[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on 2014-June-29, 08:02, said:

yeah, the hand is not strong enough to jump to 6 yet

lol, ok that one went way over my head, well done.

[PhantomSac]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-29, 15:17, said:

As who would not? This one shows extras - the others don't. To give a concrete example of a "sound values":

♠KT986
♥AJ43
♦J6
♣A4

After 3♣ on the right, Cohen and Schwartz both doubled and passed a 3♦ response. I would continue with 3♠. I am only telling you this because 3♦ went 2 down and 4♠ makes.

ok now you're just being weird

[ahydra]

I'm going to watch this topic with interest - not only for the drama, but also for the discussion on this conversion-of-double approach after pre-empts, which to my mind has quite some merit to it.

ahydra

[PhantomSac]

ahydra, on 2014-June-30, 04:45, said:

I'm going to watch this topic with interest - not only for the drama, but also for the discussion on this conversion-of-double approach after pre-empts, which to my mind has quite some merit to it.

ahydra

I agree, it's a critical topic and has always been in the modern game. Flexibility is really important at high levels and obviously that is where these things have gone, I suspect we still have not come all the way in testing the lower limit. I will definitely double next time I hold this hand (but sorry Phil I need a few more decades before I double and bid 3S on KT98x AJxx Jx Ax haha). If it's good enough for the TeamEngland it's good enough for me

[gszes]

jallerton, on 2014-June-28, 15:31, said:

Thanks for the advice. In future I'll wait until I have 10 tricks in my own hand before I come in on this auction. The doubled undertricks are so much worse vulnerable, how silly of me to focus on the possibility of a vulnerable game, or even to fantasise that partner might choose a more favourable action such as 4♠, 4♦, 3NT, 3♠ or pass over my double. In my dreams partner might be intelligent enough to work out that (3♦)-dbl-3♥-4♣-4♦ is available as choice of games to cater for me holding 3=3=1=6 or 4=2=1=6. Following your recommendation, it could be a couple of years before I do anything other than pass over a 3♦ opening, but at least my partner won't be deceived into thinking that I hold a monster hand.

I did not know if yours or cyberyeti was a better reply to respond to so I chose yours mainly because I like sarcasm. I totally realize that it is not a requirement of my poor passed partner to have anything less than just short of an opening bid. In fact I gave x a solid 20% (I actually feel it is just under 19% but I gave the benefit of the doubt) chance of success. It is not a failure of imagination just merely prudent at these colors to avoid a probable disaster.

If the bidding had gone p p 3d I would have zero problems with taking action here. It is the combination of vulnerability form of scoring a passed partner and a still unlimited lho that makes me feel pass is the strongest candidate for success. Please do not wait until you have ten tricks to bid the world would be a much unhappier place.

I almost forgot Your Welcome:)

[FrancesHinden]

PhantomSac, on 2014-June-30, 05:15, said:

If it's good enough for the TeamEngland it's good enough for me

I may be spoiling gnasher's thread, but the call chosen by the English player at the table in the Europeans was pass.

(I admit they were playing in the women's event, however, which you would have identified already if you'd seen the monster that was considered only enough for a 3D opening)

[Zelandakh]

Does the auction after double not seem to be a perfect spot to be using a black suit inversion? So after (3♦) - X - 3♥, 3♠ would show 4 spades and longer clubs while 4♣ would show a flexible hand with 5+ spades. This way we are keeping 3NT as an option on the hands most likely to want it. It is hard for me to imagine that Ken does not have some system to cover situations like this one. Perhaps inverting any time they preempt in a minor and the advance to our takeout double is 3♥ would work as a general rule.

As an aside, the first method I came up with (as a kid) for double then bid after a preempt was for the first step advance to show a minimum with the other 2 suits regardless of length. That was a long time before I heard phrases like "flexible hand" and indeed the only thing I had learned about double then bid at that time was that it showed a strong hand. Sort of an in-between step from what the books seemed to be saying to what better players were doing.

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-01, 06:45, said:

Does the auction after double not seem to be a perfect spot to be using a black suit inversion? So after (3♦) - X - 3♥, 3♠ would show 4 spades and longer clubs while 4♣ would show a flexible hand with 5+ spades. This way we are keeping 3NT as an option on the hands most likely to want it. It is hard for me to imagine that Ken does not have some system to cover situations like this one. Perhaps inverting any time they preempt in a minor and the advance to our takeout double is 3♥ would work as a general rule.

Theoretical answer: I'm not sure. Whilst your point about 3NT may have something going for it, you are more likely to want to stop in 3♠ if you have 5+ spades than if you have precisely 4.

Practical answer: you must be joking. This sort of 'brilliant' agreement is liable to be forgotten.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-29, 08:38, said:

Just relax, take a deep breath, and come over to the unequal level conversion club.

or diamond

[whereagles]

It is true that dbl + pull x♥ to spades (showing the blacks) is a way out of this.

I seem to remember Robson/Segal bidding like this in one of their examples. They advocate that after preempts dbl + new suit should NOT be 1-suited with extras but a flexible hand. If the "correction" is unequal, it should contain some extra strength.

[phil_20686]

jallerton, on 2014-July-01, 14:48, said:

Theoretical answer: I'm not sure. Whilst your point about 3NT may have something going for it, you are more likely to want to stop in 3♠ if you have 5+ spades than if you have precisely 4.

Practical answer: you must be joking. This sort of 'brilliant' agreement is liable to be forgotten.

This type of agreement shouldnt really exist outside of pro pairs, and even then....

I mean fantoni-nunes forgot whether they were playing transfers after 1h (3c) ? in the final game against ENgland. And that is a much easier thing to remember, and few pairs put as much work into their system as Fantoni-Nunes do.

[phil_20686]

I would have doubled btw. Not sure if I would pull 3H. Defo sit 4h.