[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jul 30 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

As for your partner's views that you need a 5 card major to survive bad splits, I don't think that (in a good field) you have to worry about anyone doubling with KQJx Jx AKxxx xx for example.. that is not an ELC hand as far as I understand the convention... but who would not double with AJxx AJx KJxx xx after a 1♣ opening? In other words, the double does NOT promise 4=4 in the majors, so your 4=4 fit may play well. Furthermore, even when the suit breaks badly, a good declarer, armed with knowledge of the auction, can often cater to the bad break. Finally, bidding is not all about taking control at the first opportunity, so why not describe your hand to partner... why, in particular, allow the opps bidding to distort your methods... requiring a 5 card major changes all kinds of further bidding for your side, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

The only argument I can see here against 1♥ is that a bump in ♦ by 4th seat may complicate your auction..... but it hasn't happened yet and, if it does, you can probably survive... a cue of 3♦ (if possible) followed by 4♣ is one possible route.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Jul 30 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 30 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

Third, chances of poor-breaking majors increases substantially, from 32% to over 50% so there is less reason to bid a 4-card major or to try to find the 4/4 fit, therefore major suit free bids show 5+ length.

However, the increased chances of poor suit breaks is valid only when playing against traditional t.o. doubles - and even then whether it is right to basically ingnore a 4/4 major fit because of increased prospects for poor breaks is dubious logic at best to me.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

As for your partner's views that you need a 5 card major to survive bad splits, I don't think that (in a good field) you have to worry about anyone doubling with KQJx Jx AKxxx xx for example.. that is not an ELC hand as far as I understand the convention... but who would not double with AJxx AJx KJxx xx after a 1♣ opening? In other words, the double does NOT promise 4=4 in the majors, so your 4=4 fit may play well. Furthermore, even when the suit breaks badly, a good declarer, armed with knowledge of the auction, can often cater to the bad break. Finally, bidding is not all about taking control at the first opportunity, so why not describe your hand to partner... why, in particular, allow the opps bidding to distort your methods... requiring a 5 card major changes all kinds of further bidding for your side, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

The only argument I can see here against 1♥ is that a bump in ♦ by 4th seat may complicate your auction..... but it hasn't happened yet and, if it does, you can probably survive... a cue of 3♦ (if possible) followed by 4♣ is one possible route.

Thanks, Mike.

[1eyedjack]

One point of interest to me would be the probability of there being a 4-4 Heart fit and how that probability is affected by the double.

It might be a valid argument for requiring 1H to show a 5 card suit if the double reduces the likelihood of a 4-4 heart fit to so low a figure as to make it not worthwhile investigating the possibility. Note that this is a different argument than the fear of a bad break in the event of a 4-4 heart fit arising.

The near certainty that doubler has at least 3 hearts, and the increased probability (if not close to certainty) that he has 4 of them, must reduce the probability of our side having a 4-4 heart fit and, in the event that there is indeed no heart fit, there are certainly more important features to show than Kxxx in Hearts.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jul 30 2006, 08:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 30 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

May I have your views on my partner's assumptions?  His reasoning, which I agreed to follow, is this:

First, minor raises after t.o. double: 2N should be the weak minor raise.  Second, 3m shoud be limit raise to keep strong hand on lead if 3N is right.

I used to think this way (in terms of the use of 2N/3m), but a very good player once asked me to play that 2N was the limit raise and 3m was the preempt. His explanation was that playing the 2N weak version gives 4th seat too much room. With a borderline hand, 4th seat can pass the 2N, knowing that he will get another chance to bid, since opener will not be passing the weak 2N bid. By using 3m as weak, 4th seat has to make his decision right away, and the doubler cannot tell whether 4th seat is stretching or is full values. When responder has the limit raise, the odds are pretty good that 4th seat lacks the values to even make a slow pass So 2N limit rarely generates that issue.

You do end up 'wrong siding' 3N once in a while, but.... after the takeout double, if you are playing a strong NT style, you will not be going to 3N as often as you might think, and, when you do, often the lead makes no difference.

I still play the 2N weak with more partners than the other way around, but I don't think that there is much difference in overall effectiveness between the two.. indeed, I cannot tell, from my experience at the table, which one is better.

One more point: Having the strong opponent (here: the takeout-doubler) on lead is more often right-siding than wrong-siding.

Arend

[FrancesHinden]

1eyedjack, on Jul 30 2006, 09:17 PM, said:

The near certainty that doubler has at least 3 hearts, and the increased probability (if not close to certainty) that he has 4 of them, must reduce the probability of our side having a 4-4 heart fit and, in the event that there is indeed no heart fit, there are certainly more important features to show than Kxxx in Hearts.

There is nothing like certainty that the doubler has 4 hearts. 4342, 3352, 4333, possibly 4351 are all more or less take-out double shapes. And if partner had opened 1D, the probability that the doubler has 4H descreases sharply (because now 4315 and 3325 and going to be take-out doubels for everyone, not just some).

Incidentally, the chance of a 4-card heart suit on our right decreases as our HCP reduce. Here we have a load of HCP so it's more likely that RHO is a classicial shape with minimum values. Give us a 6-count, and RHO could have all sorts of hands.

Also, just because they break 4-1 is no reason not to play in a 4-4 fit. Playing strong NT, short club I would say 4H is still our most likely game. Give partner some boring weak NT with

Kxx
Axxx
Axx
Qxx

and 4H is the best game by miles as it can probably cope with both 4-1 hearts and 4-1 clubs, which 3NT certainly can't. Obviously I can produce hands with a 4-4 heart fit where 3NT is better, but I wouldn't write it off just because they are more likely not the break: the potential bad club break is a very good reason to look for the heart game.


If partner has promised 4+ clubs I would prefer to make a forcing club raise, if I have one available.

[pclayton]

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life.

[barmar]

cherdano, on Jul 31 2006, 07:19 AM, said:

One more point: Having the strong opponent (here: the takeout-doubler) on lead is more often right-siding than wrong-siding.

Why? Yes, he knows which is his best suit, so there's less of a guess there. But on the other hand there's a good chance that he'll have to lead away from a tenace, blowing a trick there.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jul 31 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life.

I assume the pass is alerted? Because against it I'm switching to play all 2-level jumps by 4th seat are pre-emptive.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2006, 06:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life. 

I assume the pass is alerted? Because against it I'm switching to play all 2-level jumps by 4th seat are pre-emptive.

Yes the pass is alerted as 2-way; either 0-5 or 10+. Jump all you want; there's a good chance the hand belongs to the doubler's side.

Or not.

[SoTired]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2006, 09:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life. 

I assume the pass is alerted? Because against it I'm switching to play all 2-level jumps by 4th seat are pre-emptive.

I believe that is illegal. Conventions designed to specifically destroy the opps conventions are illegal. Especially changing the meaning of the jump bid in the middle of the auction would qualify.

[pclayton]

SoTired, on Jul 31 2006, 07:12 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2006, 09:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life. 

I assume the pass is alerted? Because against it I'm switching to play all 2-level jumps by 4th seat are pre-emptive.

I believe that is illegal. Conventions designed to specifically destroy the opps conventions are illegal. Especially changing the meaning of the jump bid in the middle of the auction would qualify.

What?

Preemptive jump responses in response to TOx's are nothing new.

[awm]

SoTired, on Jul 31 2006, 10:12 AM, said:

I believe that is illegal. Conventions designed to specifically destroy the opps conventions are illegal. Especially changing the meaning of the jump bid in the middle of the auction would qualify.

The phrase "specifically destroy opponents conventions" has traditionally had a very loose interpretation. A call that preempts the opponents is perfectly fine as long as some attempt is made to reach a reasonable sacrifice.

In any case, I don't have to defend a strong artificial 1♣ the same way I defend a natural 1♣. Virtually everyone has at least stylistic differences here. So I don't see why I'd have to defend a pass that "shows values" in the same way as a pass that "shows weakness."

[mikestar]

I voted for 3♦ (splinter). The downside is that it may help them find the diamond fit, but if they are good, they'll do that anyway. I prefer it as it forces to game and allows partner a good evaluation of his cards: he will have an easy choice between 3NT and 5♣ and we might get to 6♣ if he has a perfecto.

I am certainly willing to bid a good 4 card major over a takeout double, but Kxxx doesn't qualify--we are less likely to have a 4-4 fit and more likely to get a bad split if we do have it.

[mikestar]

With regard to methods, I rather like Bill Root's suggestion: Inverted raises are on, 2NT and 3NT are natural but based on support for partner's minor. Strong balanced hands without support redouble.

[keylime]

I'm in other category - fit jump to 3.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 28 2006, 08:06 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (Dbl) - ?

---

What's your call?

Does your call change if 1♣ promised 4+ clubs?

Hmmmmm...

I just pass. I can imagine lots of hands with 9 winners and 4 losers in both NT and hearts (say, xxx Axxx Ax QJTx) if the hearts break 4-1. If the next player bids diamonds, I'll have a bid to say "I'd like to play NT, but I'm scared of diamonds".

The curious thing is, if I have KTxx of hearts, I bid 1♥. If I have K9xx of hearts, I probably bid 1♥. But with K8xx or less, I don't like the odds of two heart losers, when I have an alternate source of tricks in NT.

Anybody else feel the same way?

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Aug 1 2006, 03:34 AM, said:

SoTired, on Jul 31 2006, 07:12 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2006, 09:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 31 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

With my regular partners we play transfers starting with redouble. All strong hands start with a pass. A follow-up of a new suit is forcing. If the bidding proceeds (as expected), 1♠ on my left, pass, pass, I bid a nice forcing 2♣, and hearts later.

This hand is not ideal for our system. If I get bombarded with a preemptive 3♠ call on my left, I will not be loving life. 

I assume the pass is alerted? Because against it I'm switching to play all 2-level jumps by 4th seat are pre-emptive.

I believe that is illegal. Conventions designed to specifically destroy the opps conventions are illegal. Especially changing the meaning of the jump bid in the middle of the auction would qualify.

What?

Preemptive jump responses in response to TOx's are nothing new.

Not to mention that a natural jump shift is not a convention!!!

[reisig]

In MY system? Pass
XX = 9-11 and Pass then X or bid = GF ... simple bids = less than 9

[willow23]

I make it a practice to ALWAYS redouble with 10+ hcp ...if opps continue to persist ...my p knows the minimum strength of our hands and can choose to double opps for penalty...

[Echognome]

Parter's hand was

KQxx
x
AKx
QJxxx

Find 6♣ in the uncontest and then the contested auction.