[Jinksy]

Here's a question I would like and don't have a meta-rule for:

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

[aguahombre]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-19, 12:04, said:

Here's a question I would like and don't have a meta-rule for:

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

meta-whatever for me: if I have two suits I bid (show) the two suits in some fashion.

X-then bid=doubt with a fifth card in the suit, too much to overcall (18+)
X-then jump bid=huge one-suiter.
X-then cue=directionless biggie without stop in Opener's suit...Usually 3 only for advancer's suit by "meta" inference.

[Jinksy]

What if you're too high? Eg in the thread I gave where you hear 4♦ to your right, wank thought that X then pull to 4S should roughly show a black 2-suiter. Do you disagree? If not, where's the cut-off point between that and your normal X-then-bid meaning?

[Jinksy]

From Gnasher in another thread:

Quote

All doubles of the form (bid) overcall (cue) double should show a hand that wanted to raise

[the hog]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-09, 10:32, said:

I believe Ron Klinger doesn't.

Anyway, this would be subject to the 'agreed exceptions' that I tried really hard to emphasise that there would often be...

Of course he does as I well know from experience.

[WellSpyder]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-19, 12:04, said:

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

PhilKing's meta-rule seems to be that it is always the latter. Flexible doubles rule OK.

[PhilKing]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-September-22, 03:48, said:

PhilKing's meta-rule seems to be that it is always the latter. Flexible doubles rule OK.

"Always" might be a bit strong - if you double and remove a major to a major, it tends to show extra strength, unless we are already at the game level.

For example:
3♣-x-p-3♥-p-3♠ shows extras.

And it's easy to see why this has to be the case if you follow through how a flexi-no-extra treatment would fall down here.

but:
4♣-x-p-4♥-p-4♠ just brings diamonds into the frame - you are already committed to game and strain takes precedence over level..

And of course:

3♣-x-p-3♦-p-3♥ should not show extras - just 45M, and I have posted hands from top-level competition that illustrate the point.

[Jinksy]

What's your approach at the 1 level with very strong hands without self-supporting suits - say AKJxx AKxx Kx Qx when they open 1♣♦♥?

[PhilKing]

 Jinksy, on 2014-September-22, 05:16, said:

What's your approach at the 1 level with very strong hands without self-supporting suits - say AKJxx AKxx Kx Qx when they open 1♣♦♥?

Sorry, my meta rule is not complete. 54M is an exception because we can bid spades then hearts. On this I could double and bid spades showing significant extras (or maybe double again since the hand is so strong). Without extras, I would overcall a spade and then bid hearts (not double on the next, which would strongly suggest three hearts).

With 45M I would double even with a minimum, and then use ELC.With a very strong 45 I would have to double twice and try to survive.

I am in a minority on how to treat 45M, but the company is very strong.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2014-September-22, 05:48, said:

With 45M I would double even with a minimum, and then use ELC.With a very strong 45 I would have to double twice and try to survive.

I am in a minority on how to treat 45M, but the company is very strong.

Does this very strong company have a way of knowing that a Double then ELC is minimum?

(1C) X (2C) 2D
(P) 2H....can't be something like AKX KQJxx QX AXX, so how would you handle it? You don't get to double twice, here.

[Jinksy]

I've just adopted this rule with my partner - would be interested in feedback on whether people think it's sensible (and if not, how they'd modify it):

Once a suit is agreed (typically meaning both partners know that both partners know of an 8+card fit, though there might be some edge cases, eg self-supporting suits insisted on), we cannot switch denomination from minor to minor, major to major, or major to minor below the level of slam.

[PhilKing]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-15, 05:00, said:

I've just adopted this rule with my partner - would be interested in feedback on whether people think it's sensible (and if not, how they'd modify it):

Once a suit is agreed (typically meaning both partners know that both partners know of an 8+card fit, though there might be some edge cases, eg self-supporting suits insisted on), we cannot switch denomination from minor to minor, major to major, or major to minor below the level of slam.

1♠-2♠3♥-4♥ should be an exception as should 1♥-2♥-2♠-3♠. One might add 1♣-1♠-2♠-3♥-4♥, and a whole host of sequences where we overcall and make a fit jump or a single raise. Apart from that it seems fine.

[fromageGB]

Just "once a suit is agreed", with one exception of a start of 1♠ 2♠ 3♥. If partner opens a heart, we show spades in preference to showing 3 card heart support, so the reverse is not needed, and in many of the other possible scenarios it could be that the new suit is a cue. A second exception would be converting a game or slam to NT, but never to a different suit. While you may ace ask in partner's suit and then convert to your suit, that would not contravene the rule as you have not previously agreed his suit.

[Jinksy]

There's also the question of how high a bound the rule should have - is 6 of a suit partner's bid (and that you might conceivably have undisclosed support for) always to play? Or is it more useful sometimes/always to retain it as a grand slam try?

[helene_t]

This forum has helped popularize a number of nice meta-agreements:

Fred's rule: If a bid can be natural, it is
Han's rule: If a bid can only have one possible meaning, it has that meaning
gwnn's rule: doubles on retarded bids are for penalty
Gerben's rule: 4♣ is never Gerber

[PhilKing]

 aguahombre, on 2014-September-23, 09:28, said:

Does this very strong company have a way of knowing that a Double then ELC is minimum?

(1C) X (2C) 2D
(P) 2H....can't be something like AKX KQJxx QX AXX, so how would you handle it? You don't get to double twice, here.

It's not perfect and there are some sequences where I would make an underbid, but here I would guess to bid 3♣ then 3♥ over 3♦.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2014-October-15, 08:37, said:

It's not perfect and there are some sequences where I would make an underbid, but here I would guess to bid 3♣ then 3♥ over 3♦.

O.K. I just realized my question was worded as argumentative, but you answered it as it was really intended. Thank you. I am hesitant to venture ELC with anything other than Diamonds over Clubs in my old age, but also see the drawbacks in just overcalling ♥ with some 4-5's. Your "Major" ELC does seem workable for that strong minority who have also discussed it beforehand.

[ochinko]

When partner opens any kind of tightly defined and limited hand (1, 2, 3NT; weak 2, 3, etc.), and opps intervene, a double is for penalties.

Wasn't there ever a point in time when that was standard? When I mention it people are usually surprised. Or was it meant only for weaker players that can't remember too many rules?

[mikestar13]

 ochinko, on 2014-October-16, 12:01, said:

When partner opens any kind of tightly defined and limited hand (1, 2, 3NT; weak 2, 3, etc.), and opps intervene, a double is for penalties.

Wasn't there ever a point in time when that was standard? When I mention it people are usually surprised. Or was it meant only for weaker players that can't remember too many rules?

There was a time when this was standard as late as 1950's Goren, probably earlier. I rather like this as a meta-rule with one exception: 1NT-(2x)-X is more useful as takeout, because it collects more penalties. Advocated by Edgar Kaplan in the early 60's. I play this with everyone who will agree to it. Now that many players open 1NT on 5 card majors, it works even better than it did then--opener is more likely to have length in suit x than responder (and in the cases where responder has the length he can pass opener's balancing double, thus collecting whenever opener can double).

[Jinksy]

I like takeout X, but I'm not convinced you get to penalise more often. With X = penalties, after eg a nat 2♠ overcall, you might happily X with KQx xx Axxx xxxx, but you can't be confident your P will find a reopening X opposite that.

Generally the worse the position for them, the more chance of penalising you seem to gain from playing penalties. If opps bid 2♠ on eg QTxxx Axx KQxx x (perhaps showing ♠s and a minor, but we've all seen players who'd make a natural call on worse than that), and advancer is 'unlucky' enough to find a stiff x opposite, then responder, playing takeout X with AKJx in the suit will probably hear the hand passed out if he doesn't bid...