[jdonn]

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 29 2010, 10:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure I'd ever double on this shape with less than 12 (and there are certainly those who would so you should be extra cautious when reading their replies). If you come up with some fantastic 11s for me I'll tell you if I'd make an exception.

I meant "worst" in terms of the positive and negative factors you listed. I was wondering how close you'd get to the horrible AKQJ xxx Qxx xxx over 1♠.

I'd never double 1♠ on a 4333 (in that order) 12 count.

[JLOGIC]

I would double with 44(23) 14 a lot.

[cloa513]

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Where the opening bid was instead one strong club, all three players doubled to show both majors (in two cases) or "diamonds or both majors" (in one case).

Since partner had:

♠Q1053 ♥J103 ♦7 ♣KQ1086

and since the lie of cards was moderately favourable, game (4♠) was cold. It was reached at one table out of eight, when the response to the takeout double was 1♠ (giving you some idea of what a modern partner expects for a takeout double) and the doubler raised this to 2♠ after 1NT to his right; advancer now bid game.

At three other tables, advancer jumped in spades (once to three, twice to two). These partnerships did not reach game - in fact, one of them reached three hearts when, after the opponents competed in diamonds, advancer intellectually bid his heart fragment and doubler left him in it for down one.

At a fourth table, advancer doubled a pre-emptive raise to three diamonds and doubler passed this out for plus 200.

At the tables where the opening bid was a strong club, one advancer bought the hand for 3♠ and one for 2♠. The third assumed his partner had diamonds rather than the majors and did not bid at all, losing 120 against 1NT.

What can we learn from all this? If we knew that, we'd presumably have learned it by now.

Just goes to show that playing at a high level doesn't mean you are world class. The pair who passed 3H- barely intermediate. Other partnerships barely advanced. To count as an expert, need to know your partner very well and opponents somewhat and most cardplays. Worldclass- know partner, opponents as well as possible, all cardplays- variations will occur with contract and play due to bidding system, slight aggressiveness variations, opponents counter action.

[655321]

cloa513, on Aug 29 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Just goes to show that playing at a high level doesn't mean you are world class. The pair who passed 3H- barely intermediate. Other partnerships barely advanced. To count as an expert, need to know your partner very well and opponents somewhat and most cardplays. Worldclass- know partner, opponents as well as possible, all cardplays- variations will occur with contract and play due to bidding system, slight aggressiveness variations, opponents counter action.

I admit that it is rare for me to understand a Cloacal post, but this one is in a class of its own!

[benlessard]

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?
♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72


Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

[peachy]

655321, on Aug 29 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

cloa513, on Aug 29 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Just goes to show that playing at a high level doesn't mean you are world class. The pair who passed 3H- barely intermediate. Other partnerships barely advanced. To count as an expert, need to know your partner very well and opponents somewhat and most cardplays. Worldclass- know partner, opponents as well as possible, all cardplays- variations will occur with contract and play due to bidding system, slight aggressiveness variations, opponents counter action.

I admit that it is rare for me to understand a Cloacal post, but this one is in a class of its own!

Heh, not to mention he thinks Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup which are World Championships, would have intermediates playing...

[raist]

benlessard, on Aug 29 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?
♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72


Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

i can sort of understand doubling with 4-4 in the majors
as you are likely to find a major fit with partner


but what about 4333s? (with 3 in their minor of course)
how many of you would reguarly double with 12-13 counts of that shape with no J or Q in opp's minor?

[JLOGIC]

raist, on Aug 30 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

but what about 4333s? (with 3 in their minor of course)
how many of you would reguarly double with 12-13 counts of that shape with no J or Q in opp's minor?

I would always over 1m

[JLOGIC]

benlessard, on Aug 29 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?
♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72


Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

Why should we want to defend 1N "any time" if we have a major suit fit? This hand type makes it likely that 2M and 1N make when the points are divided and we have a fit.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on Aug 30 2010, 01:19 PM, said:

benlessard, on Aug 29 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Can some1 give me what is the upside of doubling 1D with this at fav vuln?
♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72


Most of the time its going to be a partscore 17-23 pts battle where you should be willing to defend 1Nt anytime and can make a delayed X of 2C or 2D. If they show strenght or bid both M youll be happy to have passed.

Why should we want to defend 1N "any time" if we have a major suit fit? This hand type makes it likely that 2M and 1N make when the points are divided and we have a fit.

No only that, but taking all of your tricks in defence against 1NT is much harder than taking all of your tricks as declarer in 2♠. So even if we "should" beat 1NT a trick, sometimes we don't.

Also, Ben, why do you assume that when we have a major-suit fit they're going to let you double 2♣ or 2♦? It may well go 1♦-3♦ or 1♦-2♦-3♦ or 1♦-2♣-3♣.

I'd far prefer to double 1♦ on this than on a 3433 14-count.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-August-30, 08:39

[hanp]

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Where the opening bid was instead one strong club, all three players doubled to show both majors (in two cases) or "diamonds or both majors" (in one case).

I would also double 1D but I consider it close. In the Netherlands most strong partnerships open 1C and I would double that more comfortably. I think doubling a strong 1C (for the majors) is so automatic that I don't understand why it is worth mentioning.

Quote

Since partner had:

♠Q1053  ♥J103  ♦7  ♣KQ1086

and since the lie of cards was moderately favourable, game (4♠) was cold. It was reached at one table out of eight, when the response to the takeout double was 1♠ (giving you some idea of what a modern partner expects for a takeout double) and the doubler raised this to 2♠ after 1NT to his right; advancer now bid game.

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

Quote

What can we learn from all this? If we knew that, we'd presumably have learned it by now.

It doesn't seem too hard to learn from this. The top players double very aggressively, and compete aggressively over a strong club. When doubling they don't worry too much about a doubleton in an unbid minor, and as advancer they don't expect their doubling partner to have the world.

If I was an aspiring bridge player, I would look closely at what the top players were doing. If what they were doing seemed to help them win, I would copy it.

[JLOGIC]

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

[dburn]

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

This at any rate is conclusive evidence that Han is a true mathematician. In my original post I said that at five tables out of eight the South players doubled one diamond, and at three they doubled one club. Non-mathematicians will be able to compute from this the number of passers, but for Han's benefit we will say that the cardinality of the set of passers equalled the cardinality of the empty set.

[aguahombre]

ouch.

[benlessard]

I have a hard time finding a shape where partner cannot bid and 2M (our side)/1Nt (them) make. Not saying they dont exist but ...


(1D)----(1S)
(1NT)---AP

And partner with 5H can balanced quite weak. Defending againt VUL with 4/4 H fit when the lead is H doesnt bother me that much.

If it goes

1D---1Nt (partner can double safely here since we are NV/im a passed hand and there is presumption of a fit)

1D---1H (again partner can X or 1S agressively)

I just dont see the upside of competing agressively with balanced hands when you can balanced/pre-balance with unbalanced hands.


Ive we are red against W i can see the upside.

Missing a game hurt more.
Defending 1NT is less tempting
Partner with a borderline line will pass instead of bid.

[gwnn]

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

In the Netherlands most strong partnerships open 1C and I would double that more comfortably.

[lexlogan]

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

[hanp]

dburn, on Aug 30 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

I reckon that the players who doubled 1D did pretty well then, apart for the partnership that ended in 3H. I wouldn't beat myself up for missing this game, 19-HCP and no spectacular distribution. Did the passers get to game, or even to spades?

This at any rate is conclusive evidence that Han is a true mathematician. In my original post I said that at five tables out of eight the South players doubled one diamond, and at three they doubled one club. Non-mathematicians will be able to compute from this the number of passers, but for Han's benefit we will say that the cardinality of the set of passers equalled the cardinality of the empty set.

Now this post has just the right length for me.

[junyi_zhu]

JLOGIC, on Aug 30 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Yep, if someone in the Venice Cup makes a bid I would make it too!

Really? I thought you are way better than most playing Venice cup.

[junyi_zhu]

raist, on Aug 29 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

I have a qn regarding "modern" takeout double styles
it seems that many double with balanced 12-13 hcps these days over a 1minor opening without really having shortness in the the minor suit
very often with 4333 shape or so

i understand that the "modern" style of light openings can be quite effective
i'm wondering if the "modern" takeout double is also an effective style? or is it just ill-disicplined and poor bidding?

anybody can say from personal experience or with some semi-conclusive proof from running simulations ?

The basic idea of this style is simple, when opps tend to open and respond very light, you really want to get across your value as early as possible. When you pass first and balance later, you lose a lot of space to investigate the right suit or games. That's why a lot of off shape doubles come nowadays. That's also why people tend to open light, because if you don't, your opps will and you are often not in a good position later.
Still, I am actually not that extreme. I tend to double with a minimum with at least 3 cards in unbid suits with a few exceptions (for example good unbid major and doubleton honor in minor). Also, I tend to overcall with 4 cards at one level when possible. Of course, this overcall may not show your shape immediately, but it also place you well in some sense because you show your value early. For example, with
xxx xxx AKQx Kxx, IMO, it's a perfect 1D overcall instead of a double against 1C.
Playing this style, the responder really don't have to jump with 8-10 HCP and a bad 4 card suit. Often, the right bid with Qxxx Axx Kxx xxx against partner double over 1C is 1S, not 2S. Also, it's often right to bid 1NT with some stopper in opener's suit and a 4 card minor. like this hand: Axx xxx Qxx KJxx, it's better to bid 1NT facing 1D x pass, although it plays better facing a traditional double with 4-4-1-4. More likely what you are facing nowadays is 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-3-3, or even 4-4-3-2.
Actually I guess that in the future, the 1NT overcall strength will be lowered to 14-16 when white for many.