[mike777]

Lawrence in his Takeout Doubles book (1994) does not have this exact auction.

He does state a jump to the 3 level in a new suit is just like a jump to the two level in that it is invitational. About 9-11 points, may only be a good 4 card suit.

[jdonn]

I think this is a case where it's a bit silly to say anything is 'standard'. All I know is what I have always seen, that it's preemptive any time it has come up for me or my partner, and that anything invitational makes no sense to me since you can always single jump. Although in hindsight I probably agree with the logic that it should promise a six card suit.

To Art, "who are you preempting?", the answer is opener who likely has a very good hand if you are that weak. You think he would rather bid over 1♠ or 3♠?

To Mike, I have never read that book and I will still bet you cold hard cash that you are misinterpreting what he says about a single jump to the 3 level (1♥ X P 3♦) with what he does or doesn't say about a double jump (1♥ X P 3♠). No expert would say the double jump could ever be a four card suit, regardless of what else they think it means.

To Ben, now I guess I know what a random beginner on BBO probably has... like you sort of hint at, the major flaw in analyzing that way is the very weak hands are much less common than hands with moderate strength.

[1eyedjack]

ArtK78, on Dec 18 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

I have never seen a preemptive response to a takeout double. It makes little sense to me. Who are you preempting?

It makes a lot of sense to me, provided that the bid is sufficiently narrowly defined and applied with discipline.

As regards "who are you preempting?" at this stage the answer is unclear. What is clear is that partner will know what to do opposite your bid, if he is strong, more likely than will either opponent who might be considering bidding.

But more to the point, I cannot think of any other more useful application for the bid, especially if playing transfer single jump responses to the double (from cue up).

[cherdano]

I like the jump to 3S to show something like a minimum weak two, but I don't know whether that is preemptive or invitational (I expect partner to raise with 4 trumps and controls).

[inquiry]

The follow up BridgeBrowsere study....

The restrictions.. the auction starts 1H-DBL-Pass-?

The fourth hand has 0 to 7 hcp, and five plus spades. That is it. He could have five spades and 8 hearts, for instance, or 5 spades and 7 diamonds. But lets see what this shows. This condition (the opening bid, the double, the third seat pass, and the advancer having five spades and 7 or few points) occurred on 3618 auctions.

The following bids occurred...
Pass -- 29 times
1S -- 3,031 times
1N -- 3 times
2C -- 2 times
2D -- 5 times
2H -- 2 times
2S -- 353 times
3S -- 55 times (18 times with 5S, 28 times with 6S, 9 times with 7 spades)
4S -- 138 times (24 times with 7+ spades)

How about hcp? At each bid, 7 hcp was the most common holding, and 6hcp was second most common.

For 1S response, 7hcp was just slightly more common than 6 hcp (659 vs 633, or 21.7% versus 20.9%)
For 2S response, the 7 versus 6 frequency was 127 versus 92 (36.0% versus 26.1%)
For 3S response, the 7 versus 6 frequency was 17 versus 14 (30.9 versus 25.5%)
For 4S response, the 7 versus 6 frequency was 54 versus 31 (39.1 versus 22.5%)

For the record,
3S was bid with: 5 cards. 32.7%, and 6 cards 50.9%
2S was bid with: 5 cards, 54.7%, and 6 cards 42.5%
1S was bid with: 5 cards 77.6%, and 6 cards 21.2%

A couple of issues here. It seems clear that those bidding 3S with hands in this category are bidding them as preemptive, but only 55 times did this happen, compared to 3031 bids of 1S. Even if we look at the number of those that bid 1S versus 3S with a six card suit. 1S was bid 643 times with six spades while 3S was bid only 28 times.

I think if you wanted a guestimate of rather "preemptive" is standard for this auction, the answer would be clearly no, it is not. This of course does not address what the "expert" standard might be, of course.

[awm]

I don't think "what is bid on BBO" necessarily matches "what is standard."

For example, I'm sure that it's standard that 1♣ - P - 1♥ - P - 1NT does not include a four-card spade suit. If you read any book on standard bidding it will tell you to bid up the line. But say you run a bridgebrowser survey. You will see:

(1) Some people who have agreed to bypass 1♠ rebids with balanced hands. Fine agreement to have, but not standard.

(2) Some people who bypass 1♠ to rebid notrump because they mistakenly think it's standard.

(3) Some people who bypass 1♠ to rebid notrump because they don't want partner to declare the hand.

(4) Some people tactically bypassing 1♠ because their spades are really bad and/or they are 4333.

(5) Some people who play some artificial method (i.e. 1♣ strong).

It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of people were bypassing 1♠. That doesn't make bypassing standard.

[han]

If most people mistakenly think bypassing spades is standard, does that make it standard?

In other words, who cares?

[inquiry]

Well, I think that with such overwelming numbers from BridgeBrowser, it is safe assume that the various posters who state that 3S on this auction as preemptive is not standard. In fact, i have only seen 3S as preemptive a few times in many years of playing. I don't play it as preemptive myself, but i know that is a choice of many good players. I use the six card suit, about 9 to 11 points myself, but that is because i double with light shapely hands that include only 3 cards in the unbid major. But if I think my hand is good enough to force to game, i do not jump to 3S.

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Dec 19 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

I don't think "what is bid on BBO" necessarily matches "what is standard."

Standards vary locally. And for BBO purposes an entire nation may comprise a locality for this purpose. But if you are looking for a worldwide overall standard I would need some convincing that an analysis of millions of online hands (and you can muck in OKB for this) played by tens of thousands of players online does NOT provide a reasonable measure of that standard.

I certainly would not accept the individual personal experiences of any one player as being significant evidence to the contrary.

It is possible that there are some qualities prevalent in those with a tendency to play on-line contrasted with those with a tendency to play face-2-face that might skew the standard, but that hypothesis would need testing, I think (and I don't know how), before admitting to the melting pot.