Are 3 enough? Are 5 too many?

[uva72uva72]

My link

 

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

 

So the robot will freely introduce 3 card suits at the 3 level, but when partner makes a take-out double virtually guaranteeing an 8+ card ♠ fit, North uses a responsive double instead of making the clearly-called-for jump to 4♠. This is a very non-standard and, in my opinion, non-productive implementation of the responsive double. Every reference I have been able to find to responsive doubles states that the responsive double in this position denies 4 ♠s, since North would simply bid them if he/she had them. Those same references show examples hands of responsive doubles in this type of auction that would closely resemble North's hand if the ♣s and ♠ were reversed.

[georgi]

And if 2♥ Doubler person has one suiter 17+HCP ?

 

What he should do over 4♠. Calm pass? Is new suit ( say 5♣, now cuebid slam-try or natural explanatory hand call ). A slam could be still at the table with singleton ♥A. 4♠ would very likely be passed out.

 

Apparently responsive double wasn't supposed to be final contract and with lack of common call 4♥ could follow with balanced hand and 4♠ would be still reached.

[uva72uva72]

I believe that the approach you're describing complicates what should be a straightforward (and commonly-occuring) auction out of concern for a situation that is much less common and can be easily handled in other ways. Because the auction started with a weak 2 bid, South (at least in standard American practice) has available a whole range of bids to show good to very good hands, including a strong jump overcall to show the big single-suiter lacking ♠ support. It should not be necessary to double with the hand you seem concerned about. And when North makes a responsive double with 5 ♠s and South bids 4♣ as many did here, how does North know whether that's the strong 1-suiter in ♣ or a hand that was just expecting North to have 4+ ♣s for its responsive double, as is standard practice? Or does South bid 5♣ with that hand?

 

When playing with an unfamiliar partner (the definition of an individual) straight-forward bidding is best in my opinion. A responsive double with 5 ♠s when partner doubled 2♥ for take-out is not straight-forward and, in my opinion, invites partner to make a mistake.

[Bbradley62]

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

When playing with an unfamiliar partner (the definition of an individual) straight-forward bidding is best in my opinion...

Without at all intending to comment on the responsive double made above...

 

You are grossly misusing the term "Individual". Yes, BBO lists Robot Duplicates as "Individuals" to indicate that you register as a single player, not as a pair. BBO could perfectly well list these as pairs events, and require you to check the "my partner is a robot" box when you register.

 

In a true Individual, you get a new partner every few boards (or sometimes even every board) and you often know little or nothing about anyone at the table. In those events, there is no time to make detailed agreements, so then it is true that "straight-forward bidding is best". In Robot Duplicates, your partner is known to be a Robot, and you are expected to have a reasonable understanding of your partnership agreements.

[uva72uva72]

Okay, I'll accept your criticism that I'm grossly misusing the term "individual." However, when I play with a human, even one that I've never played with before, I can say "please don't introduce 3 card suits at high levels" and "please lead your Aces when you are defending 7NT" and "please don't make responsive doubles with 5 cards in the unbid major," and we can come to some kind of agreement. Actually, playing with every bridge player I've ever encountered I wouldn't have to say anything because none of these would be an issue. So, please change my post to say "when playing with a partner with whom I can't have a conversation, straight-forward bidding is best in my opinion."

[Bbradley62]

Georgi: What are the requirements for North to bid 3♠ over 3♥?

[1eyedjack]

I think that it is interesting to note that while there is a sound case for weak jump overcalls over a 1-suit opener, there is no such case over a weak 2 opener. Probably, therefore, a strong single-suiter should be excluded from the initial double of a weak-2 (but not over a 1-suit opener).

 

I may be wrong if stuff like leaping Michaels were in play, but I am sure it is not (and do not recommend that GIB adopt it).

 

 

 

[georgi]

Georgi: What are the requirements for North to bid 3♠ over 3♥?

 

4+♠, 10-13TP.

 

Here it looks like both calls could be used.

 

Priority ( and respectively book ) bid leans toward Double as long it covers responsive double as well.

[Stephen Tu]

I think double should definitely deny 5+ spades. With 4 exactly, I think it's OK to double but there's differences of opinion here.

 

3♠ IMO should not be 10-13 TP, should be weaker range IMO. Maybe 9-11 TP?

[iandayre]

Respectfulness aside, I think you are 100% wrong Georgi. There is an excellent case, already presented in this thread, that the responsive double deny FOUR spades. Using that double with a FIVE card Spade holding is flat out incorrect. I would love to see this "book" that says otherwise.

\

[Bbradley62]

I'm sure there are many sources that could be quoted, but I'll start with one:

http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=28

... this "responsive" double shows "cards" but no convenient bid... Generally, a responsive doubler won't hold 4 cards in the (lone) unbid major. With the missing major, it is usually best to simply bid the suit.