[VM1973]

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-23, 12:01, said:

IMO it's just a hole in standard agreements that has no route to the best contract beyond a guess. Bid 3♣ as your best chance to declare or 2♠ (severe underbid?) to be dummy and go to the fridge for a fresh beer.

Well 2♠ is the bid that is more likely to get a 2nd peep out of partner and anyway if you're in a 4-3 fit the extra strength will help.

I believe 2♠+2 scores 110 whereas 3♣+3 scores the same.

[daveharty]

VM1973, on 2011-July-25, 06:39, said:

Well 2♠ is the bid that is more likely to get a 2nd peep out of partner and anyway if you're in a 4-3 fit the extra strength will help.

I believe 2♠+2 scores 110 whereas 3♣+3 scores the same.

I'm not sure I understand this. 3C is the bid that shows extra strength, not the other way around. If you bid 2S, you are quite likely to play it there, but if you bid 3C, you will probably be playing 3NT, making. Are you suggesting that the OP's partner would have passed a 3C rebid?

mck4711: You're right, it's a pretty long PDF. But it's well worth the effort; it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject that I've come across.

[VM1973]

daveharty, on 2011-July-25, 06:57, said:

I'm not sure I understand this. 3C is the bid that shows extra strength, not the other way around. If you bid 2S, you are quite likely to play it there, but if you bid 3C, you will probably be playing 3NT, making. Are you suggesting that the OP's partner would have passed a 3C rebid?

mck4711: You're right, it's a pretty long PDF. But it's well worth the effort; it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject that I've come across.

How can you know (without seeing your partner's hand) if 3NT will make?

[daveharty]

VM1973, on 2011-July-25, 14:48, said:

How can you know (without seeing your partner's hand) if 3NT will make?

Of course you don't know this. You just have to make bids that describe the nature of your hand. In my view, the OP's hand has significant extra playing strength and a very good club suit; 3C seems like the most descriptive rebid. It doesn't preclude playing in spades, or notrump; it simply says "I have a hand with good, long clubs and extra values." And OP's partner, hearing that description, would likely bid 3NT (they aren't really interested in pursuing a spade contract with only four bad spades, and they have stoppers in the two unbid suits, and an absolutely golden club Q). And on this hand, 3NT would make. Imagine that!

[VM1973]

daveharty, on 2011-July-25, 17:20, said:

Of course you don't know this. You just have to make bids that describe the nature of your hand. In my view, the OP's hand has significant extra playing strength and a very good club suit; 3C seems like the most descriptive rebid. It doesn't preclude playing in spades, or notrump; it simply says "I have a hand with good, long clubs and extra values." And OP's partner, hearing that description, would likely bid 3NT (they aren't really interested in pursuing a spade contract with only four bad spades, and they have stoppers in the two unbid suits, and an absolutely golden club Q). And on this hand, 3NT would make. Imagine that!

Here's a very similar hand.

---

[semeai]

VM1973, on 2011-July-26, 09:54, said:

Here's a very similar hand.

I like raising with three, but here I think the hand is too strong. You can afford to bid 2♣, planning on bidding 2♥ over the expected 2♦ call. This shows your shape and extra values and will even get you to the good game when partner evaluates xxx of spades opposite shortness and ♦QJ, ♣J opposite length positively.

I'd argue the hands aren't so similar. Here it's likely hearts is best, but you can afford to show extra playing strength by bidding 2♣, rarely passed and probably not terrible if it is, and still likely get to bid hearts at the two level. In the original hand, the clubs are so long that it's unlikely spades are the place to play a partscore.

[VM1973]

semeai, on 2011-July-26, 10:13, said:

I like raising with three, but here I think the hand is too strong. You can afford to bid 2♣, planning on bidding 2♥ over the expected 2♦ call. This shows your shape and extra values and will even get you to the good game when partner evaluates xxx of spades opposite shortness and ♦QJ, ♣J opposite length positively.

I'd argue the hands aren't so similar. Here it's likely hearts is best, but you can afford to show extra playing strength by bidding 2♣, rarely passed and probably not terrible if it is, and still likely get to bid hearts at the two level. In the original hand, the clubs are so long that it's unlikely spades are the place to play a partscore.

And if the auction goes
... 2♣ 2♠ Pass Pass ?

[semeai]

VM1973, on 2011-July-26, 10:19, said:

And if the auction goes
... 2♣ 2♠ Pass Pass ?

The next time my opponents enter a live, non-fit auction at the 2-level after passing up the opportunity to do so at the 1-level, I'll worry about that.

[ggwhiz]

mck4711, on 2011-July-22, 17:19, said:

P had 10xxx, Axx, Kxx, Qxx

My main objection to the style of bidding 1♠ to only promise 4 of them is trotting that bid out on this dreck instead of 1nt and it happens all the time.

The discussion of how to continue after playing partner for such a bid seems misguided. I would rather base my system/style on not bidding this way on those cards.

[daveharty]

VM1973, on 2011-July-26, 09:54, said:

Here's a very similar hand.

---

As far as I can tell, the only thing these hands have in common is that simply bidding what you have is likely to get you to a reasonable contract. I tried to explain in my earlier post why I thought 3C was best with the OP's hand. With your example hand, semeai's suggested auction looks fairly obvious and best to me. If the auction goes ...2C 2S pass pass, it looks to me like you have a very comfortable double in the balancing seat, suggesting just about exactly what you have.

[VM1973]

daveharty, on 2011-July-26, 10:58, said:

As far as I can tell, the only thing these hands have in common is that simply bidding what you have is likely to get you to a reasonable contract. I tried to explain in my earlier post why I thought 3C was best with the OP's hand. With your example hand, semeai's suggested auction looks fairly obvious and best to me. If the auction goes ...2C 2S pass pass, it looks to me like you have a very comfortable double in the balancing seat, suggesting just about exactly what you have.

I don't relish playing 2♠ doubled if that's what you mean.

Really from the auction I figured partner for 4 spades. It never occurred to me to find someone holding AJ10xxx not vulnerable and not willing to bid anything.

As far as I can tell from my hand, I need to find partner with 10+ to make a move towards game. Something like:

♠Axxx
♥Axxxx
♦Qx
♣xx

How do you expect partner is likely to bid if he holds:

♠xxxx
♥Axxxx
♦x
♣KJx

Won't he pass 2 clubs?

[wank]

vm, on your example hand, opener would just rebid 2♣ and double 2♠ which would be take-out. responder would jump to 4♥.

and yes responder would pass 2clubs with your other hand, but he would also pass 2hearts so you're no worse off

having read some of your other posts, i get the feeling you've been taught bridge by someone who quotes you silly rules to which you give far too much credence.

[daveharty]

VM1973, on 2011-July-26, 12:17, said:

I don't relish playing 2♠ doubled if that's what you mean.

Really from the auction I figured partner for 4 spades. It never occurred to me to find someone holding AJ10xxx not vulnerable and not willing to bid anything.

As far as I can tell from my hand, I need to find partner with 10+ to make a move towards game.

The sequence semeai suggested with your example hand suggests exactly what you have. If partner should choose to convert your takeout double--that's what it is, takeout--to penalty, why would you not "relish" it? You have a nice, prime defensive hand with extras, exactly what you promised. I would expect to do very well indeed defending 2S doubled in that case. But what I really don't understand is why you would try to place values and/or cards in partner's hand, rather than bidding your cards; you are conducting an auction, exchanging information with partner, until someone has enough information to place the contract. Why would you not try and tell partner as accurately as possible what is in your hand? semeai's suggested sequence doesn't commit your side to game; if partner hears your bids and decides to stop short, that's fine. You've told your story and can abide by partner's decision with a clear conscience. Yes, of course you might miss a 5-3 heart fit if partner chooses to pass 2C. But as wank says, you weren't bidding game then anyway. If somebody invents a bid that is 100% good for our side/100% bad for theirs, then I guess somebody will have discovered the Unified Bidding Theory and solved bridge for all time, but until then you might as well just tell partner what you've got.

[VM1973]

wank, on 2011-July-26, 12:26, said:

vm, on your example hand, opener would just rebid 2♣ and double 2♠ which would be take-out. responder would jump to 4♥.

and yes responder would pass 2clubs with your other hand, but he would also pass 2hearts so you're no worse off

having read some of your other posts, i get the feeling you've been taught bridge by someone who quotes you silly rules to which you give far too much credence.

I learned bridge by reading Sheinwold's Five Weeks. I suppose it must be filled with silly rules to which I give far too much credence.

He said silly little things like, a double is for takeout when your partner hasn't bid and you are below the game level. Now according to this "silly rule" an auction like:

1♦-P-1♥-P
2♣-2♠-P-P
X

The double is intended to be penalty, though I wouldn't fault partner for pulling it if he had a void.

Now, just to make sure that I'm not misremembering I went to Google and found this link:
http://books.google....eout%22&f=false

I quote:
"There are several conditions that must be met for a double to be takeout rather than for penalty. First, your partner has not bid, but may have passed...."

So now I don't want to be rude, but I think that you don't know what the fu...er...heck you're talking about. If you have some special agreement with your partner that you think is good for how to determine if a double is for takeout or penalty, I'm all ears. But as far as I'm aware Standard American and 2/1 has that double as penalty.

[wank]

VM1973, on 2011-July-27, 15:20, said:

I learned bridge by reading Sheinwold's Five Weeks. I suppose it must be filled with silly rules to which I give far too much credence.

He said silly little things like, a double is for takeout when your partner hasn't bid and you are below the game level. Now according to this "silly rule" an auction like:

1♦-P-1♥-P
2♣-2♠-P-P
X

The double is intended to be penalty, though I wouldn't fault partner for pulling it if he had a void

the book you're referring to was written in 1959, well before SAYC (the version of Standard American advocated by the ACBL), 2/1 or other modern bidding methods had been developed, so I wouldn't take it as being of too much value in assessing your bidding unless you're playing with someone whose bidding is 50 years out of date.

yes you could play double here as being for penalty. similarly, you could play double of 1-level overcalls as being for penalty as people did in the 50s. the fact is people no longer do so, because it's a VERY bad idea.

as you evidently don't believe me, i suggest you see if any (and i really mean any) other posters would play this double as penalty, assuming they're willing to voice an opinion and risk the wrath of Mr. Sheinwold's ghost.

[semeai]

VM1973, on 2011-July-27, 15:20, said:

I learned bridge by reading Sheinwold's Five Weeks. I suppose it must be filled with silly rules to which I give far too much credence.

He said silly little things like, a double is for takeout when your partner hasn't bid and you are below the game level

Please understand that there is more than one way to bid and to define your bids/doubles, and no one source has "the" way, especially a source that is 50 years old.

wank, on 2011-July-27, 15:34, said:

see if any (and i really mean any) other posters would play this double as penalty

This auction would differ based on my partner. With some, I agree that (essentially) all low level doubles, including this one, are takeout. With others, many more doubles, including this one, are "cards/values" and easily passable. Certainly this double would not be "penalty" with either, however.

An example to illustrate disagreements and differences in style here: In the Spingold, Gordon vs Baldursson, I was watching Berkowitz and Sontag, evidently a new partnership. Three suits were bid, clubs by Sontag and spades and diamonds by the opponents and Sontag had made two calls and it was the second round of the auction. Berkowitz doubled a natural 2D, intending to show hearts and club tolerance ("takeout") and Sontag interpreted it as showing diamonds. I'll try to find the auction, but it's not in the vugraph archive yet. Berkowitz apparently said "please remember that all low-level doubles are takeout" (or something similar).

[VM1973]

wank, on 2011-July-27, 15:34, said:

the book you're referring to was written in 1959, well before SAYC (the version of Standard American advocated by the ACBL), 2/1 or other modern bidding methods had been developed, so I wouldn't take it as being of too much value in assessing your bidding unless you're playing with someone whose bidding is 50 years out of date.

yes you could play double here as being for penalty. similarly, you could play double of 1-level overcalls as being for penalty as people did in the 50s. the fact is people no longer do so, because it's a VERY bad idea.

as you evidently don't believe me, i suggest you see if any (and i really mean any) other posters would play this double as penalty, assuming they're willing to voice an opinion and risk the wrath of Mr. Sheinwold's ghost.

Actually if you had bothered to open the link, I think you'll find that it leads to a book copyright 2004 entitled, "Standard American 21 (Rubber Bridge Player's Guide for the Twenty-first Century)."

So now I don't want to be rude... but unless you can come up with some clear guidelines for knowing when a double is or isn't for penalty at the table then I'll have to stick with resources like: http://www.paloaltob...ltydoubleHO.pdf which says:

"A double of an opponent's bid is for penalty if:
Partner has bid or doubled (excluding agreed upon negative etc. double situations)...."

As far as I can tell this isn't a negative double, support double, responsive double or Rosencranz double. As such, as far as I'm aware, standard practice is to play this double as penalty.

[wank]

VM1973, on 2011-July-27, 16:03, said:

Actually if you had bothered to open the link, I think you'll find that it leads to a book copyright 2004 entitled, "Standard American 21 (Rubber Bridge Player's Guide for the Twenty-first Century)."

lol now i see. rubber bridge is a particular type of bridge (even the scoring is different) normally played for money. in money games you cut cards for partners. as you and your partner are paired randomly and you're not expected to be regular partners, the rules of the rubber bridge clubs normally insist on convention/agreement free shared bidding methods - like you might get if you played in a normal club individual tournament. for example, at the rubber bridge clubs in london where i've played, the only conventions allowed are stayman and 4-ace blackwood (no transfers, michaels, etc).

noone plays such basic, old-fashioned methods in tournaments or even duplicate bridge clubs.

seriously, i strongly suggest you get some new reading material.

[semeai]

VM1973, on 2011-July-27, 16:03, said:

So now I don't want to be rude... but unless you can come up with some clear guidelines for knowing when a double is or isn't for penalty at the table then I'll have to stick with resources like: http://www.paloaltob...ltydoubleHO.pdf which says:

"A double of an opponent's bid is for penalty if:
Partner has bid or doubled (excluding agreed upon negative etc. double situations)...."

As far as I can tell this isn't a negative double, support double, responsive double or Rosencranz double. As such, as far as I'm aware, standard practice is to play this double as penalty.

I understand your desire for sourced comments and rigid rules on doubles. A common modern style is to go the other way, with takeout being the default.

Larry Cohen article:

Larry Cohen said:

For now, the most important thing I can say is that almost all doubles on the 1- and 2-level should NOT be for penalty. When in doubt, assume a low-level double is anything but a PENALTY double. As my good friend, the late Bernie Chazen loved to say, "The Penalty Double has Died and Gone to Heaven."

I tend not to have rigid rules (it would be better to, of course), but here's a try. I was looking for a sourced one on Cohen's site, but didn't find one.

Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless:
1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (even here some play exceptions to this)
2) We have a known fit
3) All four suits have been shown
4) The opponent's bid is artificial

Admittedly, rule (3) leaves us with the above auction not being takeout if you include it.

Here's a possible follow-up rule:
If double is not takeout because of 1, 2, or 3, then it shows extra values if doubler sits under the bidder and is penalty if doubler sits over the bidder.

These rules only really make sense through the 3-level. You'll want different rules for higher levels.

Added: This isn't very complete. Maybe I'll start a thread asking for good defaults. The key point is that nowadays many play that the defaults are for when a bid is not takeout, not for when it is.

[semeai]

My description of the Berkowitz - Sontag auction (board 9) was close but not exactly correct (Sontag only bid once). Here it is:

1♠ P 1NT 2♣
2♦ X

Sontag bid 2♣, Berkowitz was the doubler.

Vugraphzfc said:

Sontag says the double shows diamonds, at least "I think so" -- Berk: no low level doubles are penalty; try to remember that

In fact Berkowitz had both!

7 KQ853 J8765 Q2