[cherdano]

StevenG, on 2015-July-02, 05:38, said:

There is a problem here. I don't play with Justin or Mike or Phil (or Timo). Double is obviously the right thing to do with an expert partner. But this is the I/A forum, and I can promise you it will fail dismally with an intermediate/adv- partner, at least in my part of Acol-land. I would still bid 3, despite having read the thread, for the logic Helene gives in another post. I know partner has only shown preference, and may have nothing. But I could have passed, so I'm still interested, and I would expect partner to raise on that hand. It may be crude, but it's practical, and it's the best I can do with the partners I have.

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

[StevenG]

cherdano, on 2015-July-02, 07:17, said:

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

I did say adv-, with the "-" there intentionally. My current club partner has an NGS of 55 or abouts whenever I look, but is nowhere near the standard needed to work these things out. I've been looking for a partner of the right standard to learn from for the last 15 years and it's impossible. Should I just give up completely?

[ArtK78]

If you have what you have already promised, and are not forced to act, then you pass.

If you have more than you already promised, then you do something else.

This is pretty basic stuff.

I don't understand the criticism of the double of 2♠. It is NOT for penalties. You have already shown 5 spades, so the opps are not playing in 2♠. You are showing extras and inviting partner to bid more.

Now, if the opps decide that they want to play in 2♠x, you are not going to be disappointed. But you know when you double 2♠ that the auction is not going to end there. So any discussion of whether the opps can make 2♠ or not is not relevant.

[billw55]

For north it is a classic case of "how much worse could my hand be?" In context it is really good, but he bid it like a misfitting yarb.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-July-02, 07:17, said:

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

I suspect that part of the problem with experts doing so much of the posting on the I/A and B/N forums is that it can be difficult to remember when we, the experts, were B/N or even I/A.

So much of bridge becomes ingrained, and automatic. We 'know' that the best use for double in many competitive auctions is as an encouraging noise, and we (usually) 'know' the exceptions when, for instance, it would be penalty. We don't remember when, for us, penalty was the default meaning and when it was that we learned that there are better options, and how and when to determine that they applied.

I am willing to bet that most of us either learned that with an interested-in-learning partner of similar experience as us or, as for me in much of my early years, by playing 'up' in my partnerships as often as better players would allow it, and by going to the bar after the game and listening to the good players discuss things.

One of the realities of the aging bridge demographic is that we no longer, in my neck of the woods, get 10-15 players heading off to the bar for a loud, long, and sometimes heated but always friendly recap of the session's hands, with less experienced players getting lots of free advice from the experts. Hopefully BBF helps fill that void.

In doing so, however, we need to be aware that much of what we take for granted or as obvious is not obvious at all, anymore than any of us was able to get on a bicycle at whatever age we first did so and immediately go mountain-biking.

As a side note, Arend, this is a reason why I write those long posts, replete with what seem to you to be explanations of the obvious, such that you think I am being insulting

[wank]

steveng, the forum isn't for discussing which is the bid that has the best chance of working with a bad partner. if you bother to post on a forum you obviously want to improve so we try to find the correct bid.

and cherdano, in my experience bidding in england (acol land) is considerably worse than in other countries for players of a similar standard of card play.

[eagles123]

thanks all very helpfull

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2015-July-02, 09:26, said:

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

What is it exactly that is not "very basic"?

That undiscussed doubles in certain situations are t/o and other situations are penalty or optinal and yet others really need to be discussed may not be very basic.

But here we have a South who had already shown five hearts and denied four cards in opps' suit. And a North who could have only two hearts and has not suggested any defensive values at all. I think it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general strength. The actual South hand has three aces and the longest minor is even opps' suit. I think it is very basic that this is a double. Make it a small singleton diamond and/or replace one of the aces by a KJ and it is not so basic.

[nekthen]

Agree with all of South's bids.
Hate all of North's bids except the initial pass

[the_clown]

I think that 2♥ is fine, a direct 3♥ shows a better hand for me.

Of course having bid 2♥ North should make a forward going move when South shows extra values.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-July-02, 09:26, said:

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

I suspect that part of the problem with experts doing so much of the posting on the I/A and B/N forums is that it can be difficult to remember when we, the experts, were B/N or even I/A.

Maybe I am taking a different viewpoint about what "basic" means. I do agree that many intermediate players would not know this. But it is much more basic than many other things about bidding that they do know.

Doubles showing extra values is more basic than 4N = RKCB or Smolen or inverted minors: both in the sense that is a simpler, less artificial concept, and that it is more important (it occurs more often, and it solves a problem that cannot otherwise be solved).

Having said all this, I do think an "advanced" player should be familiar with the concept of a double showing extra values.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2015-July-03, 04:47, said:

What is it exactly that is not "very basic"?

That undiscussed doubles in certain situations are t/o and other situations are penalty or optinal and yet others really need to be discussed may not be very basic.

But here we have a South who had already shown five hearts and denied four cards in opps' suit. And a North who could have only two hearts and has not suggested any defensive values at all. I think it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general strength. The actual South hand has three aces and the longest minor is even opps' suit. I think it is very basic that this is a double. Make it a small singleton diamond and/or replace one of the aces by a KJ and it is not so basic.

I really think it is a matter of perspective. I occasionally discuss bridge with some beginners, one of whom shows both an interest in and aptitude for the game. I also, several years ago now, went to a local club and for almost a year gave a talk before the Friday night game, in which I mainly answered questions based on the previous week's hands. So I think I have a fairly good idea of how confusing the game is even to people who have played a lot of low-level duplicate. Those of us who read forums like this tend to self-select as people who like to read about the game and who like to get into discussions about sequences, with a strong appetite to learn. Most real-life bridge players aren't like that, in my experience. Even those who are may not have had real opportunity to learn, or exposure to the discussions that to us are so basic as to appear trivial.

I agree with you entirely were you to write not that ' it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general shape' but rather that ' it is very logical that 3♥ shows extra offensive values......etc'

Btw, the notion that low-level doubles in competitive auctions shows a desire to compete rather than a desire to defend, which seems so universal these days, and so obviously best, is, in bridge terms, a fairly recent development. It became popular, as far as I know, on the NA tournament trail about 30 years ago. I remember discussing the idea with a BC player who spent a lot of time on the tour, and he was ridiculed by a number of the established local players who didn't travel to play. It may have been popular elsewhere earlier, I don't know. But I think it to be a common practice for people to see what is obvious to them as having to be obvious to everyone, and it just isn't so.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-July-03, 09:07, said:

Maybe I am taking a different viewpoint about what "basic" means. I do agree that many intermediate players would not know this. But it is much more basic than many other things about bidding that they do know.

Doubles showing extra values is more basic than 4N = RKCB or Smolen or inverted minors: both in the sense that is a simpler, less artificial concept, and that it is more important (it occurs more often, and it solves a problem that cannot otherwise be solved).

Having said all this, I do think an "advanced" player should be familiar with the concept of a double showing extra values.

I agree with the last part, and was writing a post in response to helene before seeing this one. I wasn't talking about advanced players.....indeed I think it to be a contradiction in terms to refer to something both as 'I'd expect advanced players to know this, but less experienced players not' and as 'very basic'.

[Phil]

Double is not basic to an intermediate player.

The literal meaning of a double is to increase the penalty not extra values or 'do something'. Newer players learn linear exceptions to this rule like 'takeout, negative, support and responsive' and aren't taught to look at the context of their hand in the auction. Even after you tell them double here can't be penalty it's not an easy idea to grasp. They just don't think that way because this isn't the way bridge is taught.

Anyone with a little experience understands the difference here but that's not what's being discussed.

[helene_t]

But even if double is penalty it is the right call with the South hand. North can still run based on the lott but even if is asleep and passes it may not be bad. We probably take 800. Maybe 1100. Probably below par but we may not bid the slam anyway.

[akwoo]

Most bridge players play by rote and never actually think about the game.

(C'mon, Arend - surely you know that the vast majority of students in Calculus pass the class by learning how to do calculus problems without actually understanding anything. Why should it be any different for bridge players?)

[jdonn]

Definitely North. I don't even like 2♥, seems like an easy 3♥ to me. If you start visualizing example hands for partner, you will see how little you need for game. In fact, as I start doing that, I don't even think 4♥ on the first bid is crazy. An overbid, but sometimes it will make when partner was passing 3.

[massem]

I believe that 3 H is not enough even after X.. if I had this hand I would say, or X or 4 D.... the first X is not right as well from my point of view.. i would bid 3 spades instead to show fit and strong hand..

[mike777]

good discussion in depth on the issues raised in this thread...love bbo forums.

Not a reflex...blame north.

[wank]

massem, on 2015-July-03, 22:28, said:

I believe that 3 H is not enough even after X.. if I had this hand I would say, or X or 4 D.... the first X is not right as well from my point of view.. i would bid 3 spades instead to show fit and strong hand..

a fit for the 5 card suit you already promised? partner hasn't promised hearts.