[jillybean]

---

MP - 3♠
IMP - pass?

[bluenikki]

 jillybean, on 2024-September-07, 13:53, said:

---

MP - 3♠
IMP - pass?

If you force them to bid game, do you expect to beat it?

[bluenikki]

 jillybean, on 2024-September-07, 13:53, said:

MP - 3♠
IMP - pass?

If you force them to bid game, do you expect to beat it?

[jillybean]

---

Vulnerability is wrong EW are vulnerable

Sorry about the diagram, fixed

[DavidKok]

Spoiler

3♠, at any form of scoring. I think the fears of 'pushing the opponents into game' are unfounded. You really expect opponents to make worse decisions on balance with more bidding space? I expect the opposite - bid to the limit, and they will guess wrong some of the time.

[pescetom]

I agree with DavidKok, even if the vulnerability continues to be incompatible with diagram

But it is indeed a breakwater issue... I have one occasional very skilled but traditional partner, this was the only agreement he simply refused to play.

[bluenikki]

 DavidKok, on 2024-September-07, 15:54, said:

Spoiler

3♠, at any form of scoring. I think the fears of 'pushing the opponents into game' are unfounded. You really expect opponents to make worse decisions on balance with more bidding space? I expect the opposite - bid to the limit, and they will guess wrong some of the time.

In the little bit I've observed lately, a pair's bidding after their takeout doubles is far from nuanced. In particular, doubler has no way to show a really big hand. As opposed to an ordinarily big hand.

[pilowsky]

What does XX mean here?

[jillybean]

 pilowsky, on 2024-September-07, 19:33, said:

What does XX mean here?

I was taught XX was 10+ no fit, ops can’t play undoubled
but that was a while ago.

[thepossum]

Pass

[shyams]

White v Red, I'd be happy to jump to 3♠

Any other vul, I am raising to 2♠.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-September-07, 16:05, said:

I agree with DavidKok, even if the vulnerability continues to be incompatible with diagram

But it is indeed a breakwater issue... I have one occasional very skilled but traditional partner, this was the only agreement he simply refused to play.

My partners are happy with 3S at MP, not at IMP, any vulnerability.

[DavidKok]

A bit more general: I always hesitate a bit when people will accept something at one form of scoring, but not at a different one. Or if people play one system when vulnerable, another when not vulnerable (or the likes). To me you would require a pretty accurate estimate of the relative merits of the methods to be able to tell that one is better under one set of rules, and the other is better under the other set of rules. In my opinion the gaps are not as big as people seem to imply - maybe at MPs you need 50% for a game and not vulnerable at IMPs you need 42%, but I don't think people regularly identify which hands fall into the 8% difference of that Venn diagram. And, being blunt, I see people throw away 20-40% chances regularly, making me doubt their accuracy in general.
When it comes to swapping out entire methods the burden of proof is even higher. At the same time I think generally it is very unclear which methods outperform which other methods - we have very few objective indicators. I don't mind playing different methods under different circumstances, but I do think it is surprising to have strong preferences in that regard. Most of the gains from swapping out methods are small, and identifying the net effect at each vulnerability and form of scoring and ending up with certain methods some of the time and other methods the rest of the time is a narrow target to hit.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-September-07, 19:46, said:

I was taught XX was 10+ no fit, ops can’t play undoubled
but that was a while ago.

I was taught that any successive double by either of us is for business, which leaves a bit more room for manouver.

[akwoo]

Red at MPs, I bid 2♠. Otherwise, 3♠. (At IMPs I'm happy to accept -200 vs their part score or -500 against their game. At MPs I'm not. Sure -500 vs their part score is worse at IMPs than MPs, but I don't think that's likely enough to worry about, even at IMPs.)

[mw64ahw]

For me 2♠ unfavourable, 3♠ otherwise.

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2024-September-08, 12:33, said:

For me 2♠ unfavourable, 3♠ otherwise.

There are indeed many nuances to this situation, and possible agreements about 2♠/3♠.
I would think seriously about Pass unfavourable, 3♠ often then and certain otherwise, 2♠ with this hand is not what my partner expects.

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2024-September-08, 12:55, said:

There are indeed many nuances to this situation, and possible agreements about 2♠/3♠.
I would think seriously about Pass unfavourable, 3♠ often then and certain otherwise, 2♠ with this hand is not what my partner expects.

Both 2♠ & 3♠ are exactly what my partner would expect given we use 2♥ as 5+♦ GI, constructive raise or 3-card limit raise.

[nullve]

IMP / MP: Pass

Partner will often have a good hand and raise 3♠ to 4♠ even without "Law protection", expecting a (much) better hand.

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2024-September-08, 16:09, said:

Both 2♠ & 3♠ are exactly what my partner would expect given we use 2♥ as 5+♦ GI, constructive raise or 3-card limit raise.

It would be useful if you could include your system when you respond to the question, thanks.