[aguahombre]

I wonder how that monster database would shake out on the success of two-suited bids (known, partially known, or unknown (CRASH, etc.) where the suits were always 5+5+ --- treating 5-4 as one-suit and 4M-5m as no bid.

This seems to give advancer better information to make better advances, while breaking the hearts of players to hate to use the green card.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-14, 21:23, said:

The problem here is that you play a method designed to maximise the number of hand types you can interfere with over a strong no trump. This extra strain creates ambiguity as to the relative suit length, and that is what hurt you here.

If partner knew you had a fifth trump (as they would if you were playing Multi Landy, for instance) then you would no doubt have sailed into a thin game.

Anyway, I think I have mentioned before that I think this is a bad defensive structure regardless of who invented it. If you are still playing double as majors, minors or diamonds, I think you should reevaluate. How useful do you thing the second and third hand types are in a partscore battle? I have just about completed a monster file of every competitive hand in my database where it started 1NT-X, separated out into those where double was penalties and those where it is conventional, and the successes for the minor suit hands can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

I think that double as three-way is basically Meckwell, with a Bridge World suggested change. I have never been that happy with it, and play Multi-Landy over a weak NT. Your advice to re-evaluate is welcomed, but I recall that Gold-Cope at Brighton played double of even a weak NT as artificial and we avoided a penalty against them. They are not a regular partnership I know, and I did not have a chance to ask them of the merits of their methods. Does your database indicated the best use of double against different NT ranges?

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-October-15, 03:51, said:

I think that double as three-way is basically Meckwell, with a Bridge World suggested change. I have never been that happy with it, and play Multi-Landy over a weak NT. Your advice to re-evaluate is welcomed, but I recall that Gold-Cope at Brighton played double of even a weak NT as artificial and we avoided a penalty against them. They are not a regular partnership I know, and I did not have a chance to ask them of the merits of their methods. Does your database indicated the best use of double against different NT ranges?

I don't really know yet. It doesn't really work that way, but I will have a somewhat subjective answer backed up with a few well-chosen hands fairly soon.

We had a similar escape against Allfrey/Robson when we were playing a mini NT in the Camrose. I just don't get it, although there have to be some plus hands as well.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-14, 21:43, said:

I wonder how that monster database would shake out on the success of two-suited bids (known, partially known, or unknown (CRASH, etc.) where the suits were always 5+5+ --- treating 5-4 as one-suit and 4M-5m as no bid.

This seems to give advancer better information to make better advances, while breaking the hearts of players to hate to use the green card.

Of course you will have more success when you do break out your 5+5+ bid. The question is how much you lose when you pass.

[mcphee]

A pass is what I would make, if partner thinks I could be less than 5/5 unlucky. After seeing the hand that responded 2H I think that is cleary not looking at the hand they have. I would bid 4H rather than 2, although I would prefer to have some way of being on play in the major as responder,in game. We are playing imps, not pairs.