BBO Discussion Forums: Takeout a Takeout - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Takeout a Takeout

#1 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2024-June-26, 01:25


Your call. IMPs converted to VPs.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#2 User is online   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,542
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2024-June-26, 01:44

Spoiler

0

#3 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2024-June-26, 09:20

.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#4 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2024-June-26, 09:20

.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#5 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2024-June-26, 09:20

View PostDavidKok, on 2024-June-26, 01:44, said:

Spoiler


Good summary. I follow the "play partner for the right ace and king" when I pass these. And xx Kxxx Axx xxxx could be 500 with 3D ridiculous. Partner should be a bit better if he has a singleton spade. My simulation suggested that pass was right, but it made some dangerous assumptions.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#6 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,244
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2024-June-27, 02:55

Hi,

I hope my partners dont make this kind of T/O.

The opponents are content to play a partscore, we dont have game, if they go down we are +-0,
if they make, ..., we may not have made 1NT.

At MP I understand it, but at IMPs?

With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2024-June-27, 07:29

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-June-27, 02:55, said:

I hope my partners dont make this kind of T/O.

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#8 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,244
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2024-June-27, 08:09

 lamford, on 2024-June-27, 07:29, said:

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?

I dont mind if you stretch, I dont mind if you go low, and I would not mind 3D by partner.
But double, knowing that they have a 8 card fit, assuming you dont open 1NT with 5 spades,
and asking p to choose a suit, when I only want to play diamonds, No.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
1

#9 User is online   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,542
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2024-June-27, 09:48

I do not agree. Selling out here loses many partscore swings, I think it is on balance right to take action. The argument that we are gaining almost nothing is flawed, both their 2 and our 3 making is quite likely. We don't have to reinvent the LAW, but we should apply it.

I was unaware that the 1NT denied a 5cM. It doesn't change my opinion by much, but I think it is good to disclose such things in the problem statement.

The North hand may well wish to play in either diamonds or hearts. I am not sure why you are ruling out hearts opposite a 4=4=2=3 or 3=4=2=4 distribution. In both those cases it seems highly advantageous to me to take the spade ruffs in the short hand. In fact, we might even wish to play in clubs if opener has the right cards. We probably won't get there (I suspect South intended to correct 3 to 3 to offer a choice of partscores), but it can at times be the best strain.
I'm not sure what methods you use to show a hand that wishes to play in diamonds or hearts, rather than defend 2. If by partnership agreement the above hand is unfit for a takeout double then South should have invented something else, but I rather like the flexibility of the double. As mentioned above I prefer aggressive takeout doubles - we simply can't lose all those partscore swings.

Furthermore a short remark on the simulations: this type of auction is a prime example of one where people will struggle to play optimally, especially while defending. Furthermore, the outcome of any such simulation is in my experience very sensitive to the requirements for the overcall, the lack of action by West, and the requirements for a takeout double. I mentioned possibly defending in my previous post if the double was guaranteed to be solid, but with my own style the risk is simply too big. For the above reasons I think simulations add little insight or value here.

 lamford, on 2024-June-27, 07:29, said:

Partner had x QTxx AQJxx Jxx. I don't mind 3D on this hand. Personally I would have bid Stayman and then 2NT or even 3NT if partner bids 2S. Axxx Jx Kxx KQTx is game for example. And I would not double on this in a month of Sundays.

But why is it a month of Sundays, rather than any other day?
Lastly: am I to understand from this that
  • You were sitting South.
  • You did not bid 3 over the takeout double.
  • You got a poor score on this board.
If all three are true I don't like this comment.
0

#10 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,244
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2024-June-27, 10:51

 DavidKok, on 2024-June-27, 09:48, said:

I do not agree. Selling out here loses many partscore swings, I think it is on balance right to take action. The argument that we are gaining almost nothing is flawed, both their 2 and our 3 making is quite likely. We don't have to reinvent the LAW, but we should apply it.

I was unaware that the 1NT denied a 5cM. It doesn't change my opinion by much, but I think it is good to disclose such things in the problem statement.

The North hand may well wish to play in either diamonds or hearts. I am not sure why you are ruling out hearts opposite a 4=4=2=3 or 3=4=2=4 distribution. In both those cases it seems highly advantageous to me to take the spade ruffs in the short hand. In fact, we might even wish to play in clubs if opener has the right cards. We probably won't get there (I suspect South intended to correct 3 to 3 to offer a choice of partscores), but it can at times be the best strain.
I'm not sure what methods you use to show a hand that wishes to play in diamonds or hearts, rather than defend 2. If by partnership agreement the above hand is unfit for a takeout double then South should have invented something else, but I rather like the flexibility of the double. As mentioned above I prefer aggressive takeout doubles - we simply can't lose all those partscore swings.
<snip>

How about 2NT? 2-suited, correcting clubs to diamond?
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#11 User is online   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,542
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2024-June-27, 11:39

If you have agreed that 2NT is scrambling I like that, arguing that Lebensohl (or some other -ohl) is not necessary after we have passed 1NT. By inference the double can then show slightly more willingness to convert. I think most people don't have this level of detail in their agreements - I do not, and would not bid 2NT without prior discussion.

I did have an auction vaguely similar to this, where partner bid 2NT scrambling without prior discussion and I reasoned at the table that it could not possibly be anything else. But personally I prefer to take the hit on the board where it comes up and then discuss it after the session.
0

#12 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,244
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2024-June-27, 11:50

I am fully onboard trying to fight for the part score, I just dont like the T/O,
because this means, I may have to defend extremly well to avoid paying a lot,
when they were content with a small pot.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
1

#13 User is offline   nullve 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,294
  • Joined: 2014-April-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:partscores

Posted 2024-June-28, 02:05

The board is from round 5 of this year's European teams championships.

Here you can check how Toledano - Zamir solved the problem after Toledano's 12+-15 1N opening.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users