[lowerline]

Playing Precision, what do you bid with

♠AKQx
♥Q
♦AKQxx
♣QTx

after
1♣ - (p) - 1♦ - (2♠)
?

If you double for takeout, what do you do over 4♥?

What is the general principle here? Do you need 2NT as an artificial Lebensohl-like tool to distinguish minimal strong club hands from the very strong ones? Or is there another way?


Steven

[the hog]

You don't state the vul, but rightly or wrongly I am passing this hand and hope beyond hope that pd can make a t/o double. One thing I am not doing is doubling 2S!

[gordontd]

lowerline, on Mar 17 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

If you double for takeout, what do you do over 4♥?

If double is for takeout, I don't think you should be doubling.

Pass seems the solution.

[Free]

gordontd, on Mar 17 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

lowerline, on Mar 17 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

If you double for takeout, what do you do over 4♥?

If double is for takeout, I don't think you should be doubling.

Pass seems the solution.

Agree. I'd just pass and hope partner can double.

[gwnn]

what's 2NT in your system?

doubling for takeout with AKQx in their suit is something I would only do on the 6 level (or maybe MAYBE with a very very strong balanced hand?)

[DJNeill]

Hi,
Just play as if they opened 2S. That's what you do after 1C-(P)-1D-(any) - pretend they opened and act accordingly.

Of course jumpshifts aren't weak so you can use those for better than minimum.
And 2N by opener would be something stronger than minimum (minimum can pass).

Thanks,
Dan

[akhare]

Ron / Free,

This is tangential to the question, but what is the (modern) Moscito approach to the problem in such situations?

For instance, is 1♣ - 1♠ (double negative) - (2♠) handled any differently from standard Precision?

Similarly, after 1♣ - 1♥ (semi-positive, mostly bal) - (2♠), does P by opener set up a forcing pass?

[jjbrr]

Ya, making a takeout double with AKQx in their suit and Q in the other major can't be right. I'd bid 2NT if that showed 22-23 or pass if it showed something else.

[Crunch3nt]

A good case for playing pass forcing here. Partner will reopen with a double if short. Immediate double by opener insane. If pass is not forcing, then pass is very risky. 3NT seems a more practical shot.

[the hog]

akhare, on Mar 17 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Ron / Free,

This is tangential to the question, but what is the (modern) Moscito approach to the problem in such situations?

For instance, is 1♣ - 1♠ (double negative) - (2♠) handled any differently from standard Precision?

Similarly, after 1♣ - 1♥ (semi-positive, mostly bal) - (2♠), does P by opener set up a forcing pass?

Its been so long since I played this Atul, and there are som many variations now that I really couldn't comment.

[dake50]

Forcing pass on 2-level (enough to safe a partial), 4+level (enough to likely set), best guess at 3-level. Here pass, knowing partner calls something. Double as "don't know what to suggest" would be great.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

akhare, on Mar 17 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Ron / Free,

This is tangential to the question, but what is the (modern) Moscito approach to the problem in such situations?

For instance, is 1♣ - 1♠ (double negative) - (2♠) handled any differently from standard Precision?

Similarly, after 1♣ - 1♥ (semi-positive, mostly bal) - (2♠), does P by opener set up a forcing pass?

Its been so long since I played this Atul, and there are som many variations now that I really couldn't comment.

Same here actually.

I remember we had some agreement in certain situations, and I think this situation is one of them. The rule was: "opener subtracts 7HCP, responder adds 7HCP, and bid normal". So if opener had 23HCP opposite the double negative with 3HCP, opener would consider his hand 16HCP strong and bid accordingly. On that, responder would consider his hand worth 10HCP and bid accordingly. This works remarkably well!

[lowerline]

Pass by opener is not forcing, is it? I would expect it to show a minimum balanced hand (16-18/19 in this case). A 2NT rebid would then show some 19-21hcp I guess...

If opener passes, how much should responder have to reopen?

Responders hand was:
♠x
♥KJxxx
♦Jxxx
♣xxx

I guess it is ok to double with this? But what if you replace the J's with x's?

Steven

[straube]

Free, on Mar 18 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

akhare, on Mar 17 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Ron / Free,

This is tangential to the question, but what is the (modern) Moscito approach to the problem in such situations?

For instance, is 1♣ - 1♠ (double negative) - (2♠) handled any differently from standard Precision?

Similarly, after 1♣ - 1♥ (semi-positive, mostly bal) - (2♠), does P by opener set up a forcing pass?

Its been so long since I played this Atul, and there are som many variations now that I really couldn't comment.

Same here actually.

I remember we had some agreement in certain situations, and I think this situation is one of them. The rule was: "opener subtracts 7HCP, responder adds 7HCP, and bid normal". So if opener had 23HCP opposite the double negative with 3HCP, opener would consider his hand 16HCP strong and bid accordingly. On that, responder would consider his hand worth 10HCP and bid accordingly. This works remarkably well!

That's an interesting idea. Opener's hand has a much wider range though than responder. I think after 1C-1S (2S) that I'd want 2N to show 22-23 (which is close to your rule). After 1C-1S (2S) P P I think I'd want him to play me for 18 points or so and act accordingly. I.e. bid something if he thinks we're more likely than not to make something. The other thing to consider is shortness in the enemy suit. There's the rule "the hand with shortness has to act" which isn't meant to be taken quite literally but is a pretty good thing to keep in mind. The hand x KJxxx Jxxx xxx clearly has to act and so too x Qxxxx xxxx xxx. With xxx Kxxx xx xxxx I'd pass and I'd probably regretfully pass xx Kxxx xx xxxxx because it's hard to describe.

[akhare]

straube, on Mar 18 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

With xxx Kxxx xx xxxx I'd pass and I'd probably regretfully pass xx Kxxx xx xxxxx because it's hard to describe.

Yes, and since ELC is practically free here, one can even balance with the following hand, correcting, 3♣ to 3♦:

xx Kxxx xxxxx xx

Also, direct bids at the 3 level can just show single suiters and 2N can probably be used for very two suited hand (excluding their suit). Opener bids the cheapest suit he can tolerate with responder expected to p/c...

[straube]

dake50, on Mar 17 2010, 11:12 PM, said:

Forcing pass on 2-level (enough to safe a partial), 4+level (enough to likely set), best guess at 3-level. Here pass, knowing partner calls something. Double as "don't know what to suggest" would be great.

I was thinking pass at all levels should be forcing. If one plays that 1C usually shows 16 and a semipositive usually shows 5, then we ought to cater to hands that have a clear point majority (say 23) than those that have 21-22.

I'd like to see a good explanation of pass/double inversion. I tried to find it in "I love this Game" but didn't see it.

[Apollo81]

2NT, showing 22-23 balanced. You have a bit much to pass IMO.

[straube]

akhare, on Mar 18 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

straube, on Mar 18 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

With xxx Kxxx xx xxxx I'd pass and I'd probably regretfully pass xx Kxxx xx xxxxx because it's hard to describe.

Yes, and since ELC is practically free here, one can even balance with the following hand, correcting, 3♣ to 3♦:

xx Kxxx xxxxx xx

Also, direct bids at the 3 level can just show single suiters and 2N can probably be used for very two suited hand (excluding their suit). Opener bids the cheapest suit he can tolerate with responder expected to p/c...

Sounds right.

What would 1C (P) 1S (2S) dbl (P) 2N show?

Would it be scrambling or would it be Lebensohl or something else? I'd guess scrambling.