[FrancesHinden]

The very first argument I got into on BBO forums was over the meaning of a double jump in response to a t/o double....

I'm not going to repeat all of that again, but would make one point. As I'm sure Mike is aware, if you cue bid on a genuine invite, you end up forcing to game without a fit, and inviting with a fit unless you also play some conventional methods as the doubler.

Take this hand:
1D x P 2D
P ?

In normal methods, the doubler would bid 2H here with 4 of them, and 2S with 4 of them and not 4 hearts. So if partner has 4-card support, we can raise to 3H which is not forcing; but if he bids 2S we have to bid 3H to show a genuine heart invite which is forcing ('forcing to suit agreement').

So playing this method you have to modify the rest of standard approach somehow: either a new suit by advancer is non-forcing (but then your true game forces are in trouble), or doubler makes 'paradox' rebids (2H = I don't have a heart suit, I might have spades; 2S = I have hearts, I don't have spades etc).

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 2 2006, 02:11 PM, said:

The very first argument I got into on BBO forums was over the meaning of a double jump in response to a t/o double....

I'm not going to repeat all of that again, but would make one point. As I'm sure Mike is aware, if you cue bid on a genuine invite, you end up forcing to game without a fit, and inviting with a fit unless you also play some conventional methods as the doubler.

Take this hand:
1D x P 2D
P  ?

In normal methods, the doubler would bid 2H here with 4 of them, and 2S with 4 of them and not 4 hearts. So if partner has 4-card support, we can raise to 3H which is not forcing; but if he bids 2S we have to bid 3H to show a genuine heart invite which is forcing ('forcing to suit agreement').

So playing this method you have to modify the rest of standard approach somehow: either a new suit by advancer is non-forcing (but then your true game forces are in trouble), or doubler makes 'paradox' rebids (2H = I don't have a heart suit, I might have spades; 2S = I have hearts, I don't have spades etc).

Isn't that why the 3H bid was the "in between" one in old fashioned standard? To clarify the "real" invite from the problematical one. (Also, the "pre-emptive" type would have been bid by passing and coming in with a balancing bid showing much less strength but more length.)

[mike777]

The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles. Michael Lawrence 1994
1) jump to 2h can be only 4H and a good 8-11 points over one of a minor.
2) a cue bid is often forcing to game but may only be an invite. A rebid of a new suit or nt is forcing to game, a raise of partner's suit is an invite.
3) over a takeout of 1s, then 3h would show a good 9-11. Can be only 4 card suit.
4) interestingly I cannot find an example of what a jump to 4h or 3h over takeout of a minor is. .

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 2 2006, 02:11 PM, said:

As I'm sure Mike is aware, if you cue bid on a genuine invite, you end up forcing to game without a fit, and inviting with a fit unless you also play some conventional methods as the doubler.

I agree wholeheartedly (no pun intended): this is a glaring weakness in the cue forces to suit agreement approach. Nevertheless this is the approach espoused (I believe) by the Bridge World, as part of its consensus 'expert' system known as Bridge World Standard.

While this has been a niggling worry since I first adopted the method, funnily enough, it has never caused a problem. Maybe that is because I am too conservative in my hand evaluations

As it is, the problem hands would seem exactly right for this to be an problem: a minimum double with inadequate ♥ support and an aggressive upgrade by South to cue: and look what happens: the NS hands end up in a decent game more or less (as I originally posted) by accident.

If this tells us anything, it seems to be that the S hand is actually worth a game force opposite most classic takeout doubles: consider N with a textbook Axxx KJxx x Axxx: so long as he has the ♠10, this is a good game. So maybe I really am underbidding the S hand!

[mike777]

I stick by my originial "in-and-out" evaluation that the North hand is worth a raise. I make the same evalution and conclusion in MikeH typical takeout x example post.

[HeartA]

2H: 8-11 point (including distributional), 4-5 [HI]s
3H: 3-6 hcp, 7 (or decent 6) [HI]s
2D: both majors of invitational strength or game forcing value.

Why would one bid 4H? what if pd has a dbl-and bid hand, with short ♥s?

[benlessard]

passing with north is automatic.


playing standard methods ill bid 3h with south hand. But pass isnt terrible.


Those who think north could raise must be doubling very very light.


Bidding 2d with invitationnals values is a superior method IMHO.

[Fluffy]

I blame south for hiding his 5th ♥, it is a clear 3♥ response to the t/o double.

[mike777]

hmm wish you guys and gals would cite your sources for your "3h is standard/clear bid"

Lawrence says 2h=4-5 hearts and good 8-11 pts. Does not say what 3h's would mean.


Bridge Encyclopedia says 2h is 9-11 with 4-5 hearts and 3h or 4h is"natural and limited" based on 6+hearts. "Responder expects to make his contract if doubler has a minimum."

We can debate what standard means but let's at least cite some generally accepted sources if we are going to call something "standard".

[joshs]

1m-Dbl-
3M and 4M are some of the most frequently misused bids in the world. They are suppossed to be based on a 6 card suit and playing strength. They are frequently made on 5-5 hands instead which works fine, as long as partner did not have a x then bid a new suit sort of hand. But can be disasters if the xer had the strong hand.

If you hold KQx Ax xx AKQxxx and the auction goes
1D-x(you)-P-4H

You are suppossed to pass. This works fine when partner has xxxx KQJxxx Qxx - (A typical 4H bid).
This does not work so well when partner has x KQxxx Ax xxxxx when you missed your slam
or
Ax QJxxx x xxxxx
when 4H might well go down while 5C is gin and 6C is on a hook.

Since there is space available to explore the correct strain over 3M, the 3M bid really should be allowed to include the lightest of the 5-5 hands in addition to 6 card suits (e.g. the Ax QJxxx x xxxxx hand) while the stronger 5-5 hand should start with a Q-bid. The jump all the way to 4 bid has to be the most specific hand type, since it used up all that space. That bid has to be reserved for a, at least decent, 6 card suit.

At least thats my opinion....

[FrancesHinden]

You are tackling the wrong side of the auction. If you want to decide how a jump to 3M and 4M should be played, you have to decide on your take-out double style first.

I would overcall 2C over 1D holding KQx Ax xx AKQxxx.
I'm not going to try and convince you that is correct (and don't try and convince me I'm wrong), but the lower limit for a "strength" double affects how advancer should bid, and to what extent advancer can assume a fit for his/her suit.

[mike777]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

You are tackling the wrong side of the auction. If you want to decide how a jump to 3M and 4M should be played, you have to decide on your take-out double style first.

I would overcall 2C over 1D holding KQx Ax xx AKQxxx.
I'm not going to try and convince you that is correct (and don't try and convince me I'm wrong), but the lower limit for a "strength" double affects how advancer should bid, and to what extent advancer can assume a fit for his/her suit.

With that in mind it was interesting to watch Jeff Meckstroth overcall 2D in second seat with something like: xxx...xx..AKxxxx...xx after RHO opened a major last night in a TG.

[luke warm]

you should have seen his 3C opening

[joshs]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

You are tackling the wrong side of the auction. If you want to decide how a jump to 3M and 4M should be played, you have to decide on your take-out double style first.

I would overcall 2C over 1D holding KQx Ax xx AKQxxx.
I'm not going to try and convince you that is correct (and don't try and convince me I'm wrong), but the lower limit for a "strength" double affects how advancer should bid, and to what extent advancer can assume a fit for his/her suit.

Yeah I am just talking about how things are usually done. I am with kokish on virtually unlimited overcalls, and very sound 2m overcalls...

[Codo]

Hi Mike,

of course it is debatable, what is standard.
But there are quite well defined "standard" meanings of the responses to a double in FES or Forum D here and they arevery different from your view.

So for French and Germans, this question is nearly a no-brainer, as it is a clear 3 ♥ bid.

[Codo]

Hi Josh,

usually is something like standard, so maybe things are usual where you life, but not very usual here.

I am with you, that I would double with neary all 19 HCPs hand- this is the standard agreement in FES f.e. So, your hand KQx Ax xx AKQxxx is a simple overcall.

[Fluffy]

mike777, on Mar 5 2006, 12:46 AM, said:

hmm wish you guys and gals would cite your sources for your "3h is standard/clear bid"

Lawrence says 2h=4-5 hearts and good 8-11 pts. Does not say what 3h's would mean.


Bridge Encyclopedia says 2h is 9-11 with 4-5 hearts and 3h or 4h is"natural and limited" based on 6+hearts. "Responder expects to make his contract if doubler has a minimum."

We can debate what standard means but let's at least cite some generally accepted sources if we are going to call something "standard".

My source is Federico Goded (world master since 1993 I think, and author of several bridge books, sadly all of them in spannish) who happens to be my father . His system has been influenced a lot by french standard, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way they all play in France.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on Mar 6 2006, 08:37 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 5 2006, 12:46 AM, said:

hmm wish you guys and gals would cite your sources for your "3h is standard/clear bid"

Lawrence says 2h=4-5 hearts and good 8-11 pts. Does not say what 3h's would mean.


Bridge Encyclopedia says 2h is 9-11 with 4-5 hearts and 3h or 4h is"natural and limited" based on 6+hearts. "Responder expects to make his contract if doubler has a minimum."

We can debate what standard means but let's at least cite some generally accepted sources if we are going to call something "standard".

My source is Federico Goded (world master since 1993 I think, and author of several bridge books, sadly all of them in spannish) who happens to be my father . His system has been influenced a lot by french standard, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way they all play in France.

That sounds like a great source, thanks!

[jdeegan]

Bidding looks OK to me. Four ♥ is a fairly decent contract, but far from a sure thing. You have as potential losers one spade, one diamond and two (possibly three) hearts.