[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

Folks, I've been trying to post the standards players like The Dallas Aces, The Blue team, and many present WC pairs use.

I am not advocating my own "custom" methods.

Please tell me that you aren't claiming that there is any similarity between the takeout double styles used by the Blue Team and those used by the Aces.

It was bad enough when you were posting nonsense like the following:

Quote

The ranges used here have nothing to do with "fashion" and everything to do with logic. Culbertson and Goren used the same ranges that Miles, Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, etc etc do now. Because the range is dictated by the cards. Not fashion.

But dragging the Italians in to this shows (once again) that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

For the record, here's Culbertson's requirements for a takeout double. (this is taken from page 264 of The New Gold Book of Bidding and Play)

Quote

The requirements for a takeout double are:

    3 honor-tricks divided in three suits; and if any of the suits has less than four cards, the hand should contain strong intermediates.

    3 honor-tricks in two suits, provided the hand has a rebiddable suit containing 4 trump tricks or more

Exceptions are:  When a hand is exceptionally strong in honor-cards, though having only 2 1/2 honor-tricks, as in the case of example 5 on the opposite page; and in occasional bidding situations that would make a takeout double safer than an overcall would be.

Example 5 is

♠ AJT9
♥ 4
♦ QJ73
♣ QJT8

Culbertson recommends doubling even though you "only" have 2.5 honor tricks. With hand 2

♠ A863
♥ 5
♦ A754
♣ A642

Culbertson recommends passing if vulnerable.

Here's another hand where Culbertson recommends doubling a 1♠ opening

♠ 6
♥ AQ73
♦ AKJ654
♣ T8

Lets shift over to look at some hands from Mike Lawrence

In "The Complete Book of Takeout Doubles" Lawrence recommends a takeout double with the following hands

♠ AT94
♥ 6
♦ K982
♣ KT94

♠ AJ74
♥ 54
♦ KT4
♣ K965

Both these hands contain 2 Quick tricks. Neither is suitable for a Culbertson style takeout double.

[foo]

Ah, my personal gadfly is back. I think I may adopt you.

yep, bidding theory has advanced since the time of Eli Culberson. 70+ years have passed after all.

Quote

♠ AJT9 ♥ 4 ♦ QJ73 ♣ QJT8

♠ A863 ♥ 5 ♦ A754 ♣ A642

the 1st evals to 14 Dummy points and has perfect shape. Easy X.

the 2nd is the dreaded "A's and spaces" hand.
OTOH, I see 6/7 of the controls needed for game, 7 losers, perfect shape, and 15 Dummy points. Easy X.
Modern theory respects shape and being control rich more than Culbertson did.

Quote

Here's another hand where Culbertson recommends doubling a 1♠ opening
♠ 6 ♥ AQ73 ♦ AKJ654 ♣ T8

Whereas today we recognize this as a nice 2♦ overcall.

Quote

Lets shift over to look at some hands from Mike Lawrence

Lawrence recommends a takeout double with the following hands

♠ AT94 ♥ 6 ♦ K982 ♣ KT94

♠ AJ74 ♥ 54 ♦ KT4 ♣ K965

Both these hands contain 2 Quick tricks. Neither is suitable for a Culbertson style takeout double.

a= Mike says that he would not make a T/O X either with the first hand if it did not have all those T's and 9's (p5).

b= Mike says (p6) "I like X. With a doubleton H and only 3 D's, you have to decide if having 11 decent points will compensate of the inferior distribution. I would accept a X on this, but would not insist."
IOW, Mike considers it an optional T/O X that he would make because he's aggressive (He's also a Dallas Ace and a multiple times WC. He just may have better table skills than most to allow him to take greater risks.)

Bottom line: Mike's aggressive and says so.

from my POV,
hand "a" evals to 13 Dummy Points in support of any suit, is control rich, has useful intermediates, and the missing A's rate to be in front of rather than behind the K's. X seems easy.

hand "b" is a system problem. I don't like making T/O X's on 8 loser hands w/o some other compensating extras. This hand doesn't have them. I'd pass.


Whatever your point here was, I'm not sure you proved it or anything beyond the fact that Bridge has evolved in the last 70+ years. Although we T/O X =slightly= more aggressively than Culbertson did, the basics have not changed much.
...and bye the bye, if you are going to make more aggressive T/O X's, you'd best become more conservative about Advancing them.

[kenrexford]

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support. This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade. However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction. This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors. Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract. How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's? Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction. The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration. That allows game tries with definition. Consider the two auctions:

1♥-X-P-2♠-
P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

1♥-X-P-1♠-
???-2♠-P-???

In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps. That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

Sure, you have the same quantitative bash in the approach where a jump to 2♠ shows a fifth spade and about 9 losers, but these hands usually can be bid with a quantitative bash, as Advancer usually has 5332 pattern and two cards. No neat GT's needed. (3♠ looks more like 5-card and needing a reason to not play game -- 5332 and three cards is quite large here.)

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

[ochinko]

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support.  This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade.  However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction.  This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors.  Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract.  How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's?  Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction.  The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration.  That allows game tries with definition.  Consider the two auctions:

1♥-X-P-2♠-
P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

1♥-X-P-1♠-
???-2♠-P-???

In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps.  That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

Sure, you have the same quantitative bash in the approach where a jump to 2♠ shows a fifth spade and about 9 losers, but these hands usually can be bid with a quantitative bash, as Advancer usually has 5332 pattern and two cards.  No neat GT's needed.  (3♠ looks more like 5-card and needing a reason to not play game -- 5332 and three cards is quite large here.)

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

1. You seem to forget the fact that the advancer is forced to bid on the first round, so 1♠ could be bid with only three spades when there is no better bid. This makes it impossible for the doubler to distinguish between 3 and 4 cards support if you want 2♠ to show 5. So 2♠ from the doubler don't actually agree any fit.

2. Preempt is when you bid without high cards strength. 2♠ is no preempt if it promises 8 points. You, on the other hand preempt yourself with your example bidding:

1♥-X-P-1♠-
???-2♠-P-???

You would do that as a doubler with what, 16-17 points? And what would you say when you see the poor dummy has xxx xxxx xxx xxx? Will you curse your bad luck or try to improve your methods?

That case is far more dangerous than to be "preempted" with 8 points. Not only you would have more trumps, as partner guarantees 4, not only you have more points (lets say 11 from you, and 8 from partner) but these points would be split between the hands, and provide you with vital entries. There's no comparison for your chances of making 2♠.

As for the case that doubler could have only 3 spades, his hand should be good enough to play with a Moisian fit. It's not like partner wouldn't know what is expected from a double, right?

As for the NT just how on earth are you going to explore whether you belong there and at what level if you play it that 1♠ could show absolutely everything short of an opening hand?

I can assure you I am not less worried than you to describe my hand properly. Jamming the opposition is but a side effect, although a welcomed one.

[awm]

A few points:

(1) 1♠ could be bid on three spades, but this is actually very rare. Usually advancer has a four-card suit he can name, or enough values to bid 1nt, or to pass the double. It's not really that important to cater to the fact that 1♠ "might be three."

(2) You do need to have a point range for 1♠. Doubler has to be allowed to pass with a minimum double and only three trumps, since in this case you can get into really serious trouble at the two-level. With a really shoddy double and four trumps it may also be best to pass. I don't think playing 1♠ advance as forcing is practical.

(3) I agree that there can be a problem over the 2♠ jump if doubler has only three spades and mild extras. This is why it's good for 2♠ to have a fairly tight range if only four trumps whereas the bottom end of this range loosens up considerably when advancer has five trumps (since now we can play 3♠ over doubler's 3-trump game try without too much concern). The typical auction is 1♦-X-P-2♠; P-3♦-P... where 3♦ announces extras with only three trumps and asks advancer to do something reasonable. Advancer can still bid 3♠ to say "well I have five spades and a pretty minimum hand" and advancer guarantees game values opposite this bid when holding only four spades (will rebid 3NT or some other call if no stopper).

[foo]

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

[Fluffy]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 11:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

This is kidna the opposite of what I think.

Either you never double because you don't have 4c major, in wich case you don't compete enough; or you double even holding doubleton minor, and then, if you offer just 1 suit why don't you jsut bid 1♠ instead?

[kenrexford]

ochinko, on Jul 3 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

1. You seem to forget the fact that the advancer is forced to bid on the first round, so 1♠ could be bid with only three spades when there is no better bid. This makes it impossible for the doubler to distinguish between 3 and 4 cards support if you want 2♠ to show 5. So 2♠ from the doubler don't actually agree any fit.

2. Preempt is when you bid without high cards strength. 2♠ is no preempt if it promises 8 points. You, on the other hand preempt yourself with your example bidding:

1♥-X-P-1♠-
???-2♠-P-???

You would do that as a doubler with what, 16-17 points? And what would you say when you see the poor dummy has xxx xxxx xxx xxx? Will you curse your bad luck or try to improve your methods?

That case is far more dangerous than to be "preempted" with 8 points. Not only you would have more trumps, as partner guarantees 4, not only you have more points (lets say 11 from you, and 8 from partner) but these points would be split between the hands, and provide you with vital entries. There's no comparison for your chances of making 2♠.

As for the case that doubler could have only 3 spades, his hand should be good enough to play with a Moisian fit. It's not like partner wouldn't know what is expected from a double, right?

As for the NT just how on earth are you going to explore whether you belong there and at what level if you play it that 1♠ could show absolutely everything short of an opening hand?

I can assure you I am not less worried than you to describe my hand properly. Jamming the opposition is but a side effect, although a welcomed one.

1. As mentioned, the number of times where 1♥-X-P-? yields a three-card spade suit bid is relatively low. More importantly, the number of times when it yields a three-card spade bid and Opener makes another non-jump call is even lower. I'd rather risk playing a 4-3 fit when Opener rebids something than risk a 3-4 fit immediately. I think the odds of the 7-card fit are higher as an immediate action than they are as a delayed action, primarily because Opener's new call, if he makes one, indicates that his pattern is more distributional than average and, accordingly, that our distribution perforce must be on average likewise more distributional.

2. The term "preemption" does not literally mean "I have a weak hand." It means that we are preempting ability to make bids at a lower level. A strong 2♣, with a 2♦ waiting response, with a 3♦ rebid by Opener, is quite preemptive. Try6 distinguishing 4-card and 5-card majors in this auction. The question is not whether a call that "preempts" ourselves leads us to a "dangerous" contract. The question is whether the preemption makes it unduly difficult to find the ideal strain and ideal level.

3. How does one explore 3NT after a 1♠ call? Well, now that's a good question. I suppose that's a real problem, and a great point. I personally do not run into that problem too much, as I have a "solution" that I typically use. A 1NT overcall of a major does not guarantee a stopper. It simply promises strength. With only three spades, something like 3244, I'd overcall 1NT.

If Responder passes 1NT, and the opponents cash a bazillion hearts, such is life.

However, if Responder has a chunky hand, like this one, he would use systems on, with a slight tweak.

Without four spades, but game-ish, he'd "transfer" to hearts (Opener's suit). If I held a minimum with a legitimate stopper, I'd bid 2NT. With a minimum but no legitimate stopper, I'd "accept" the transfer, bidding 2♥, which is scrambling. With a maximum, I bid 3NT with hearts double-stopped, 3♥ with hearts single-stopped, or something natural with no heart stop.

With four spades, and game-ish, partner would bid 2♣. If I have four spades, I bid them. If I have no spade suit, I bid 2♦. If partner has game interest, he can bid 2NT or 3NT, but 2♥ would checkback on the heart stop. With a minimum and no stop, I can bid 2♠ (I must have three spades if I have no stopper). With a minimum and a legitimate stopper, I bid 2NT. With a maximum, I bid 3NT (double stop), 3♥ (single stop), or a new minor (no stop).

The rare downsides are when we play 1NT and are set and when we wrong-side 3NT. However, this problem is very rare, and it solves a world of hurt.

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jul 3 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 11:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

This is kidna the opposite of what I think.

Either you never double because you don't have a 4c major, in which case you don't compete enough; or you double even holding doubleton minor, and then, if you offer just 1 suit why don't you just bid 1♠ instead?

When holding a hand that should overcall, I overcall.

When holding a hand with support for all the unbid suits, particularly with 4 cards in the unbid major(s) and at least 3 cards in the unbid minors, I make T/O X's

Great hand strength or some other weirdness does occasionally cause me, like anyone else, to reach for the "least lie" to tell.

Sometimes that even means I pass because I do not systemically have the right bid available.
C'est La Vie.

Trust me, I both X and overcall plenty.

[foo]

Jlall, on Jul 4 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

That hand is well within that "what's the least lie I can tell" catagory.
I do not like passing pure 5 loser hands.

Since AKx has the trick taking strength of many 4 card holdings, and so does Qxxxx, I'd very likely treat this as a 4144 ATT and make a T/O X with it.

Make the hand Qxx.x.(KQxx.AKxxx), and I start to really dislike making a T/O X with it and would probably Overcall 2m instead.

Make it Qxx.x.(AKxx.KQxxx), and at Favorable I might even trot out Unusual 2N with it.

As I said, with these sorts of hands, it's about finding the least lie.

[jdonn]

So pretty much your doubles promise a 4 card major except for when you have 3, got it

Out of curiosity, since when is passing with a hand that does not meet your own criteria for bidding a "lie", as the fact you are looking for the least lie implies you think pass is one.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Jul 4 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

I guess this is an obvious 1N for Ken.

[Codo]

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

I think that there are a few major concepts being missed in this discussion.

Quote

First, the doubler must distinguish 3-card support from 4-card support.  This distinction becomes irrelevant when the 2♠ call promises a fifth spade

What problemhand do you construct where you have a problem? Lets take Jusiins example for a double with just 3 card support:
Akx,x, KQxx,Qxxxx.
Which problem exactly do you face with the approach that 2 Spade shows 4 Spades and 8-10 HCPs? Do you think that you miss 5 in a minor?
If you have a slightly weaker hand, still good enough too double. What is your problem with a 4-3 Fit at the second level with a known shortness in the hand with just 3 trumps?

Quote

.  However, when 2♠ can be bid with a four-card suit, and when doubler has three, this jams our auction.  This might not be as much a concern in this specific auction, but the parallel auction 1♦-X-P-2♠ creates more of a problem if Responder is 4-4 in the majors.

There is an easy solution for this: (1 ♦) X (pass) 2 ♦ shows both majors 4/4 and 8-10 HCps or a strong hand with 11+ HCPs. Works easy and good and is part of SEF.

Quote

  Further, even in this auction, clubs or diamonds may be the superior contract.

There may be a hand in thousand where you have a better fit in a minor which even plays so much better (2 tricks more) then your major. But if this happens, you won´t find these hands with your approach too.

Quote

It gets worse if NT might be a superior contract.  How, precisely, does doubler explore 2NT/3NT when you have a 4+ spade suit and 8-11 HCP's when doubler has three spades and about 15 HCP's?  Not only does partner have an inability to know if you have the values for 3NT, you have just preempted him beyond 2♥.

If pd has something like xxxx, AQx, Kxxx,xx me may had bid 1 NT and not 2 Spade at his first opportunity? There may be few hands where NT is better and you reach Spades, but this happens even in undisturbed auctions.

Quote

More of a "problem" is that partner must raise in order to support spades in an ongoing auction.  The more you toss into 2♠, the more frequently partner must bid 3♠ to invite game, and you have just forced a quantitative bash, which is not ideal, IMO (especially with the 3/4 problem as to the support).

It is no rpoblem, because your hand is very well defined. Pd knows, that you have exactly 4 spades and 8-10 HCPs. And he has 3 ♥ and 3 ♠ avaiable to show different hand types for his invitation, so no bash at all.

Quote

If, by contrast, you bid 1♠ with four cards and any hand that needs four trumps to make a fit, you will hear a 2♠ call when game is still in consideration.  That allows game tries with definition. 

Again, how close should the definition be? Much closer then 8-10 and 4 card Spade suit is not possible.

Quote

Consider the two auctions:

1♥-X-P-2♠-
P-(pass/3♠)-P-???

1♥-X-P-1♠-
???-2♠-P-???
In the second auction, as you can clearly see, spades are agreed as trumps.  That allows advancer to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠ as various game tries, whatever you use.

And in your system he needs a lot of bids to show his different hand types: He can have 0-9 HCPs and 3-4 Spades.
In the SEF Approach he had already shown his hand, so he can simply judge whether he thinks that his hand belongs in 3 or 4 SPade or in 3 NT opposite the invitation.

Quote

It seems that the 2♠ bidders are too worried about opposition jamming, whereas the 1♠ bidders recognize that our own jamming of our own auction is just as troublesome, of not more so (as the opponents are allowed to pass or to make bids below 2♠).

I don´t think so. The worries that opener will jam the auction is there, sure, but imo the main advantage for the french approach is, that I prefer to make a very describtive bid of the hand as soon and as often as possible.

[Codo]

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

Quote

1. As mentioned, the number of times where 1♥-X-P-? yields a three-card spade suit bid is relatively low.  More importantly, the number of times when it yields a three-card spade bid and Opener makes another non-jump call is even lower.  I'd rather risk playing a 4-3 fit when Opener rebids something than risk a 3-4 fit immediately.
I think the odds of the 7-card fit are higher as an immediate action than they are as a delayed action, primarily because Opener's new call, if he makes one, indicates that his pattern is more distributional than average and, accordingly, that our distribution perforce must be on average likewise more distributional.

1. I strongly belive that it is much better if the weaker hand has the four card suit but even more important: I wish that the hand with the 3 card support has the shortage in their suit. And this happens if we play in our 4 card suit.
2. Most doubles hold a four card major. There are hands where you double with just three, but in the majority of all auctions you reach your 4-4 major fit.
3. If you double and bid a new suit, this does surely not show a 4 card suit, searching for another 4/3 fit. This shows a one suiter which was too strong to bid your minor direct.

Quote

2. ... Try6 distinguishing 4-card and 5-card majors in this auction.  The question is not whether a call that "preempts" ourselves leads us to a "dangerous" contract.  The question is whether the preemption makes it unduly difficult to find the ideal strain and ideal level.

We agree at last. So what do you belive your pds take out double looks like? The perfect X has a4144 with 10+ HCPs, right? If pd has less distribution, he has more HCPs. Easy. So, if you bid your 4 card suit to the second level and your 5 card suit to the third, you are ALLWAYS protected by the law, so you should bid 3 Spade with 5 Spades and 2 Spade with 4 Spades. Easy, isn´t it?

[jdonn]

What is all this talk about 1♠ showing 3+ spades? There is an extremely tiny class of hands that must respond 1♠ with three of them, so what that is just an anamoly. I don't think I have responded 1♠ on that auction with three of them in my entire life, it just comes up in books and on bidding forums. Jumping with Jxxx and a 4333 hand just because we have 9 oh-so-important points is a whole lot more sick than bidding 1♠ on this hand. There is almost no risk of that bid missing a game, it leaves a lot more options open to find other strains, and it doesn't propel us to the 2 or 3 level on a hand that would play terribly if it found a 4-3 fit (and yes it would play terribly in a moysian, who cares if the 3 card hand can ruff a heart, we would then never be able to draw trumps and badly lose control.) It is also bad to require 2♠ to be exactly four of them, because it gets you a level higher needlessly when you have five. Why play 3 when you could have just bought it in 2, the opponents don't always have the hands to take you out of it. 2♠ has to show offense, and this hand just doesn't have it, all it has is points for bean counters.

[Fluffy]

Quote

It is also bad to require 2♠ to be exactly four of them, because it gets you a level higher needlessly when you have five. Why play 3 when you could have just bought it in 2

It is much better to play 3♠ when I have 5 spades, than 3♠ when I bid 2 with 4, but partner didn't know and tried game stupidly with only 3.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Jul 4 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

What is all this talk about 1♠ showing 3+ spades? There is an extremely tiny class of hands that must respond 1♠ with three of them, so what that is just an anamoly.

Of course this does not happen so often, but that you make a take out double with just three spades and loose control in 2 Spade in the moysan is an every day thing?

Quote

It is also bad to require 2♠ to be exactly four of them, because it gets you a level higher needlessly when you have five. Why play 3 when you could have just bought it in 2, the opponents don't always have the hands to take you out of it.

1. You obey the law.
2. You describe your hand pretty exactly too partner.
3. There is no risk at all. If you fail to make 3 Spade, they will make 2 Heart- see point Nr. 1.

Quote

2♠ has to show offense, and this hand just doesn't have it, all it has is points for bean counters.

Yes I have KJx in a suit my pd has some length and behind opener.
I have the ace in their suit. O yes, how horrible these points are.
There are downsides in your hand: 4333 and weak spades. But surely your HCPs will work more often then not.

But go ahead, call this silly, bidding 2 Spade with just four is really way to risky.

[Robert]

Hi foo

I lost a rather long reply early this morning and just lost a somewhat shorter reply just now. I trust that the third try will finally post.

You have very little idea of what SA methods contain. Mike Lawrence writes about 2/1 methods, they are not SA "even if that is your opinion."

Mike Lawrence is a very fine writer. I do not agree with all of his ideas and that is fine with him. I certainly do not agree with all(many, most?) of your ideas.

You post your "custom" methods and claim that they are SA. They are not(repeat not SA)

Doubling and raising in 'competition' with 4 trumps is good bridge IMHO. I can also double again to 'show' your extra value hand. I have two ways to bid and your 'custom' methods have only one.

Mike Lawrence writes 2/1 methods books. He does not write SA books. I certainly do not use SA methods most of the time. I use the best methods that are available, whatever they are.

Will try to post this and continue my reply starting at page four.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Lost another post, somewhat shorter. Try, try again.

Hi foo

Bidding has everything to do with 'fashion.' The bids mean what the system dictates not the cards. KS makes 'shape' doubles with 8+HCP. The Italians* make off shape doubles to show an opening bid.

Changing the subject a bit, just how do you explain the very wide difference in Goren era jump major raises as forcing and modern weak jump major raises?
It is the bidding system chosen and not the cards that dictate the bid.

Back again. You might want to reconsider the losing trick area if you really think that a 4333 hand with for example four queens has the same number of losers as a 4333 hand with four Aces.

Hi kenberg Ken is the boyfriend of Barbie.

Back again foo Given the example hand in this post, I would certainly at least invite opposite a Roth Stone raise of a major and I might even bid game opposite a KS style single raise 'if' vul. The system suggests the bid. The bidding style in 'fashion' suggests the bid. The cards have little to do with the system methods chosen.

You are claiming that your own 'custom' methods are SA and they are not. The methods of the Aces and the Italians* were not alike. Your claims that they were alike simply does not mesh with the bridge played in that era.

As far as current era WC players, Meckwell doubles with 4432 over 1C and 4423 over 1D. They are very good players, however, they have agreed to a style that doubles with less than Goren type shapes.

Will try to post this one and start over at page five.

Regards,
Robert