[gnasher]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

I dont think it is close either. Like the dog that did not bark in the night, we failed to bid 2S last time around, and yet partner knows from the bidding that we have a good hand. Surely double now is strong balanced, and partner will float it most of the time, and bid when he is distributional. If double of 2H had been penalties of 1NT you would now double again; what's the difference?

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout. Therefore pass followed by double just shows a normal takeout double.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

I dont think it is close either. Like the dog that did not bark in the night, we failed to bid 2S last time around, and yet partner knows from the bidding that we have a good hand. Surely double now is strong balanced, and partner will float it most of the time, and bid when he is distributional. If double of 2H had been penalties of 1NT you would now double again; what's the difference?

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout. Therefore pass followed by double just shows a normal takeout double.

Why strong? And surely 2NT instead, or now, would be a two-suiter; or do people play that as natural these days? Presumably 4m is leaping Michaels instead, so there are plenty of bids available.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

I think doubling converts a minus into a plus very often by pushing them higher, like if opener has 3 or responder has 6 either might bid one more and find they only had an 8 card fit. Or they might have 3 and 6 and neither bids one more, since as you say it's not a guaranteed fit auction they are guessing too. If opener has 4 he is almost always bidding more. I never balance as you know but I think passing on this is chicken. It's probably our hand not theirs!

Also call me picky but you seem to really be exagerating when you call converting +50 into -200 a disaster but seem to brush off something like converting +50 into +130 or +140 or +170 as not even worth considering. In imps that is approximately half of a disaster.

I think you are really underestimating the times that neither side makes anything, I guess you think I'm underestimating the times that both sides make though!

I also think you are really overestimating the times that they will bid 3S. I don't see how LHO can ever bid 3S with only 3 when his partner has shown possibly 0 points and 5 spades, and then didn't do anything. It's not up to the 1N opener to compete to the 3 level on an 8 card fit, it's up to partner to double or do something if he has values and shortness in the opps suit.

If responder has 6 spades or opener has 4 spades I agree we will push them sometimes, and in general when they have 9 spades it will be right for us to compete anyways (surely 3x or 2S can make).

I don't dispute that if they or we have a 9 card fit it is usually right for us to bid, I just think it's far more common that we both have at most an 8 card fit where it is usually wrong to bid, and it's not infrequent that one of us has a 7 card fit where it is almost certainly wrong to bid.

You are right I have ignored the 2-3 imps possible when they are down.

If hanp would be willing to, a simulation might be a useful thing to do on this hand, to see which one of us is closer to right, and to at least to get some base point for how often certain things make etc. Remember to exclude super accepts from openers hand.

[hanp]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Why strong?

Presumably because people do not want to force to the three level, red against white, on weaker 3-suited hands when the opponents are unlimited and they may not have a fit yet.

Showing your takeout double shape immediately has the additional risk that the opponents will declare 4S and your bidding tells declarer how to play the trumps (and the rest of the hand). We have had many discussions on these forums about this topic. I believe I am repeating parts of the arguments by Fred who claimed that 2S was better used as 2-suited than as a takeout double. Not to say that Fred knows everything, but he sure made a good case for it.

Quote

And surely 2NT instead, or now, would be a two-suiter; or do people play that as natural these days? Presumably 4m is leaping Michaels instead, so there are plenty of bids available.

Yes, 2NT now would be a 2-suiter, but that doesn't mean that we can't have a takeout double. Of course partner knows that we have a good hand, but we (or at least I) would pass and double with a 1444 18-count, and partner probably has no way to tell which that we do not have that this time.

Maybe your partner will pass 2SX with his expected 2443 3-count or so, I hope that mine won't.

[lamford]

hanp, on Sep 17 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

we (or at least I) would pass and double with a 1444 18-count, and partner probably has no way to tell which that we do not have that this time.

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief), partner, knowing we have about an 18 count, will now know we are balanced. If 2S would have been two-suited, then partner can indeed not tell.

[gnasher]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

That's why I said

me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

not me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

[Pict]

Double (1) and 3H (2).

Bidder's game they say.

[hanp]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

That's why I said

me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

not me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

If one would start with 2S on the 1-4-4-4 18 count (gnasher's belief)

That isn't my belief. I meant that some people play an immediate cue-bid as a two-suiter and some play it as a strong three-suited takeout. I wasn't suggesting that it was normal to play it as encompassing both hand-types.

That's why I said

me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ either as a two-suiter or as a strong three-suited takeout

Rather than

not me said:

I think that most poeple play an immediate 2♠ as either a two-suiter or a strong three-suited takeout

Apologies. I mistakenly thought that because you had transposed the "o" and "e" in poeple you might have carelessly transposed the "either" and "as".

[Actually, I did not think of the other meaning and am just making this up now!]

I wonder if playing it as "either or" is sound; partner puppets with 2NT and you reply 3S with the strong three-suited takeout and bid the more convenient suit with the two-suiter...

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

If our methods were that 2S was a two-suiter, and I would be interested in the thread where Fred recommended this, then you do need double now to be any takeout of spades.

[hanp]

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

If our methods were that 2S was a two-suiter, and I would be interested in the thread where Fred recommended this, then you do need double now to be any takeout of spades.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...5&st=0&hl=drury

It's old.

[lamford]

Many thanks. Very interesting.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Sep 18 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count.

He already knows that I can't count.

[gnasher]

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

Would he know that? Might we not have a three-suiter which was too weak to bid in a live auction, but strong enough to bid once RHO limits his hand?

[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 18 2010, 11:58 AM, said:

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

So, if our methods were that 2S was a strong three-suiter, and we double now, partner will know that we do not have that hand type, and therefore now have a strong balanced hand that could not double 2H as that shows hearts.

Would he know that? Might we not have a three-suiter which was too weak to bid in a live auction, but strong enough to bid once RHO limits his hand?

Opener has a 14-16 count, and we have a 20-count. Partner's average is around 2.5. He may conclude that if we had a hand too weak to bid in a live auction that the opponents would have at least tried for game.

Quote

QUOTE (hanp @ Sep 18 2010, 09:14 AM)
Careful gnasher, by paying attention to your choices of words, dburn might accuse you of not being able to count. 

He already knows that I can't count

[gnasher]

So you're suggesting that pass followed by double is two-way, showing either a moderate three-suiter or a very strong balanced hand?

[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 19 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

So you're suggesting that pass followed by double is two-way, showing either a moderate three-suiter or a very strong balanced hand?

I think that partner should be able to tell, and it is similar to, I think, a dburn suggestion that double of a pass or correct bid is either penalties or takeout, for example after a Lucas Two and a 3C response.

If 2NT on the previous round [after (1NT) - Pass - (2H)] would be strong balanced - as I think FrancesHinden prefers - then there is no need to be able to show strong balanced now. It does seem that passing throughout on the 20-count is not quite right!

[gnasher]

lamford, on Sep 19 2010, 11:43 PM, said:

It does seem that passing throughout on the 20-count is not quite right!

It's hard to argue with that.

I'm not convinced about the strategy of delaying your takeout double until the second round. What other auctions are there where we sit there in respectful silence waiting for the opponents to give us permission to bid?

I think there's a good case for playing an immediate double of 2♥ as takeout of spades. That lets us get into the auction safely, gives us a chance to mess up their invitational sequences, and avoids having a horribly wide range for
  1NT pass 2♥ pass
  2♠ pass pass double

It's true that showing a takeout double immediately will sometimes help them in the play if they bid game, but I don't think that will happen very often. If one of us has a takeout double, it's not that likely that they have the valeus for game anyway, and if they do the game will often be making anyway, with our side's values under the opening bidder.