[gwnn]

Quote

Don't double on one-suited hands over preemptive openings.

You're under quite enough pressure when the enemy has preempted, without making matters worse by trying to get too cute on one-suited hands. Just bid your suit. Jump if necessary.

Of course the poll options are rather vague, please specify in what way do you feel they were right or wrong.

[ArtK78]

Absolutely correct. Why would you double on a one-suited hand? Do you want your partner to make a marginal pass for penalties because he has no clear action?

[nick_s]

Right now, this advice is consistent with what I do at the table.
But I'm reading the book at the moment, so I'm withholding further judgment.

[whereagles]

If you follow this (in my opinion, good) advice, make sure you agree with pard as to what dbl + suit means

[jdonn]

I agree with the advice as long as it's clear that 'one-suited hand' is not the same as 'strong hand with a long suit', for example AQx x AQxxxx KQx is not a one-suited hand.

[helene_t]

Agree with jdonn.

[pclayton]

I guess it depends what you consider to be 'one-suited'? I can think of plenty 6322 or 6421 hands where I'd want to double.

Generally I overcall though.

[MomoTheDog]

This is not only correct, but it is often the most practical thing to do.

[Free]

Never say never... However, usually it's good advice.

For an example where I would dbl: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22669

[gwnn]

Jlall, on Dec 10 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 10 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

For an example where I would dbl: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22669

Obviously this is not a 1 suited hand for the purposes of this question since it has strong ability to play in many strains.

So, for example, what is

3♦-x-p-3♥
p-4♣?

In the book, they imply it's a hand with 5 or 6 clubs and exactly 4 spades with lots of playing strength.

However, say

AKx AQ xx AKQxxx

is certainly offering nice chances in more than one strain. So we double, and then bid clubs? Or what do we do?

I think their original advice on one-suited hands was aimed at any hand that does not hold 4 cards in more than one suit (except maybe 5332 but there's no clue there).

[FrancesHinden]

Well, I've actually had the auction

3D x P 3H
P 4C P 4S
all pass

and we alighted in our 4-4 fit, the original doubler had a 4216 monster.

So I certainly agree that double-then-bid is not a one-suited hand (if it were, 4S would have been a cuebid for clubs).

But you can still double first on a 3226 powerhouse, planning to pass if partner responds in and then rebids a major. It's just you'll bid 5C over 4S on the above suggested auction.

I think what has become "expert standard" is that you always have a hand with multiple-strain potential. So 3D x P 3H P 3S doesn't show a powerful hand with spades too strong to overcall, it shows extra values and, say, a 5314 distribution.

[mikeh]

I think the key word for sequences starting with double is 'flexibility' (a word known within the BW MSC as the 'f' word, since it is invoked so frequently).

Hands that are true single suiters lack flexibility.

I think that this is a common expert approach, so R-S's book seems still up to date.

BTW, I really commend, to anyone trying to understand current expert thinking, subscription to as many good bridge magazines as possible. Honesty in advertising requires that I confess to only one subscription at the moment: the Bridge World (I don't count the ACBL Bulletin because its target audience is the non-expert). The discussions in the MSC, in particular, are useful even tho the system in use is BW Standard, precisely because BWS is an amalgam of current NA expert treatments and, despite lots of polls, it has a lot of grey areas, where how one thinks affords the answer, rather than what does the system say.

The problems with any textbook include:

1. It may get out of date very quickly

2. The authors may teach their own idiosyncratic choices rather than prevailing expert consensus where a difference exists, and may do so without spelling out that they are doing so.

3. The book may be targeted at a different level of sophistication than that of any individual reader, and the authors may omit matters that they fear would render the book ill-suited for their target audience.

4. The book may be based on a regional view of bidding, incompatible with the consensus in the region in which the reader plays.

Whereas magazines such as BW or the English or French (etc) equivalent will reflect changing expert opinion in the region in which the reader is interested, and will reflect a cross-section of approaches, often with the kind of commentary that helps the reader pick the approach that makes the most sense to the reader.

[benlessard]

I make a distinction between double & bid below game or double & game.

Double & bid show doubt about strain (64,6331 etc). Double and game show half a trick over my bid.

AKQxxxxxx
x
AQx
---

over 3C i will X and bid 4S.

3C-----X------pass-------3D
???----???

3H= 6H+4S
3S=6S+4H

4H=10.5 tricks in H
4S= 10.5 tricks in S

I understand these hands do not happen often but they are imps worthy enough.

The only exception to this rules is after 4m response where my bids is either both ways or ill need to jump to show my 10.5 hands.

3D----X-------pass------4C

4H= 6H+4S
4S= 6S+4H

Quote

Well, I've actually had the auction

3D x P 3H
P 4C P 4S
all pass

and we alighted in our 4-4 fit, the original doubler had a 4216 monster.

So I certainly agree that double-then-bid is not a one-suited hand (if it were, 4S would have been a cuebid for clubs).

But you can still double first on a 3226 powerhouse, planning to pass if partner responds in and then rebids a major. It's just you'll bid 5C over 4S on the above suggested auction.

I think what has become "expert standard" is that you always have a hand with multiple-strain potential. So 3D x P 3H P 3S doesn't show a powerful hand with spades too strong to overcall, it shows extra values and, say, a 5314 distribution.

X followed by 4C=clubs and doubt about strain.
X followed by 4S= Huge hand with S.

[mike777]

hMM many good players here seem to be saying a one suited hand is in fact not one suited.

I am not arguing the best way to bid a one suited hand but a one suited hand is by definition one suited. A six card suit with no side card suit of 4 cards or more.

Of course you may choose to treat/bid a one suited hand as something else(balanced?) as a matter of judgement but it is still a one suited hand by definition.

Here is an extreme example.

234567.......AKQ...AK...AK

[joshs]

mike777, on Dec 10 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

hMM many good players here seem to be saying a one suited hand is in fact not one suited.

I am not arguing the best way to bid a one suited hand but a one suited hand is by definition one suited. A six card suit with no side card suit of 4 cards or more.

Of course you may choose to treat/bid a one suited hand as something else(balanced?) as a matter of judgement but it is still a one suited hand by definition.

Here is an extreme example.

234567.......AKQ...AK...AK

Well that is not what anyone else here means by a 1 suited hand. The definition of a one suit hand for purposes of this discussion is a hand where you know what suit you want to be trumps.

By this token:
AKQJTxxx Axxx - x
is 1 suited (even though you have a side suit)

But
AQxxxx AKx Axx x
is not one suited, in that it might be right to play in a diferent strain...

[mike777]

gwnn, on Dec 9 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

Quote

Don't double on one-suited hands over preemptive openings.

You're under quite enough pressure when the enemy has preempted, without making matters worse by trying to get too cute on one-suited hands. Just bid your suit. Jump if necessary.

Of course the poll options are rather vague, please specify in what way do you feel they were right or wrong.

In the book what definition of one suited is given or none?