 5♣ has zero play.

 

4. With a yarb across from us, the 3♠ bidders play 4♣; the doublers are playing 5♣. xxxx, xxxx, xxx, xx. Both might get whacked; the 3♠ bidders are saving 300; the 3♣ bidders are saving 600.

 

5. When pard has a REAL heart suit, he'll bid it over 3♠ if lacking a spade stop. Jun-yi is unilaterally flying into 5♣ which may have no play when 4♥ is excellent. xxxx, AQxxxx, x, xx for example.

 

6. When LHO takes a 4♠ call over the double, pard is very hard pressed not to bid 5♥ on many hands holding 5 hearts: xxx, AQJxx, QJxx, x. While 5♥ might work out OK, take away the J♥, or let the defenders tap dummy at T2 and 5♥ looks like a losing proposition.

[shanbari]

i don't like 3S either.

 

bidding 3S then following 5C (mostly like partner bid 4H/4D instead of 3nt&4c) shows 2 or 3 loser hand, by my understanding. partner could easily push to slam if he held 2 tricks (such as 2 aces, or 1 aces 1 CK)

 

so i chagne my vote to 4c/5c.

 

SHAN

[Stephen Tu]

I really don't like double. I don't think this hand is anywhere near powerful enough to commit to 5♣ over 4♥. I think this way it is far too easy to reach 5♣ when either 3NT or 4♥ would be much safer contracts. On the other hand, I can't see double getting us to superior contracts more often than other bids, except in some rarer cases when ♦ is actually the best spot.

 

The experts don't like double for logical reasons.

 

I would bid 3♠, with 3♣ as a second choice. This hand is closer to what partner would expect for a 3♠ call than any other call. A decent shot at 8 tricks looking for a spade stopper. Certainly one would prefer something in hearts and the J or T of ♣, but I think it's a reasonable gamble. A 3♠ call does not preclude us from getting to other game contracts. A double will often take 2 game options out of play.

 

i don't like 3S either. bidding 3S then following 5C

 

Why do you have to commit to 5♣? If you bid 3♠ and partner bids 4♣, you can pass. If he can make 5♣ opposite this, he isn't supposed to bid 4♣.

[Stephen Tu]

3C is the worst among these options in my opinion. Do you hope your partner would bid 3NT with SQxxx HAxx Dxxx Cxxx here? ...

3S is an overbid because even if partner holds a stopper, you may not be able to cash your clubs or you opps may cash 5 or 6 hearts. So a take-out double is really the best bid for this hand

 

These arguments aren't logically consistent. Surely 3♠ works out best opposite the first hand. How is a double going to get you to 3nt, unless you are bidding 3♠ over partner's Lebensohl 2nt? If you are planning doing that, why not just bid it directly, so partner has a surer idea of your hand type, and with less risk of partner bidding 4♥?

 

3♠ is a slight overbid, but on percentage it probably works out. Partner may have enough in hearts to stop or block the suit, or they may not lead it. If you think 3♣ is too much of an underbid, then 3♠ surely is the next logical choice. You haven't demonstrated why double would allow you to get to better spots than 3♠ would.

[junyi_zhu]

All vulnerable at imps. You hold: 4, 83, AK84, AKQ964. The auction is:

 

W You E Pard

2S* ?

 

I've wracked my brain and I'm having a real hard time coming up with any reasons why a double would work better than 3♠. Jun-yi is committing this hand to 5♣ over 4♥. Frankly, I'd have a little respect for the double if you sit for 4♥. However, here's a list (probably incomplete) why I think 3♠ is better.

 

1. With this trick monster, 3N looks like a very playable spot. If pard doesn't have a spade stop, then pard bids 4♣ or even 5♣ (pass / correct) and we can play it there.

 

2. With approximately an opening bid across from us, pard probably won't initiate a slam try. Sure, we might get to a nice 6♣ or 6♦ when we pull 4♥ to 5♣. But what if pard bids 3N? Certainly we are not pulling. Perhaps explain why we missed a good slam opposite: AJx, Axx, Qxxx, Kxx. What else can pard do but 3N? OTOH, this hand looks real nice opposite a 3♠ cue.

 

3. With a weak hand across from us, we still might make 3N. Axx, xxxx, xxx, Qxx gives us a good play. 5♣ has zero play.

 

4. With a yarb across from us, the 3♠ bidders play 4♣; the doublers are playing 5♣. xxxx, xxxx, xxx, xx. Both might get whacked; the 3♠ bidders are saving 300; the 3♣ bidders are saving 600.

 

5. When pard has a REAL heart suit, he'll bid it over 3♠ if lacking a spade stop. Jun-yi is unilaterally flying into 5♣ which may have no play when 4♥ is excellent. xxxx, AQxxxx, x, xx for example.

 

6. When LHO takes a 4♠ call over the double, pard is very hard pressed not to bid 5♥ on many hands holding 5 hearts: xxx, AQJxx, QJxx, x. While 5♥ might work out OK, take away the J♥, or let the defenders tap dummy at T2 and 5♥ looks like a losing proposition.

one big problem of 3S is that your club suit isn't really solid and the shape is a suit oriented shape. Actually I don't really mind 3S, it's just a little bit overbid and it's often that partner may hold a spade stopper and you still can't make 3NT when 5c or 5D are cold. like: sAQxx Hxx DQJxxx Cxx, over 2S 3S p 3N, it's really not very hard to find a heart lead, if you start from a double, you may get to 5D easily, 2S x p 3D(extra) p 5D.

When either 5D or 5C can easily be right, it might not be a great idea to cuebid 3S directly because this hand isn't that NT oriented, also, you can always cuebid 3S later if you double first to be more flexible. So if you double, you may find partner

1 pass with spade stack, you don't feel bad

2 2N: leb, Partner doesn't have a good hand, now it's a judgement call, either 3S to ask for spade stopper or 4C to show your shape would be OK, perhaps 3S is slightly better because you need SQJxx HKxxx xx xxx to make 3NT, 5C is a little bit remote.

3 3C, must be a miracle, and you know what to do now to explore for slam

4 3D, good, you know 5D should have a good play and 6D is rather remote.

5 3H, now you can cuebid 3S and doesn't have to worry about missing the problem in hearts.

6 3S, you can bid 4C to show your hand.

7 3NT, you can bid 4C to show your hand type over 3NT.

8 4C, almost impossible

9 4D, RKC now to see if you have 5 or 6.

10 4H, it's now a judgement call and I tend to bid 5C because 5C can often be better than 4H if your partner has some basic club support and around 11 HCP, also he's not barred from bidding 6C.

So you really have little problem if you start from a double, which is more flexible. A double here shouldn't guarantee at least 3 hearts, it guarantees only in the lower range of the double.

 

If partner bids 4H over opp's 3S, you still can correct to 5C, I can't guarantee it's always right, but at least it can often be correct.

 

If partner bids 5H over 4S, you can pass, partner must have a very good 6 suiter to do so, otherwise, she should start from 3NT with 5-4 two suiters or pass with 5-3-3-2 shape. Still, I don't blame those who bid 6C, 6C can often be right as well, because 5h is usually rather serious.

 

So generally speaking, I believe double is more flexible than 3S because you may get your diamond fit sometimes and you may penalize opps. The disadvantage is that you may not be able to stop at 4H with exactly 10 heart tricks and no 5C, which is rather rare. What I am strongly against is 3C, not 3S, and double is really at least a logical alternative, not as those experts claimed, they'd never double, it's just a false claim for this hand. And for those who always bid a chicken 3C(nonforcing) in this situation, I don't think they can win in a long run.

[Stephen Tu]

One can always argue double as the most flexible bid since it's the lowest option & various good things can happen if you choose it. That doesn't make it the right bid. The problem is a frequency one, you list all these cases where something good can happen. But most of those will hardly ever come up! If partner is going to bid 2nt or 4♥ some very large portion of the time, the results on those boards will dominate your overall score expectation.

[junyi_zhu]

One can always argue double as the most flexible bid since it's the lowest option & various good things can happen if you choose it. That doesn't make it the right bid. The problem is a frequency one, you list all these cases where something good can happen. But most of those will hardly ever come up! If partner is going to bid 2nt or 4♥ some very large portion of the time, the results on those boards will dominate your overall score expectation.

Suddenly, I realize that it's possible to bid 3C over 2NT(leb), you can hardly be passed out by partner, and if partner bids 3D or 3H to correct your 3C, you can then bid 3S to ask for stopper, then partner can probably either stop at 4C or 3NT. You may call me day dreaming, but it's a lot of fun, itsn't it? hehe.

[fred]

I'm a 3S bidder. Sure, I'd like to have the Jack of clubs or a 7th club and it would be nice to have a little something in hearts, but in my view all of the altnernatives are even more flawed. If you are going to wait for the perfect hand before making this call, you might as well scratch it off your convention card.

 

For me it is not even close between 3S and DBL, 3C doesn't do justice to this hand, and higher club bids have the very serious flaw of going past 3NT (and I think it is quite likely that 3NT is where you belong).

 

The 75,000 masterpoint argument carries a lot of weight with me, especially on judgment-type problems. Not sure how many people realize this, but one of the other 3S bidders who posted in this thread is Joel Wooldridge (firechief). Joel is not only a former World Junior Champion, an ACBL Natioanal Champion, and the youngest ever ACBL Life Master, he also happens to be one of the sharpest young players I have ever met. Suggest you listen carefully to what he has to say.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

Fred:

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this post. Frankly, I admit that the 3S bid did not cross my mind when I first saw the problem; once pointed out to me I thought it was a fine call; however, I tend to be maybe too conservative in these types of auctions and admit that at the table would have been content with 3C.

 

They say winning bridge is aggressive bridge. I don't like the work "aggressive" as it seems to imply foolhardiness to a degree; I prefer to say "stout of heart".

 

Your vote for 3S has swayed my thinking and in the future I will try to be more "stout of heart" when faced with this type of situation. BTW, I, too, give a lot of credence to the 75,000 mps; that group included George Pisk and Mildred Breed, among others, and those are bridge players whose experience is worth taking note of.

 

Winstonm

[Winstonm]

Too all who replied:

 

Thank you for make this an interesting thread and for your opinions. One thing that no one has mentioned is that the 3S bid does not preclude a contract of 6C.

Partner, who has heard you announce a long running suit and a stout hand can still bif on holding Axxx, KJx, Q10xx, xx.

 

3S can get you to 3nt when it is right and 6C when it is right; nothing is guaranteed, but that is why bridge is so fascinatiing.

 

WinstonM

[junyi_zhu]

I'm a 3S bidder. Sure, I'd like to have the Jack of clubs or a 7th club and it would be nice to have a little something in hearts, but in my view all of the altnernatives are even more flawed. If you are going to wait for the perfect hand before making this call, you might as well scratch it off your convention card.

 

For me it is not even close between 3S and DBL, 3C doesn't do justice to this hand, and higher club bids have the very serious flaw of going past 3NT (and I think it is quite likely that 3NT is where you belong).

 

The 75,000 masterpoint argument carries a lot of weight with me, especially on judgment-type problems. Not sure how many people realize this, but one of the other 3S bidders who posted in this thread is Joel Wooldridge (firechief). Joel is not only a former World Junior Champion, an ACBL Natioanal Champion, and the youngest ever ACBL Life Master, he also happens to be one of the sharpest young players I have ever met. Suggest you listen carefully to what he has to say.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I think that 3S should show 5-5 in hearts and one minor, 4m should show 4 hearts and 6 m, because it's usually very hard to handle these two types of hands. For direct stopper asking 3S, I don't feel much about it because solid one suiter is very rare and even if it comes, we still can often double first to keep the option open. So I think the cuebid after a double asks for stopper, and 3NT by partner over the cuebid to show stopper is of first priority. I know I am probably the minority on this issue. I just feel that direct stopper asking 3S seldoms happens(I've never met this kind of hands in 10 years and it is easily misused. Also, I am not a big fan to bid 3NT with a sure stopper, so stopper asking bids are just of lower priority in my bidding. Another concern is that double usually can get more information than 3S from partner. We can often know the level where we belong to over the double. Over 3S, it's no easy. Partner usually assume I hold 7 solid minor plus a side suit ace for this bid, so 5D or 6D would be impossible. And I have no partnership agreement on how to proceed over 3S, it's totally unknown for me, for example, how do we show extra, if partner holds SAxx HAxx DQJxx Cxxx? 7D has a good play and at least we should bid 6C or 6D, can we find it over 3S? I doubt so. However, we can find it for sure if we double, it would go like: 2S x p 3N p 4C p 4H p 4S p 5D(DQ) p 6C all pass. Do we feel good if partner bid 3S over 2S? I believe we should bid 3NT with the hand above, and 6C shouldn't have a good play facing Sx Hxxx DAx CAKQJxxx, because this hand has 5 losers and Sx Hxx DAKxx CAKQxxx has only 4 losers. Anyway, I can be wrong, 3S is still a practical bid which I don't mind.

[junyi_zhu]

Too all who replied:

 

Thank you for make this an interesting thread and for your opinions. One thing that no one has mentioned is that the 3S bid does not preclude a contract of 6C.

Partner, who has heard you announce a long running suit and a stout hand can still bif on holding Axxx, KJx, Q10xx, xx.

 

3S can get you to 3nt when it is right and 6C when it is right; nothing is guaranteed, but that is why bridge is so fascinatiing.

 

WinstonM

Well, it's probably not right to bid anything above 3NT with the hand you show. Partner can easily hold Sx Hxxx DAx CAKQJxxx, in which case you really have no play in 6C and even 5C can be high. All the typical hands I can think of for 3S cuebid contains about 5 losers and I believe it should be a limited bid. Anyway, some may say I am too "scientific", I agree!

[Winstonm]

Zhu: I think that 3S should show 5-5 in hearts and one minor, 4m should show 4 hearts and 6 m, because it's usually very hard to handle these two types of hands. For direct stopper asking 3S, I don't feel much about it because solid one suiter is very rare and even if it comes, we still can often double first to keep the option open.

 

No disagreement with difficulty of the hands you present; if it were easy to bid over weak 2's we wouldn't still be using them. However, Firechief I think hit it right on the head when he said, "If I knew that partner had a spade stop I'd want to play in 3NT" When the bidding gets crowded, there isn't room for much science and getting to the most likely contract has to carry a lot of weight.

 

 

Concerning 2-suited hands, most experts used to play "Roman" jumps after a weak 2-bid, that is a jump to the 4-level in a minor showed 6 of the minor and a 5-card major along with a strong hand. This fell into disuse due to rarity and has been replaced by what some now call "leaping Michael's", still 4 of a minor but now 5/5 instead of 6/5.

 

The second risk of double, although small and no one has mentioned, is the chance that partner might convert to penalties and your hand will not produce as many defensive tricks as pard had hoped. With QJ9x, AJ, J10x, xxxx, pard well well elect to defend and find that only 1 club and 2 diamonds cash...sure, this may produce down 1 but +200 isn't as good as the +600 in 3NT that a 3S bid would bring.

 

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and that is what makes bridge a great game; however, I'm with Fred on this one in that I give a lot of credit to national and world champions when they give me their choice of bids - those 75K master points didn't come in flight C.

 

WinstonM

[pclayton]

I used to play that leaping Michaels could be made on a 6-4, but it turns out that its a little bit of an overbid. I played in a swiss match a few years ago where I made the call on a 7-4 (4♣ over 2♠). Pard took a push to 5♥ with 3-3 in ♥/♣ which made, but it was a hair raising spot on the 4-3. The play in 5♣ was no fun at all.

 

I much prefer to follow advice in the article in the BW that said that a leaping michaels call could even be made on a marginal 5-5.

[Chamaco]

A question here to the posters.

Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

 

a. cuebidding followed by clubs

b. double followed by clubs

 

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

 

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

 

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand

b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

 

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

 

Thanks! :lol:

[junyi_zhu]

A question here to the posters.

Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

 

a. cuebidding followed by clubs

b. double followed by clubs

 

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

 

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

 

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand

b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

 

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

 

Thanks! :)

I think cue then new suit should show exact 3 loser hands. double then jump should show two loer hands. double then new suit shows 4 loser hands. Obviously, few in this board agree with us.

[flytoox]

a. cuebidding followed by clubs

b. double followed by clubs

 

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

I think for a, the only logical explanation is you have slam interest. It is just like in the uncontested auction, whenever we bid 3N and then remove from it, we show slam interest.

 

As for b, I think it should be some kind of 64 two suiters. You are hoping for pd to find one of your suit. Failing to do that you are retreating to your longer suit.

 

 

The more trick question is which sequence implies the opp's suit control. I think cuebid then remove 3N should show the control.

 

However, things may not go as you wish. What if pd didnt bid 3N and he bid 4x then you retreat to 5C. Do you show or deny the control of the opp's suit?

[junyi_zhu]

I used to play that leaping Michaels could be made on a 6-4, but it turns out that its a little bit of an overbid. I played in a swiss match a few years ago where I made the call on a 7-4 (4♣ over 2♠). Pard took a push to 5♥ with 3-3 in ♥/♣ which made, but it was a hair raising spot on the 4-3. The play in 5♣ was no fun at all.

 

I much prefer to follow advice in the article in the BW that said that a leaping michaels call could even be made on a marginal 5-5.

Then it would be very hard for partner to develop over the jump if you play it to show a wide range of hands. I prefer to play 4 m to show about 5 losers hands:

x AKxx xx AKxxxx would be a typical hand. Actually 6-4 is better than 5-5 in play strength I feel. For 5-5, I just cuebid 3S directly to show it. that would allow partner to play 3NT.

[Fluffy]

A question here to the posters.

Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

 

a. cuebidding followed by clubs

b. double followed by clubs

 

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

 

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

 

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand

b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

 

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

 

Thanks! :)

I bid ♣ when I have ♣ (3♠ is not avaible on my system because shows both minors, but may take another look after seeing what is played around the world)

 

These means that double + correcting 4♥ into ♣ is ♥ fit + ♣ control, looking for slam probably with xx in ♠.

[junyi_zhu]

All vulnerable at imps. You hold: 4, 83, AK84, AKQ964. The auction is:

 

W You E Pard

2S* ?

 

*weak 2-bid 6-11

 

 

For consideration: This hand was given to a panel of 6 experts who had about 16 national championships to their credit as well as 2 world championships (Mildred Breed). Their answers:

 

3 chose 3S as a stopper ask.

3 chose 3C

 

All said they would never double under any circumstance. In fact, 4 of the six said they would rather pass than double! For the record, my bid is 3C, a distinct underbid, but I've found that conservative action wins in pressured auctions more than pushing to a minus score.

Yesterday, I asked this hand to my friend, Benedicte Cronier. She told me she would bid 3S which shows both minors and a good hand in her regular partnership. I think this convention is a good one. It's usually very hard to hanle hands like: Sxx HAx DAKJxx CKQJx or Sxxx Hx DAKQxx CAKJx, 3D would be an underbid, double is off shape. And this kind of hands happen way more often than solid minor one suiter + side suit ace. After a careful discussion with my partner, we decided to adopt this method and developed some subsequent structure to share with everybody here.

So over 2S, 3S shows both minors, at least 5-4 or 4-5 and more than 16 HCP or very strong diamond one suiter, with 3 losers. partner's can bid 3NT with a spade stopper or choose what he thinks he can make, like 4C or 4D.

4H would be natural, 4S would show slam interest in either minor suit.

4N would be pick a minor,

5C/D: to play.

 

Over 3NT response, cuebidder can pull to 4 m to show 3 loser hands and better minor suits or bid 4H/S to show shortness and 5-5 two suiter, 3 loser hands. 4NT would be invitational, around 23 HCP, invitational, with 5-4 or 4-5 in minors. 5D would show 3 loser hands with long and strong diamonds.

 

So for this hand, we can just bid 3S and pass a possible 3NT bid by partner. Partner can also bid 5m with a good minor suit.

[han]

A couple of years ago I asked Jim Linhart (US pro player) how to show minor two suiters over 2S. He said that it is standard practice among US experts to play that 4S and 4NT both show both minors, and that 4S shows a much better hand than 4NT (4S would show ~ 2 loser hand). I doubt that there is any consensus among US experts about what these bids mean, but I think this is a good treatment. It seems to me that it is better to use 3S for strong single suiters as Fred suggested, so that you don't have to jump and you can still play in 3NT.

 

I think that Jimmy suggested the use of 4S as a very strong 3-suiter that didn't want to risk a pass by partner over a double. I don't think that this is useful as (1) you have much more room to investigate if you double and (2) the risk of partner passing in front of the 2S bidder is not so large when you have a big hand, and if partner does pass, it may still be right.

[whereagles]

Hum.. that method of Cronier is interesting. Minor-suit oriented hands are a nightmare to bid after a weak two, and in my experience are indeed more frequent than solid 7 carders with stoppers.