[whereagles]

mcphee, on Nov 30 2006, 01:45 PM, said:

I'm a bit surprised many do not consider the 3D bid to show extras. Does it make sense to bid with a minimum hand at the 3 level with out knowledge of a fit? The idea that once you have made a t/o you have shown this type of hand is completely normal. The more you bid the more you have is also a simple concept.

Well, there are 2 arguments for 3♦ to be competitive:

1. There are many alternatives for doubler to show a strong hand, so 3♦ as merely competitive does not hamper bidding with strong hands. Besides, strong hands are rare.

2. There is a real need to compete to the 3 level, and doubler is arguably better positioned than pard to make that decision because doubler is the stronger hand.

People say "doubler has told his story, thus he should leave further decisions to pard". To this I say: so what? Advancer has told his story as well! Furthermore, advancer's 1NT bid is far more precise than doubler's dbl. If a player here has something extra to say, that player is the DOUBLER.

[mila85]

It seems obvious to me that 3♦ shows extras if I don't have other agreement. But I see other questions:

- What's 2nt here?
Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer double over 2nt.
Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it without a good agreement.
Scramble? Why I didn't double again?
Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.
How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

- If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if you play ELC?

- If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

Sorry, my english is not perfect

[whereagles]

mila85, on Nov 30 2006, 04:07 PM, said:

I see other questions:

- What's 2nt here?
Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer double over 2nt.
Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it without a good agreement.
Scramble? Why I didn't double again?
Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.
How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

- If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if you play ELC?

- If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

Sorry, my english is not perfect

Mila:

> - What's 2nt here?
> Is it invitational? I don't think so. Because in my style double is takeout but with
> partner's possible (and probable) pass in mind. I think would always prefer
> double over 2nt.

It can be played as invitational, in the same way it would be had RHO not bid 2♥. Dbl (instead of 2NT) should be for penalties because your original double asked pard to pick a suit, but he didn't: he bid NT. It doesn't make sense to ask pard for a suit again when he already said he didn't have one!


> Is it good/bad? Looks like a good position for playing it. But I will never use it
> without a good agreement.

It is one good way to tell a forcing from a NF raise to 3♦, but you lose the invitational meaning of 2NT, something you might not want to.


> Scramble? Why I didn't double again?

That's the least necessary of meanings for 2NT.


> Or competitive? Can be the best place to play but in my system 1nt doesn't
> show full stopper. xxxx or Jxx is enough.

To make 2NT you need 23-24 hcp. But, as I said before, with 23-24 hcp and a misfit you don't compete: you double for penalties.


> How do you understand to 2nt with pick up advanced partner?

Natural, around 15-16 hcp.



> - If I play ELC I can have hand with 6 or even 7 ♦ and no extras. Five isn't
> probably enough but I want to cempete with 6. Do you have an agreement if
> you play ELC?

There's a case to play 3♦ even without playing ELC.. but, playing ELC, 3♦ certainly is better used as competitive.


> - If I pass, is double from 1nt bidder takeout or penalty?

Penalty. Take-out dbls are made to find a fit, and advancer already said there probably isn't one.

[kenberg]

More disagreement.

After 2H, what is double (by the original doubler)? Above it says penalty. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "penalty" but I don't think it can show a good heart holding: This is unlikely given the original double, and it becomes more unlikely, basically impossible, after the partner of the doubler has bid nt and there has been a 2H rebid. How many hearts does this deck have? It seems to me it shows a hand with more values than have been shown so far, but if the partner of the doubler wants to play for penalties he should not expect to find heart tricks in doubler's hand.

As to the 3D bid, it's hard to say much that hasn't been said, except: Maybe Patsy could show us the hand and then if, as I expect, 3D is a good contract then everyone can explain how to reach it after a pass by the doubler. Of course if it's a lousy contract then no explanation of how to reach it needs to be given. Of course one hand doesn't prove anything,as we all know, but there have been constructed hands offered in support of various arguments so we may as well look at the real thing.

Well, one more comment: Assume for the moment doubler could say "3D and don't you dare bid, partner" I think I would like to know the scoring. Non-vul at mps, I would do it. Vul at imps I would not. In between I would think about it. With pard showing 8-11 as per their style, it would be tempting. The Law of Total Tricks has undergone significant transformation from its original formulation some 30 years ago, but I have never before heard even its strongest advocates quote it as saying you should never go to the three level unless you are certain you have nine trumps. Eight would be nice though, and I agree you may not have them.

[whereagles]

kenberg, on Nov 30 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

1. After 2H, what is double (by the original doubler)? Above it says penalty. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "penalty" but I don't think it can show a good heart holding:

2. (about LOTT) I have never before heard even its strongest advocates quote it as saying you should never go to the three level unless you are certain you have nine trumps. Eight would be nice though, and I agree you may not have them.

1. Well, penalty doesn't mean you have KQJT of trumps, but sure have points

2. Actually, the law says you should force opps out of their LOTT level, and in this case there's a high chance opps do have 8 hearts combined, so some "action" to drive them to the 3 level is warranted.

The LOTT does, however, also say that you should not compete to the 3 level if that would take you above your safety level. Meaning: opps should not try 3♥ over 3♦, but rather to dbl you. Of course, this is only if they think they have the most hcp, which in this case I don't think they can know.

[mikeh]

Rested from my trip to Hawaii, I will jump into the fray.

I agree (almost entirely) with Roland.

3♦ has to be played as forcing: bridge logic requires that treatment. It need not, in my view, promise quite as much as it would had advancer shown no cards, but it has to be forcing.

The arguments against that treatment are weak. One cannot simply use either a cue bid or 3N as the strong bids for reasons that ought to be too obvious to need stating, but which, for some, appear elusive.

A cue bid renders it impossible for doubler to show his suit and offer advancer the chance to play in 3N if he has the wrong hand for a high-level adventure.

3N ends all auctions.

For those who claim that looking for a minor suit game over 1N is wrong, I can assure you that it is not. In Hawaii, we had a minor suit slam in a similar auction.

And, as Roland has observed, a pass allows advancer to keep the bidding alive. Now, admittedly, he will not often hold the appropriate hand to do so, but sometimes that is okay, since maybe defending is either the last plus or the smallest minus: advancer hardly promises primary support for any suit bid by doubler... and the willingness of opener to bid 2♥ in the face of a weak partner who has promised no support suggests that whichever minor one lands in may break badly. Finally, it is NO CRIME to sometimes allow the opps to steal the occasional partscore.

We don't have to like it, but preserving the integrity of our overall method, if the method is coherent, is more important than trying to win every single board..... and it is foolish to think, in any event, that bidding a competitive 3♦ on a poor suit with a minimum 4=1=5=3 will always or even usually win the board.

[whereagles]

This is funny, mikeh.. first you try and talk yourself out of 3♦ as NF, and then, in the last 2 paragraphs, you actually present a bunch of arguments FOR 3♦ to be NF!

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Nov 30 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

This is funny, mikeh.. first you try and talk yourself out of 3♦ as NF, and then, in the last 2 paragraphs, you actually present a bunch of arguments FOR 3♦ to be NF!

re-read my post: I do not have to talk myself out of anything: 3♦ as non-foricing makes no sense to me at all. And if you think that anything I wrote was a justification for playing it non-forcing, then you did not understand me.

There are often times in auctions in which we would like to be able to make a certain bid if only it showed the hand we held. Thus there will be hands on which we'd like to be able to bid 3♦ as non-forcing and we would not like having to pass. Yet, a good player will pass because a good player stays within his partnership's methods in constructive situations. A bad player yields to the temptation, either at the table or in this forum.

Having said that, there are many occasions when players step out... some of the world's best players do so... but there are situations in which one can and perhaps should and situations when one shouldn't. This is one of the latter, not the former.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Dec 1 2006, 01:03 AM, said:

1. if you think that anything I wrote was a justification for playing it non-forcing, then you did not understand me.

2. a good player will pass because a good player stays within his partnership's methods in constructive situations.

3. A bad player yields to the temptation, either at the table or in this forum.

1. Of course you didn't mean those 2 paragraphs as justifications for a NF 3♦. I didn't misunderstand you. Just that somehow those lines seem to reflect a desire (be it conscious or subconscious) to be able to bid a NF 3♦. At least that's how I felt when I read it. But ok, maybe this was caused by my bias.

2. Sure they do. I would surely pass if I had either no agreement or an explicit agreement that 3♦ would be forcing. The point is that a competitive 3♦ here seems to me more effective than a forcing 3♦.

3. That's a non-issue. A bad player won't even know whether he's playing it forcing or not.. lol.

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Nov 30 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

People say "doubler has told his story, thus he should leave further decisions to pard". To this I say: so what? Advancer has told his story as well! Furthermore, advancer's 1NT bid is far more precise than doubler's dbl. If a player here has something extra to say, that player is the DOUBLER.

The assumption you make here is part the root of this debate. Some seem to assume (but I might misunderstand this) that 1NT is less descriptive than dbl so the 1NT-bidder is better positioned to make the decision. It's hard to compare, I think. Doubler is more likely than responder to hold a five-card minor, but he also has less assurance of a fit for his minor. I think. We could have slightly different styles with respect to requirements for dbl and for the 1NT-response but hardly big differences. These issues are not very controversial anymore (some 40 years ago you saw top players making doubles with all kind of crazy hands).

Then there are strategic considerations. Personally, I'm very much under influence by Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen: O/D ratio, not general strength, is what you need to evaluate in order to make competitive decisions. In this auction, we will typically have a 5- or 6-"fit" in hearts. The LOTT says that we should let them play 2♥ if we have 6 but take out if we have 5. It's quite obvious to me that responder must take out with 3 and doubler must take out with a void. The question is who should take out when we have a 4-1-"fit". If responder is maximal he can double, then doubler can take out. But if responder is minimal he must pass, catering for a minimum and 2 hearts by doubler. (This is a gross simplification of course. Please take trump count as an abstract measure of O/D ratio, not necesarilly literal trump count. Case in point: the actual hand may suggest competing on the basis on literal trump count but I would certainly pass with such a low purity, even at love-all MP).

Then there's the usual confusion about what this whole thread is about:
- What to aim for with the actual hand opposite a standard 1NT reponse?
- What to aim for with the actual hand opposite the stated 8-11 1NT reponse?
- Does 3♦ promise extras in standard (non-ELC) methods? Of course it does, nobody disputes this.
- Is 3♦ forcing or just invitational in standard (non-ELC) methods?
- What is "standard" if you play ELC?
- What would you like to play in a perfect World, not restricted by standards or your own memory capacity?
- What would you like to play in a less perfect World, were you can afford only a few, simple modifications of standard methods?

[the hog]

Quote Walddk:
"However, let's assume that you treat the hand as better than minimum and that 3D is no more than competitive, I still think it's unsound to bid again. Why turn a likely plus into a likely minus? Let me give you an average hand for the 1NT response.

♠ Jxx
♥ Qxxx
D Jxx
C Axx"

While I am not going to comment further on the extras vs no extras debate as I have already said thie bid should show extras, I do want to comment on the above. I would NEVER bid 1NT on that pile of tripe and would not recommend that anyone does. That motley hand is not good enough for 1NT, and has practically no source of tricks. As distasteful as it is, I would respond 1S on that.

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Dec 1 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Quote Walddk:
"However, let's assume that you treat the hand as better than minimum and that 3D is no more than competitive, I still think it's unsound to bid again. Why turn a likely plus into a likely minus? Let me give you an average hand for the 1NT response.

♠ Jxx
♥ Qxxx
D Jxx
C Axx"

While I am not going to comment further on the extras vs no extras debate as I have already said thie bid should show extras, I do want to comment on the above. I would NEVER bid 1NT on that pile of tripe and would not recommend that anyone does. That motley hand is not good enough for 1NT, and has practically no source of tricks. As distasteful as it is, I would respond 1S on that.

Ron, I think you should apply for the vacant position of Duncan Fletcher's assistant. You'll win the race by miles. Duncan would no doubt also respond 1♠

Roland

[kenberg]

Despite my displeasure at being called foolish etc I got something useful out of all this since I brought the auction up last night with my partner and another player. All's well that ends well.

[the hog]

"Ron, I think you should apply for the vacant position of Duncan Fletcher's assistant. You'll win the race by miles. Duncan would no doubt also respond 1♠

Roland "

Sorry to show my ignorance, but who the hell is Duncan Fletcher?

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Dec 1 2006, 06:28 AM, said:

Some seem to assume (but I might misunderstand this) that 1NT is less descriptive than dbl so the 1NT-bidder is better positioned to make the decision. It's hard to compare, I think.

That is an issue (& I think the doubler is muddier than responder), but, in my opinion, it has more to do with which hand is STRONGER. I claim that it's the strong hand that should be making the decisions (in this case, doubler).

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Dec 2 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

Sorry to show my ignorance, but who the hell is Duncan Fletcher?

You are a lucky man if you don't know the England cricket coach. He is useless and should resign, or if he refuses, be sacked. Football coaches would have been thrown out for less.

(more in the Water Cooler's cricket thread).

Roland