[akhare]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 19:53, said:

Aren't you relying on your interpretation of the ensuing bidding? Double is a conventional bid, too, and I'm advocating that double mean something different (stronger) than do you. We'd have to sift through hundreds of deals, bidding them under two sets of meanings for what double shows, play the deals out and then assess whether the more conservative or liberal versions of double were successful. In short, it's not at all doable. I'd much rather ask the experts and if we find that they conflict with what Lawrence suggests or what I've learned to be standard, then I'll be open to revising my thinking.

Let me put this another way.

1) The question was posted to the forum to solicit opinions.
2) Though there haven't been many responses, most people would bid with most hands
3) Your interpretation of one expert's purported opinion seems to suggest passing on many of these hands

If 3) always trumps 2), why post the topic in the first place?

[mtvesuvius]

Good point Atul, and while Mike Lawrence may have some good ideas and defense books, he also does have some abstract (and outdated) bidding theories. I think this is definitely one of them.

[quiddity]

edit: nm, didn't realize you guys were partners! :-)

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-March-09, 20:05, said:

Let me put this another way.

1) The question was posted to the forum to solicit opinions.
2) Though there haven't been many responses, most people would bid with most hands
3) Your interpretation of one expert's purported opinion seems to suggest passing on many of these hands

If 3) always trumps 2), why post the topic in the first place?

Well, you and I are partners and have a disagreement about this hand. Our opinions cancel each other out. I wanted to see if there was a consensus in the forum for one or the other. I see that mtvesuvius agrees with you and it looks like aquahombre probably doesn't and quiddity isn't sure. So no consensus. From there, we've just been arguing the merits. I cited Mike Lawrence and tried to explain his reasoning.

I would honestly like to know what the expert consensus is these days. I didn't mean to offend anyway. We've been debating.

[655321]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 20:34, said:

Well, you and I are partners and have a disagreement about this hand. Our opinions cancel each other out. I wanted to see if there was a consensus in the forum for one or the other. I see that mtvesuvius agrees with you and it looks like aquahombre probably doesn't and quiddity isn't sure. So no consensus. From there, we've just been arguing the merits. I cited Mike Lawrence and tried to explain his reasoning.

I would honestly like to know what the expert consensus is these days. I didn't mean to offend anyway. We've been debating.

WTF is this thread?

Double seems completely obvious to me on all 4 hands.

Straube, if you genuinely want to hear what people think why not post a question and wait for responses? Instead, you have 7 more posts (so far) mostly offering gratuitous lessons (in the A/E forum!). Also, although I could not stomach reading every post, I did get the impression that you have dragged Mike Lawrences name in and claimed him as a supporter, rather than anything Lawrence wrote actually supporting a pass of 3♥ when holding a decent opening hand, support for all other suits, and a singleton in preemptor's suit.

[mtvesuvius]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 20:34, said:

Well, you and I are partners and have a disagreement about this hand. Our opinions cancel each other out. I wanted to see if there was a consensus in the forum for one or the other. I see that mtvesuvius agrees with you and it looks like aquahombre probably doesn't and quiddity isn't sure. So no consensus. From there, we've just been arguing the merits. I cited Mike Lawrence and tried to explain his reasoning.

I would honestly like to know what the expert consensus is these days. I didn't mean to offend anyway. We've been debating.

It seems much more like you're attempting to defend your passing these hands to your partner.

[awm]

I do think passing is right with hand A and maybe with hand B. The stiff heart king is really a poor holding and having only three spades is another negative. If you make the ♥K a small heart then I think passing in direct seat is quite obvious with these two hands, and it seems unlikely that ♥K is helping our cause all that much (unless partner bids 3NT of course).

I don't think partner is going to balance all that often here (if LHO passes, partner has an awful lot of hearts), so I do expect to miss some games. The issue is that I expect bidding to get me to quite a few bad spade contracts (sometimes doubled!) and that my net results may be better by passing than bidding.

With hands C-E you are simply too strong and really have to double.

[gnasher]

Akhare, what criteria did you use for the opening? It's unlikely that anybody will be convinced by a simulation where you don't tell us what your parameters were.

Furthermore, you seem to have given us only ten of partner's hands. Here are the ones you gave us, with your auction and my comments where I disagree:

14. AKJT7532 J3 K4 6   P, 4S
I think partner would bid 5♠, but that's probably OK.

18. AQJT7632 32 4 83   5H, 5S

22. QT762 864 K765 A   P, 3S
That's an obvious 4♠ bid

26. Q765 3 K9 J85432   4H, 5C
Another 4♠ bid (or maybe a responsive double)

30. T62 65 K975 J852   4H, P

34. KQ73 652 94 J865   P, 3S*

38. KQ75 72 K75 A654   P, 4S
I think partner would bid 4♥, so we'd find our way to 5♣.

42. AK6532 A 642 853   P, 4S

46. QT6 A63 KT7 A854   P, 3N

50. KT765 AQ7 K95 52   P, 4S

[akhare]

gnasher, on 2011-March-10, 04:24, said:

Akhare, what criteria did you use for the opening? It's unlikely that anybody will be convinced by a simulation where you don't tell us what your parameters were.
...
Furthermore, you seem to have given us only ten of partner's hands.

Here's my dealer script -- it's pretty vanilla and gives West 5-9 HCPs and 7 hearts. It would be interesting to restrict it further and give West at least A / QJ of hearts, but it really depends on the opps' style.

predeal
north S984, HK, DAQJ8, CKQT97

condition
hcp(west)>=5 && hcp(west) <=9 && spades(west) < 4 && shape(west, x7xx)

I thought I had pasted all hands, but it's a pain -- I should should have used "printcompact" or "printoneline"

[phil_20686]

I would honestly dble 3h with any 5431 12 count in direct seat if partner were unpassed, and I think that is roughly in line with expert practice in the UK.

EDIT: Just to add, I think the strength of dble here should reflect to some degree the quality of the pre-empts. If oppos commonly open at the 3 level on 6 card suits, you cannot afford to pass here with shortage. You are letting them steal. I realise that in the US expert pre-emptor are a lot more conservative as a rule, and it does not surprise me if that results in more conservative dbles. Andy can confirm, but my experience in the UK has been that expert level players will routinely open 6 card suits at the 3 level in first seat. I believe its also very common in Poland, but have no real knowledge of style anywhere else.

[dake50]

Agree mtvesuvius.
With this shape (H-single) all these hands are in T/O X.
Hate H:K-single as ups likely 3H has side stuff and doesn't help develop our suit(s).
1xH-ruff = 3 points.
Now question 3=2=4=4 and same honor location.
Even 3=2=4=4 with HK in another suit.
Which make another move over 3S say?

[straube]

I asked Bergen about the hand. First I asked him about whether he used Thrump doubles in this situation...

I think you probably play thrump doubles after opening 3H preempts. Is that right?

"I advocate Thrump doubles after all 3-level preempts."

And how many points (approximately) would you require for a balanced sort of hand with no heart stopper?

"With 4234, usually 15+ (less is possible w upgradable hand)"

Now say you play standard takeout doubles over this, would you double with 984 K AQJ8 KQT97? All white imps and pard is an UPH.

"I would (unhappily)
Stiff heart is the key.
In addition, because hands where oppon has long suit w weak hands play so great in 3NT,
I regard these auctions as "invitational to our bidding 3NT"

I've been discussing this hand with others and there is a split between those who say "the hand with shortness acts"

"AMEN!!"

and those who say that a direct seat double should show a better hand.

"I would like to have one, but would dbl"

Perhaps you could give me a par hand that is similar to this hand (make it better or worse) for which you would have no strong feeling either way.

"With a stiff heart, I am always going to bust a gut to act"