[csdenmark]

skaeran, on Feb 12 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 12 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Take a look into scoring table and you will see why I am right.
1♥♠-Dbl, for 8 tricks won........................: 470/670
1♥-Dbl-2♥ or 1♠-Dbl-2♠, for 8 tricks won: 260/360

First of all, you have this backwards. 2♥/♠X making 8 tricks is 470/670, and 1♥/♠X making 8 tricks is the lesser score.

Second of all, are you really arguing that responder should never raise because you might play in 1MX? That's what it looks like to me, though I have a hard time understanding your posts.

Pity you have problems to understand. It is all very simple.

I say 1M-DBL-2M is silly and forbidden. After 1M-DBL you wait for opps. It is not for you to take them out of the fryin pan.

Huh??

Surely you raise your partners opeing to the 2-level if that's what your hand is worth. Get it off your chest and help partner. Besides, it's harder for opps to compete for the partscore if their fit is in a minor suit (or hearts when we've got spades).

I really don't understand what you're talking about here.

I always help partner but I wait until I am sure I will not help opps. instead. Who really knows from the very beginning whether to be declarer or to double opps. instead. If you have game-going values you simply RDBL. Partner will remain silent until you have finished your dispute with opps. and clarified your real holding.

A simple 3 card support for partner leaves 10 cards open for possible better and later use.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Feb 12 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

lol.

This is one of the most unintentionally funny threads I have seen in a long time.

[han]

Funny? I'm so confused.

[awm]

As to competitive hands, I think the idea is to distinguish between:

(1)

♠xxx
♥AQxxx
♦xxx
♣Kx

(2)

♠xxx
♥AQxxx
♦xxx
♣xx

The first hand may well make game opposite a takeout double. But with only nine points and balanced shape, bidding game is rather pushy. We'd like to encourage partner to raise 3♥ to game though, if he has a bit more than a minimum takeout double. For example partner might hold:

(3)

♠Ax
♥Kxxx
♦Kxx
♣Axxx

(4)
♠xx
♥KJxx
♦KQx
♣QJxx

The point is that re-opening 1♠-X-2♠-P-P-X, the second double should show real extras. So we can't afford to pass with good competitive hands like (2) as there are many hands where both sides can make a partial yet partner is passing out 2♠, like takeout double (3). On the other hand, we also can't really make the same 3♥ bid on both (1) and (2) since partner needs to know that opposite (1) he can bid game with mild extras like takeout double (3) whereas opposite (2) he is supposed to pass unless he has "serious" extras. And we can't really just bid game on hand (1) because we will quite often fail opposite a true minimum takeout double like (4).

Of course, we could probably use double to make this distinction, and the issue is more critical when we have hearts since game in hearts is more likely on the bidding than game in notrump. But it seems useful at least in the case of bidding hearts at the three level over 2♠ to be able to distinguish a six-count from a nine-count.

[csdenmark]

awm, on Feb 13 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

As to competitive hands, I think the idea is to distinguish between:

(1)

♠xxx
♥AQxxx
♦xxx
♣Kx

(2)

♠xxx
♥AQxxx
♦xxx
♣xx

The first hand may well make game opposite a takeout double. But with only nine points and balanced shape, bidding game is rather pushy. We'd like to encourage partner to raise 3♥ to game though, if he has a bit more than a minimum takeout double. For example partner might hold:

(3)

♠Ax
♥Kxxx
♦Kxx
♣Axxx

(4)
♠xx
♥KJxx
♦KQx
♣QJxx

The point is that re-opening 1♠-X-2♠-P-P-X, the second double should show real extras. So we can't afford to pass with good competitive hands like (2) as there are many hands where both sides can make a partial yet partner is passing out 2♠, like takeout double (3). On the other hand, we also can't really make the same 3♥ bid on both (1) and (2) since partner needs to know that opposite (1) he can bid game with mild extras like takeout double (3) whereas opposite (2) he is supposed to pass unless he has "serious" extras. And we can't really just bid game on hand (1) because we will quite often fail opposite a true minimum takeout double like (4).

Of course, we could probably use double to make this distinction, and the issue is more critical when we have hearts since game in hearts is more likely on the bidding than game in notrump. But it seems useful at least in the case of bidding hearts at the three level over 2♠ to be able to distinguish a six-count from a nine-count.

I have no intensions to discuss your sequences. Makes no sense. You are on a wrong track.

[gwnn]

Claus,...

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ingAtBridge.ZIP
or?
http://www.acbl.org/learn/ltpb.html
but maybe this would be more appropriate?
http://tinyurl.com/2chn7u

[cherdano]

gwnn, on Feb 12 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

but maybe this would be more appropriate?
http://tinyurl.com/2chn7u

Yeah we should invite Claus for a visit.