[gnasher]

If your objective is simply to bid every game that is makeable, you should bid on every deal, regardless of what you have. If, on the other hand, you want to bid the games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish between a 3433 shape and a 4351 shape.

I'm not suggesting that hand 1 should pass throughout. If 1♣ is passed out, it's inconceivable that we've missed a game; if we get another go, we will probably have a much better idea of whether game is making.

[Winstonm]

For me #1 and #2 are passes, although #2 is sorely tempting. #3 is a routine double.

Quote

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from?

Justin. How strong of consideration should this be? If the opponents are out skating around a lot - trying to steal - then their constructive bidding cannot be real strong. It only makes sense that one can build either a constructive system or a destructive system but they are mutually exclusive.

I sincerely respect your judgement in these matters, so I am not attempting to be snippy, but it seems to me a worry about being stolen from should be left to the games with a buttom and blind bets.

[hanp]

Winston where do you get all this nonsense from. Look at some of the top US pairs, Meckwell, Hampson-Greco, Levin-Weinstein, Grue-Cheeck, ... They tend to be extremely aggressive and I assure you their constructive bidding is strong.

[Winstonm]

hanp, on Mar 22 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

Winston where do you get all this nonsense from. Look at some of the top US pairs, Meckwell, Hampson-Greco, Levin-Weinstein, Grue-Cheeck, ... They tend to be extremely aggressive and I assure you their constructive bidding is strong.

I get my ideas from the same places you do - the voices - and don't try to tell me you don't hear them.

Once again I make a simple observation and it is misrepresented, then the misrepresentation is attacked as nonsense.

Case I made was this: IF a system (not partnerships, not aggressive style) is built for obstructive bidding then that system must by its nature be less precise than a system built for constructive bidding.

I do not think this is even debatable, much less nonsense. I do not think any great partnerships play a system designed mainly for obstruction.

By providing evidence of great constructive bidding by expert partnerships, all you have accomplished is to validate my point that these partnerships DO NOT play systems that are DESIGNED MAINLY FOR OBSTRUCTION. The fact that great players do NOT for the most part play obstructive systems led me to ask Justin why he believes hand stealing important enough argue for offshape doubles.

As I know Justin's skill level and the fact he has WCX2 behind his name, I was interested in what he had to say on this subject as he has made a lot of sense on other subjects that led me to alter my thinking - rebidding 1N with a singleton, for example.

However, next time I'm in the mood for an insult about a point I never made, I'll be sure to ask for you, Han.

[hanp]

I can hear them too Winston, but the voices always tell me to bid, never to pass.

[Rossoneri]

1. Would probably pass this one out, especially if partner is a passed hand.
2. I would probably pick 1♥
3. Dbl

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 22 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

If, on the other hand, you want to bid the games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish between a 3433 shape and a 4351 shape.

If you want to bid games that are making and not those that are not, it makes sense to distinguish strong hands from weak hands.

Quote

I'm not suggesting that hand 1 should pass throughout.  If 1♣ is passed out, it's inconceivable that we've missed a game; if we get another go, we will probably have a much better idea of whether game is making.

You earlier said you would double after 1♣ p 1♠ p 1NT. I'm not sure what it is about that auction that makes you think you have game.

Winstonm, on Mar 22 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Case I made was this: IF a system (not partnerships, not aggressive style) is built for obstructive bidding then that system must by its nature be less precise than a system built for constructive bidding.

What if the opponents do play an obstructive system? What if they play a constructive system with an aggressive style? None of the arguing about what to call it when the opponents are bidding with very little changes the fact that the stronger the hands you pass with, the more often you will get stolen from. And when the strength of the hand you pass with starts to exceed the strength of the hands they open, or even worse the combined strength of the hands they open and respond with, that chance of getting stolen from is getting frighteningly large.

[JLOL]

Winston don't you play preempts? That is an obstructive bid that makes constructive bidding harder when your partner has a great hand. Some great players preempt very aggressively, some don't, but nobody is requiring 2 of the top 3 and rule of 2/3 anymore. It has been proven over time that it's better to make the bid more often than that, at the cost of constructive bidding.

Opening with balanced 11s or unbalanced 10s can be justified as a constructive bidding tool, and it happens to steal sometimes. Responding light can be justified as a constructive bidding tool (might find a game if you have like QJxxx xx xx xxxx, might find a better partscore with xxxxxx xxxx xxx void), and it happens to steal a lot.

Good bridge involves sometimes making obstructive bids at the cost of constructive bidding. Again that is why weak 2s are more popular than strong 2s now.

In my opinion, the hands you get most stolen on are when you and your partner are both balanced weak NT hand types and can't get in, or when the weak hand has the 5 card suit and the strong hand is balanced and the strong hand doesn't act. Unlike Gnasher I think it's probably now or never for the weak NT hand type.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

You earlier said you would double after 1♣ p 1♠ p 1NT. I'm not sure what it is about that auction that makes you think you have game.

What is it about what I've said that makes you think that I think we might have game in that auction?

On that auction, not having acted before, I'd double in order to compete the partscore. On another auction, such as one starting
  1♣ pass 1♦ 1♥
or
  1♣ pass pass action
I'd investigate game prospects.

JLOLL said:

Unlike Gnasher I think it's probably now or never for the weak NT hand type.

That overstates what I actually believe, though that may not have been apparent from my earlier comments. It's not so much that I'm happy to pass this hand-type, as that I don't want to widen the range of a takeout double to include it. Nobody would be sanguine about passing 1♣ and then doubling a 1NT rebid.

[benlessard]

Against thieves or at MP you need to be quick on the double but against sound openers passing is surely an option on all of the 3 hands.

[TimG]

IMPs, both vul, 2nd seat I held ♠Txxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣QJx and was reminded of this thread. RHO opened 1♥ and I doubled even though I thought that was crossing a line. A teammate suggested she thought it would be a popular choice amongst experts.

I wonder what you think.

[whereagles]

I wouldn't. But then again, some people here rate me as a beginner, so there.

[brianshark]

I believe it is an error playing most t/o double styles to fail to double with hand 1 and 3. But hand 2 is not a t/o double playing normal style because you don't have a 3rd club. However, if you and your pard knowingly play a style where you can double with emphasis on the majors and can be short in the unbid minor, then double is ok.

[Flame]

I think just like the rest of us you have learned t.o double as a beginner or even an intermediate and as such you learned the simple rules, but when you get to be advance you learn the special cases.

[655321]

TimG, on Apr 6 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

IMPs, both vul, 2nd seat I held ♠Txxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣QJx and was reminded of this thread.  RHO opened 1♥ and I doubled even though I thought that was crossing a line.  A teammate suggested she thought it would be a popular choice amongst experts.

I wonder what you think.

I would double on all three of the original hands; however I think that making a vulnerable double with this balanced 10 count is bad, even verging on ridiculous.
Or, to put it more tactfully, I agree with you that double crosses the line.

[jdonn]

655321, on Apr 6 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

TimG, on Apr 6 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

IMPs, both vul, 2nd seat I held ♠Txxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣QJx and was reminded of this thread.  RHO opened 1♥ and I doubled even though I thought that was crossing a line.  A teammate suggested she thought it would be a popular choice amongst experts.

I wonder what you think.

I would double on all three of the original hands; however I think that making a vulnerable double with this balanced 10 count is bad, even verging on ridiculous.
Or, to put it more tactfully, I agree with you that double crosses the line.

Me too. I would rather have a 4144 9 or even 8 count than this 10 count, even with the well placed heart king. There is no chance in hell double would be the winner among experts.

[TimG]

How about KTxx xx Axxx QJx?

[junyi_zhu]

MarkDean, on Mar 17 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

When I learned takeout doubles, they showed shortness in the opponents suit and a reasonable hand (one you would open). Neither of these seem to be a requirement anymore (but you usually have at least one). When did this happen?

Would y'all double, white vs white, IMPs with the following hands?

1. Kxx KQxx Axx Qxx / 1♣

2. KJTx AQxx xxx Kx / 1♦

3. AJxx x KTxx QTxx / 1♥

Do you think these hands would have usually doubled ten years ago?

If things have changed, do you think it is in response to other parts of the game, or just that people found this to be winning bridge?

1 and 3 are clear doubles for me and I would bid 1H with 2. Pass is worse than double for 2 IMO. Basically, when you have opening values and have a reasonable choice to bid and you don't, you make a huge mistake. When you have opening values and have a slight offshape bid to choose, you make a small mistake. Those who pass with any one hand of them would exert huge pressure on partner and it's often impossible to construct any constructive sequences once you pass.

[MarkDean]

OK, saw two more doubles which made me cringe recently, both by good players, and I was wondering what the forum members think.

Both were IMPs, unfortunately I do not remember the vul on either one.

1. Kxx Axxx Qxx Qxx
third seat after P (1♦) ?

2. AQx AKxx xxx xxx (might have been a ten in a minor)
second seat, (1♠) ?

[karlson]

Two passes for me on those last ones.