[akhare]

Do forum posters have any minimum length / suit quality requirements for lead directing Xs of transfer bids over NT?

The classic definition is supposed to be a "good 5-card suit", but that strikes me as being very conservative. In fact, I vaguely (and possibly incorrectly) remember reading an article where Meckwell stated that they would go out on a limb to make the X on as little as AT98.

So, what's standard for folks on the forum? Do your tendencies vary by form of scoring (IMP/MP) and/or opponents' NT range?

[straube]

From the 2001 Bridgematters (copyrighted) interview...

BridgeMatters: Do you think when the opponents make a lead directional double—and in the expert community, we see some pretty aggressive lead directional doubles—that the partnership should focus on nailing them?

Eric Rodwell: At the two level, absolutely. At the three level, the chance for collecting a redoubled penalty is substantially less. It is definitely dangerous to make lead directional doubles at the two level against a pair . . . looking for the opportunity to redouble. I was playing in a Vanderbilt semi-final, and the player holding my cards had KJTx of hearts and an ace, nobody vulnerable. It went a strong 1NT opening, Pass, 2H Jacoby Transfer, he doubled, and it went Pass, Pass, Redouble, swish, making five. Dummy hit with something like AQ9x of hearts behind him. I had the same problem but did not double 2H, and I got to defend 3NT. They made five, so we won 12 IMPs. The point is, it is definitely dangerous to double—especially at IMPs—when the lead might not be the critical trick. And you should be doubling on a more secure type of holding, or a hand where you think you can make something. For example, if I have an opening hand with 14 points and the KJTx of hearts, I am not so worried—it is unlikely to be redoubled.

[FrancesHinden]

Against a weak NT I play what is very common in the UK, that double isn't lead-directional, it shows a penalty double of a weak NT. This means you don't miss quite so many of your cold games, and also picks up those who respond 2C on a balanced 2-count.

[CSGibson]

At matchpoints, I'll double with a decent 4 card suit, about the quality that I would consider overcalling with. KJTx might be enough depending on the rest of the hand, but KQTx would definitely be enough for me. Note that this is not risk free, not only because of the possibility that you will be rewound, but also because partner might take you seriously and compete at the 3 level, or that opponents may be able to play the hand a trick better, or evaluate their fit with a greater degree of accuracy. I still think, though, that the frequency of gain makes aggressive lead-directing doubling an overall winner at matchpoints (as well as giving partner a negative inference to make leads in situations where you have not doubled when you had an opportunity).

At teams, I'll want length & strength; just doing one trick better than peers is not enough to risk a big score.

And against a weak NT I, like Frances, play value-showing doubles, not lead-directional.

[dustinst22]

For me it depends on the quality of my opponents, and whether or not I think there is much risk in getting caught.

[lmilne]

dustinst22, on 2013-February-14, 18:45, said:

For me it depends on the quality of my opponents, and whether or not I think there is much risk in getting caught.

This is one of the most important factors. Being able to judge your opponents is more important than having a suit quality rule.

After observing what people were doubling on, I made methods for my partnership that focused on redoubling the opponents as the top priority. At the World Youth Congress in 2011, I think we had four big redoubled scores in our favour over the week - partly because of luck, but mostly because the opponents were doubling too aggressively (and not expecting to get punished for it). I distinctly remember someone doubling on KT7x after 2♣ (18-19 bal)-2♠ (forcing 2NT)-2NT-3♦ transfer. This holding was worth zero tricks.

You also have to look at your whole hand. Even if I have a moderate five-card suit, I'm not necessary doubling if I have stuff in the other suits. If partner leads from length to my Qxx, this may well be better than him leading his small doubleton to me KJ8xx.

[JLOGIC]

Matchpoints is a completely different game from imps in this regard imo.

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-14, 22:25, said:

Matchpoints is a completely different game from imps in this regard imo.

Is this one of those "Duh" things? Of course, that is true. But your IMP team match is a completely different game from other IMPs games, also.

For instance, I am not sure I would want ours to become part of the archives on BBO

[gnasher]

I'd nearly always have a good five-card suit, eg KJ109x or KQ108x. There are several downsides to doubling with a four-card suit or a weak five-card holding:
- They may play there.
- Partner may lead the suit when it's wrong.
- It's harder for partner to judge whether to compete in the suit.

Also, when we have a weaker holding partner might have been going to lead the suit anyway, or the lead may not matter.

[Zelandakh]

If double shows the suit then I think it should be similar to an overcall and not done frivolously. Something along the lines of what Andy wrote. There is also something to be said for double being takeout and not showing the transfer suit - Fred has posted several times strongly supporting this option, for example. And against a weak NT, using double for values is another reasonable option.

[Fluffy]

There are more factors to consider, for example you have to be more agressive doubling a stayman with a diamond singleton because the final contract will often be 3NT and partner is leading the wrong minor.

On the other hand after a transfer the final contract is 4M normally, and you have to weight how other likelly leads do to the hand.

[fred]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 04:58, said:

If double shows the suit then I think it should be similar to an overcall and not done frivolously. Something along the lines of what Andy wrote. There is also something to be said for double being takeout and not showing the transfer suit - Fred has posted several times strongly supporting this option, for example. And against a weak NT, using double for values is another reasonable option.

Either you misunderstood my previous posts or my brain is malfunctioning - I don't think I ever said or believed what you are suggesting. Without a takeout double type hand I would normally Pass and DBL later (or not, depending on how the auction continues). As best as I can recall, DBL of the transfer has always been lead-directing for me.

Agree that when the 1NT opening is weak it is different.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

fred, on 2013-February-15, 10:39, said:

Either you misunderstood my previous posts or my brain is malfunctioning - I don't think I ever said or believed what you are suggesting. Without a takeout double type hand I would normally Pass and DBL later (or not, depending on how the auction continues). As best as I can recall, DBL of the transfer has always been lead-directing for me.

In the only post I can find about it, you were adamant that it should be lead-directing:

http://www.bridgebas...dpost__p__52275

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-February-15, 11:21

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, proof that I should always check before relying on my failing memory. It seems I remembered the part about the cue bid being 2-suited but forgot the part about Double showing the transfer suit. This is still an unusual combination for me, having learned only the other 2 methods (X = t/o (or values); cue = 2-suited or X = suit; cue = strong t/o) when I was young. FWiiW I have mostly played the last of these, mainly because that was the method being strongly recommended in the UK when I was starting to learn the game more seriously.