[jillybean]

---

IMP?
MP?

[mw64ahw]

Why did West X rather than show their ♥ directly?

[mikeh]

I don’t know what N refers to. I do understand the LOTT, although imo most non-experts don’t use it properly nor to they understand when and why it is fallible. As with any of the myriad ‘rules’ or ‘laws’ that have been ‘discovered’ or ‘created’ in bridge it is really no more than either a substitute (bad) or an assist (good) for judgement.

Here, what do we know? That question is FAR more important and useful than any ‘law’ or ‘rule’

Opener likely has at least 6 clubs, partner has 4 hearts, responder likely has at least 3 clubs to bid 3C. How are the spades?

It’s possible that opener has 3 spades and either doesn’t have support doubles available (online or behind screens I’d always ask…face to face, no screens, I might or might not ask, depending on the circumstances) or thinks that showing his 6 card club suit takes priority….as imo it should if he is, for instance, 3=1=3=6 minimum range where he expects us to be competing in hearts and doesn’t want to redouble then be forced to bid 3C without knowing whether partner has adequate clubs.

It’s possible that partner is 5=4=4=0 or even 5=4=3=1 but most players would overcall 1S then compete later (via double or 2H) with many such hands. So the most likely shapes around the table are opener 2=2=3=6/ 3=1=3=6/ 2=2=3=6, partner 4=4=4=1, responder 5=3=2=3 or similar


Note that these are inferences. Inferences come in various forms and almost always, especially early on, with varying degrees of confidence. Knowing how to draw inferences is perhaps the most important step in becoming an expert bidder. These inferences are, imo, ‘primary’ in that they arise from basic principles associated with a simple auction. They are not 100% and, of course, they lack some precision.

They do suggest that we have a double fit in the reds, which increases the playing strength of our hand. They also suggest a nine card fit and shortness in clubs in partner’s hand.

Thus we have a very good hand. Note that I don’t attempt to use any form of ‘point count’ or numerical value. Nor do I use any form of losing trick count. I use visualization.

Picture an innocent takeout double…say KQxx Axxx Kxxx x. Doesn’t look like anything special and we definitely have good play for 9 tricks on most of our inferred hands.

Give him a better hand….Axxx KQxx KQxx x and we’re probably cold for 5 hearts. And so on. We can see, then, that we have to compete and we would like to do so in a manner that invites game.

Ideally, double of 3C would be a game try…if you think about the auction, you’ll see that it’s virtually impossible for you to hold a penalty double of 3C,and virtually all experts would treat the double as either a game try or ‘I have extra values but no clear bid’….while the latter is often the best meaning, once a fit is established (as here, assuming our double of 1S promised at least 4 hearts), the game try usage seems better.

But that isn’t a common treatment amongst most players. I don’t think one could risk 3D, since partner might think you’re showing 4=5 reds and a desire to compete rather than a try for game. So I think you’re stuck with guessing. I’d bid 4H at imps…it’s a vulnerable game and unlikely to be doubled and set two tricks….and 3H at mps.

I’ve set out a lengthy reasoning process…it’s important to be able to do this rapidly…which takes practice….since a slow 3H effectively bars partner should he have some but not great extras.


Btw, I’d have bid 2H initially. I truly dislike double….if I did play double as takeout, which I do with some players, my double would show precisely 4 hearts, never five.

[mike777]

Fwiw to the forum posters
Over 1s by South
What hand would 3H by west show
In your style?
2. 3H by west if South had initially passed?

[akwoo]

At IMPs I definitely bid. Mikeh has convinced me to consider 4H rather than 3H, but I definitely bid.

At MPs, I pass against good opponents but might bid against less good ones. I think mikeh is a bit optimistic on his inference; I think South will be bidding 3C with Qx in clubs and some additional shape, so I'm not as convinced about the double fit. The problem with bidding 3H is that, when it's wrong, it's a bottom for -200. (At IMPs, -200 isn't that bad a score.) In contrast, I'll rarely get a complete bottom for passing, and, also, partner heard my double (I also would've bid 2H but it's worked out well), they also know I likely have 4 diamonds, and they have another bid if they think further competition is worth it.

[jillybean]

Just getting back to this now, there's a lot going on with this hand which will be revealed below.

My X, I assumed was takeout for the red suits and while I do have 5 spades I considered the diamond suit an equally important feature of my hand. ♦AJ65 ♥J9643 and did not want to conceal the ♦. If the auction had proceeded 1♠ X 2♠, I would bid 3♥ but over 1H I thought it best to show both red suits. FWIW I am playing almost exclusively MP

Mike, I appreciate that what you say about visualizing what we know so far, and taking inference, is critical to becoming an expert bidder. I think a lot of this comes back to discipline. When you are playing practice games opposite random opponents, or even at the club, I find it difficult to maintain this discipline and often take ill-conceived actions.

Here's another good hand to make me stop myself and think more.

---

[akwoo]

The hand you displayed shows the trouble with mikeh's thinking - against the players you're playing against, it's impossible to make any inferences based on their action.

North's bid of 2C is atrocious.

As it turns out, passing 3C against the opponents you have is a good idea. You're going to get a good MP score defending 3C, whereas 3H carries risks. I was thinking the risk was -200, but as it turns out the risk is that North proceeds to bid 3S and they find their fit.

[jdiana]

I think the error was East's initial double. I think he or she should have overcalled 1♥.

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2024-December-09, 20:05, said:

I think the error was East's initial double. I think he or she should have overcalled 1♥.

Train wreck, we are both concealing our 5c ♥

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2024-December-09, 20:00, said:

The hand you displayed shows the trouble with mikeh's thinking - against the players you're playing against, it's impossible to make any inferences based on their action.

North's bid of 2C is atrocious.

As it turns out, passing 3C against the opponents you have is a good idea. You're going to get a good MP score defending 3C, whereas 3H carries risks. I was thinking the risk was -200, but as it turns out the risk is that North proceeds to bid 3S and they find their fit.

You’re entirely correct. You may recall that I did reference support doubles. These have become so widely accepted that they’re no longer alertable and while hardly standard at the club level (I do play a bit of club bridge in Victoria, where I suspect the level is fairly high compared to most clubs, mainly because we have two active clubs averaging 16-20 tables per game and all of our 7 grand life masters play often….as do I….) they are quite common even amongst non-experts. No user of support doubles would bid 2C. So my inference was based in part upon an assumption that I would usually check at the table.

More generally your point is an important one and the randomness of so many players makes it hard for aspiring players to improve. Someone like me can lecture/pontificate/rant about how to think at the bridge table all I want, but, unless the reader is playing in a setting where at least a large percentage of opponents are reliable, my advice will not help much.

I’ve long said that it’s actually easier, in some ways, to play against competent opponents than weak ones. On balance, the weak ones inflict so many bad results upon themselves that they get carved by the better players, but that’s ‘getting gifts’ whereas ‘earning tops’ by inspired play happens rarely since inspired play usually requires accurate card-reading and inferences.

Here, the takeout double was, imo, a poor choice. The responsive double ditto. (With reversed red suits, I’d be happy to double). The 2C bid as poor even if not playing support doubles….just pass if one is scared to raise, which one ought not to be. So my inferences were completely mistaken since neither partner nor opener bid as I’d expect competent intermediates to bid.

[mw64ahw]

jdiana, on 2024-December-09, 20:05, said:

I think the error was East's initial double. I think he or she should have overcalled 1♥.

I agree.
East is a touch shy of an opening bid for me so the X over promises playing a standard approach. With a regular partner playing The OS 2♥ showing 5♥4♠ works well.

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2024-December-09, 10:52, said:

Opener likely has at least 6 clubs, partner has 4 hearts, responder likely has at least 3 clubs to bid 3C.

From Responder's perspective it looks like opps have at least an 8c heart fit and that partner at least 6 clubs, so LoTT suggests competing even with doubleton club support, especially at these colours where -100 in 3♣X-1 still beats -110 in 2♥=.

[jdiana]

mikeh, on 2024-December-09, 23:28, said:

Here, the takeout double was, imo, a poor choice. The responsive double ditto. (With reversed red suits, I’d be happy to double).

Is treating this double as responsive pretty much standard? I think what I learned originally was that doubles were responsive when the opponents bid and raised the same suit but in situations like this, West's double would be a penalty double (of spades in this case). But more recently I've seen references to it as responsive or "card showing". Pretty sure Larry Cohen recommends treating it as responsive, even for lower-level players like me. Is that a change in what's considered standard?

[awm]

This double used to be penalty, but a big part of the rationale is exposing a possible psych. These days psyching is less popular and some pairs play this double as red suits. I wouldn’t say it’s pretty standard though; I’ve seen good players with either agreement.

[helene_t]

jdiana, on 2024-December-10, 06:12, said:

Is treating this double as responsive pretty much standard? I think what I learned originally was that doubles were responsive when the opponents bid and raised the same suit but in situations like this, West's double would be a penalty double (of spades in this case). But more recently I've seen references to it as responsive or "card showing". Pretty sure Larry Cohen recommends treating it as responsive, even for lower-level players like me. Is that a change in what's considered standard?

I think that penalty had more merit back in the days when people would psyche the 1♠ response more often.

Then they stopped psyching it because it would always get doubled which exposes the psyche.

Then people started playing double as responsive because 1♠ isn't a psyche anymore.

Now, maybe people will start psyching again as we can't double it for penalties anymore.

And the cycle goes on

[bluenikki]

awm, on 2024-December-10, 06:17, said:

This double used to be penalty, but a big part of the rationale is exposing a possible psych. These days psyching is less popular and some pairs play this double as red suits. I wouldn’t say it’s pretty standard though; I’ve seen good players with either agreement.

The issue is not a psych with fewer than 4 spades, it's a goose-psych with 5432 in spades. Do you believe that goose-psychs are less popular? And the double is not in the hope of defending 1♠X, it's arranging that subsequent spade bids are natural.

[mikeh]

jdiana, on 2024-December-10, 06:12, said:

Is treating this double as responsive pretty much standard? I think what I learned originally was that doubles were responsive when the opponents bid and raised the same suit but in situations like this, West's double would be a penalty double (of spades in this case). But more recently I've seen references to it as responsive or "card showing". Pretty sure Larry Cohen recommends treating it as responsive, even for lower-level players like me. Is that a change in what's considered standard?

I usually play the double as showing 4+ spades and hand ownership. With 5 decent spades and competitive values I bid 2S. But, as awm says, psyches are virtually non-existent these days so the frequency/utility of the ‘penalty’ double, which has psyche exposure as a main benefit, is not what it used to be.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2024-December-09, 12:19, said:

Fwiw to the forum posters
Over 1s by South
What hand would 3H by west show
In your style?
2. 3H by west if South had initially passed?

I’ll bite, I don’t think that I have ever seen it but

3H would be , 6+ weak?

[Zelandakh]

We need to make a lot of assumptions here. First of all West's double. It is very popular to play this as showing spades but as we can see the hand we know it is hearts. A poster asks why not 2♥ - my assumption to that is going to be that 2♥ shows an invitational hand (as without the 1♠ call) and that double is therefore primarily competitive. Whether this hand is actually constructive is a moot point as the wine waiter saw 6hcp and made the decision. Then we have to move over to East. It used to be that an auction like (1♣) - X - (P) - 1♥; (P) - 2♥ showed extras but Meckwell popularised the treatment that this is purely obstructive and that has become somewhat widespread. Given we also have opps' bidding in this auction, the assumption would be that this is a competitive 2♥ rather than a constructive one but that is an agreement we really should know about. If 2♥ is competitive then I would bid 3♦ now, which ought imho to be a game try; if constructive then 4♥ seems clear as we surely could not be any better.

As far as LoTTy goes, the MP rule is that you should bid more freely at Love All and less freely at Game All. Being red makes surprisingly little difference. The maths changes a little at IMPs due to the likelihood of getting "MP-doubled" going down but I genuinely cannot see any reason why that would stop us from bidding here.

Now looking at the actual hand, I dislike East's double quite a lot as it falls well outside of my (admittedly somewhat old-fashioned) requirements. Of course if the double just shows "any hand with 11+hcp", a relatively popular agreement at club level, then we ned to go through the entire auction again. A bidding question where half of the previous calls are highly dubious seems like a strange idea - maybe this hand would have worked better as a play-by-play story thread?