[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

I don't see what interference has to do with it. By the same logic shouldn't you play a direct major suit response show 5+ in the suit?

As Stefanie says, without interference you have no double available, so you would have to give up a natural 1♦ bid. (Actually, I think I've seen people playing that as well.)

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

[gnasher]

VixTD, on Jul 7 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

I see the advantage of using suit bids to show 5-card suits, of course, and I would love to use 1M responses to promise 5 cards if I had some other way of showing a four-card major. (As jdonn says, this would apply whether the opponents have overcalled or not.)

What I don't see is any advantage of using double to show one four-card major, when partner has no idea which one it is. This seems to be hindering our efforts to find a fit.

There are two advantages:
- When responder does have a five-card major, he can say so (ie the advantage you mentioned)
- When responder doesn't have a five-card major, and opener is 3-3 or shorter in the majors, opener knows immediately that there is no major-suit fit.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on Jul 6 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

My partner doubled.  It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

The other two are both majors, and general values.

The common meanings I come across are:

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp
(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp
(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

(1) is the standard negative/Sputnik double textbook meaning. (2) and (3) are rather less common although there is another meaning with theoretical merit gaining popularity internationally:

(4) 4+ hearts

I can't recall ever seeing the meaning mentioned by Bluejak in action, but I would welcome my opponents to adopt it. I can see that it would fit well with a Benjamin Acol system.

gnasher said:

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Jul 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

VixTD, on Jul 6 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

My partner doubled.  It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

The other two are both majors, and general values.

The common meanings I come across are:

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp
(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp
(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

(1) is the standard negative/Sputnik double textbook meaning. (2) and (3) are rather less common although there is another meaning with theoretical merit gaining popularity internationally:

(4) 4+ hearts

I can't recall ever seeing the meaning mentioned by Bluejak in action, but I would welcome my opponents to adopt it. I can see that it would fit well with a Benjamin Acol system.

gnasher said:

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much. The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

Of course better players who understand such things play other methods. But are you really seriously suggesting that if you go to the Little Raynford Congress the number of people playing 1♣ (1♦) Dbl as showing four hearts will be greater than the number of people playing it as one four card major?

I know it is easy to decry my experience, and basically suggest I am either lying or stupid. But I play a lot of bridge, and I know what people play against me and with me. I do not think it completely obvious that I am lying. Whether I am just so stupid I do not know what they are playing is a different matter.

Yes, I know that at a better level of bridge things may be different, but I think it unfortunate that the presumption that I have no idea what happens in low level bridge is unnecessary.

Of course, the bridge played in th South-East of England is rather different owing to the influence of American methods, and greater exposure to a number of better players. But that does not mean that methods I have seen many times do not exist, even if they are rare in some parts of the country.

As for your comment about Benjamin, I presume that is just meant to be a method of decrying the method as well as suggesting it does not exist. Very good: I am suitably chastened: not only am I ignorant, and stupid, but I cannot play bridge either. Thank-you, Jeffrey.

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Jul 7 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much.  The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

I cannot speak for Jeffrey, but I play and direct around a lot of mediocre club and minor tournament players, and the first time I had come across the method you say is so popular was the time my partner upbraided me for bidding 1♠ over a diamond overcall on a four-card suit about two months ago. While I'm sure there are a number of players who will double in this situation with one four-card major, perhaps thinking vaguely that's what "the system" requires, I'll bet they haven't discussed this sequence, and if you asked their partner what the double shows you'd be unlikely to get the answer "one four-card major". Nor would I expect you to get any reason out of them why they play this way, whether this be on the lines of "because it's more important to be able to show five-card suits in this situation to find a fit" or just "because our teacher / favourite author recommended it". The sequence does not come up very often, and I suspect that not as many players as you suggest play this method, and many of those that do play it by accident rather than by agreement.

I don't think that Jeffrey was suggesting that many lesser tournament players have sophisticated expert agreements, he was just adding to the interesting discussion about what other methods are available. I checked through all the books I had on Acol-based bidding, and the only methods I found mentioned were:

both four-card majors: (Crowhurst, Klinger, Kambites, Dormer)
no four-card major ("this is non-standard"): (Klinger, Robson / Segal)

Until this week I assumed the majority of players used double to show both majors.

[shyams]

Having read all the messages subsequent to jallerton's original question (Was the X of 1♦ alerted?), it is still not clear to me. Do EBU rules require the X of 1♦ to be alerted if the meaning is as described in this case?

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Jul 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

It's not clear to me that it's more important to tell him about a 4-card major, for which he will have a fit comparatively rarely, than to tell him that we have a five-card major, for whihc he'll have a fit comparatively often.

I can feel a simulation coming on.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jul 8 2010, 02:01 AM, said:

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much.  The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

Of course better players who understand such things play other methods.  But are you really seriously suggesting that if you go to the Little Raynford Congress the number of people playing 1♣ (1♦) Dbl as showing four hearts will be greater than the number of people playing it as one four card major?

I know it is easy to decry my experience, and basically suggest I am either lying or stupid.  But I play a lot of bridge, and I know what people play against me and with me.  I do not think it completely obvious that I am lying.  Whether I am just so stupid I do not know what they are playing is a different matter.
<snip>

Nobody was accusing you of either lying or being stupid. Maybe I am being "stupid" but having re-read the thread, I can't see why or how you would have drawn such a conclusion. Nobody was accusing RMB1 or Gnasher or making up what they said either.

You report that you have encountered "thousands and thousands" of players who use this method. As you would even assume this method was in force if undiscussed in a new partnership, then of course I accept what you say, notwithstanding the fact that I have not knowingly come across such a method myself.

Equally, you should accept that VixTD and I were simply recounting our own respective experience and were not "misinforming people so much" about what our own experience has been. Before reading this thread I was (to quote Robin) "blissfuly unaware" of this method. Like VixTD I have not come across this method in any literature and even when I did a basic Google search yesterday, the only method I could find being advocated for 1♣-1♦-dbl was both majors.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure how much longer I'll be allowed to go on before someone moderates this out of existence, but here are some simulation results.

Conditons:
- South has a 1♣ opening, playing four-card majors and a strong notrump
- West has a 1♦ overcall
- East has 3+ diamonds (ie he will probably raise)
The frequencies of the different major-suit fits were:

East has [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3 diamonds [space] 4+ diamonds
 5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
 5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]21.9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]27.0
 4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]12.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
 No fit, std methods ambiguous * [space] 8.8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3 
 No fit, no ambiguity [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 50.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]37.2

* These are deals where responder has one 4-card major and opener has exactly three of those. In standard methods, this leads to ambiguity about whether there is a fit or not. Playing that 1M promises five, this ambiguity does not exist.

These figures suggest that playing 1M promises five gains over standard methods several times more often than it loses.

I realise that the benefit of finding a 4-4 fit is greater - if our 5-3 fit gets preempted, it will be easier to find than if our 4-4 fit gets prempted. Still, it seems to me that playing 1M as promising five does have merit.

Note that this applies specifically in a four-card major, strong notrump system. I wouldn't consider it otherwise.

My code is below.

source format/none

# Counters
set fit_54 0
set fit_53 0
set fit_44 0
set fit_none_std_ambig 0
set fit_none_unambig 0

main {
 [space]if {! [4cm_1c south] || ! [1d_overcall west]} {
 [space] [space] [space]reject
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# East has 4+ diamonds
 [space]if {[diamonds east] < 4} {
 [space] [space] [space]reject
 [space] [space]}
 [space]
 [space]set hn [hearts north]
 [space]set sn [spades north]
 [space]set hs [hearts south]
 [space]set ss [spades south]

 [space]if {($hn >= 5 && $hs >= 4) || ($sn >= 5 && $ss >= 4)} {
 [space] [space]incr fit_54
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]if {($hn >= 5 && $hs == 3) || ($sn >= 5 && $ss == 3)} {
 [space] [space]incr fit_53
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]if {($hn == 4 && $hs == 4) || ($sn == 4 && $ss == 4)} {
 [space] [space]incr fit_44
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]if {($hn == 4 && $sn < 4 && $hs == 3) || ($sn == 4 && $hn < 4 && $ss == 3)} {
 [space] [space]incr fit_none_std_ambig
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]incr fit_none_unambig
 [space]accept
}

deal_finished {
 [space]puts " 5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_54"
 [space]puts " 5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_53"
 [space]puts " 4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$fit_44"
 [space]puts " No fit, std methods ambiguous [space]$fit_none_std_ambig"
 [space]puts " No fit, no ambiguity [space] $fit_none_unambig"
}

proc 4cm_1c {hand} {
 [space]set hcp [hcp $hand]
 [space]set c [clubs $hand]
 [space]set d [diamonds $hand]
 [space]set h [hearts $hand]
 [space]set s [spades $hand]
 [space]set hcp_adj [expr $hcp + $c - 4]

 [space]# clubs at least 4 
 [space]if {$c < 4} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}
 [space]
 [space]# longest suit first; majors before minors
 [space]if {$s >= $c || $h >= $c || $d > $c} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# 1C with 4-4 minors; 1D with 5-5 [space] [space] [space]
 [space]if {$d == $c && $d > 4} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}
 [space] [space]
 [space]# balanced 12-14 or 18-19, adding 1 for a 5-card suit
 [space]if {[balanced $hand]} {
 [space] [space]if {$hcp_adj < 12 || ($hcp_adj > 14 && $hcp_adj < 18) || $hcp_adj > 19} {
 [space] [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space] [space]}
 [space] [space]
 [space] [space]return 1
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# unbalanced, approximately in the right range
 [space]if {$hcp_adj < 12 || $hcp_adj > 21} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}
 [space] [space]
 [space]return 1
 [space]}

proc 1d_overcall {hand} {
 [space]set hcp [hcp $hand]
 [space]set c [clubs $hand]
 [space]set d [diamonds $hand]
 [space]set h [hearts $hand]
 [space]set s [spades $hand]

 [space]# diamonds at least 5
 [space]if {$d < 5} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}
 [space]
 [space]# longest suit first; majors before minors
 [space]if {$s >= $d || $h >= $d || $c > $d} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}
 [space] [space]
 [space]# not a takeout double
 [space]if {$hcp > 10 && ($s >2 && $h > 2)} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# in the right range
 [space]if {$hcp < 8 || $hcp > 18} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# not strong balanced
 [space]if {[balanced $hand] && $hcp > 14} {
 [space] [space]return 0
 [space] [space]}

 [space]return 1
 [space]}

[jallerton]

shyams, on Jul 8 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Having read all the messages subsequent to jallerton's original question (Was the X of 1♦ alerted?), it is still not clear to me. Do EBU rules require the X of 1♦ to be alerted if the meaning is as described in this case?

Well it's not clear to me either.

According to paragraph 5G5(a) of the Orange Book, 'negative' doubles are not alertable. However, in my view (see above), this is not a traditional negative double.

According to paragraph 5E2 of the Orange Book, double of 1♦ "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". A "take-out double" is defined elsewhere in the Orange Book as:

Quote

4H6Take-out doubles
A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

The first sentence might suggest that perhaps this does qualify as a takeout double, but if it does then one could equally argue that a double showing (say) 4+ hearts also "suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand", albeit putting more of an emphasis on a particular suit.

The second sentence suggests that if double is permitted on a minimum hand with 2-4 (or 4-2) in the majors then it is not a "take-out" double.

An alternative description of the double played by the N/S pair in this thread is "exactly 4 cards in one (or both?) of the majors". Described that way, it sounds like a convention rather than anything else.

So on balance I think it ought to be alertable (though I wouldn't be surprised if Bluejak were to disagree with this conclusion!)

[Pict]

I'll just ask, what about 3-4 rather than 2-4? When can I edge some values versus shape into my double without alerting?

I don't feel all that strongly about the current EBU alerting for doubles, though it is clearly non-intuitive. It's just a bit over the top to see suggestions that it is a terrific and widely admired achievement. How could it be?

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4. Who these thousands are, I don't know.

[campboy]

gnasher, on Jul 8 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

I'm not sure how much longer I'll be allowed to go on before someone moderates this out of existence, but here are some simulation results.

Conditons:
- South has a 1♣ opening, playing four-card majors and a strong notrump
- West has a 1♦ overcall
- East has 3+ diamonds (ie he will probably raise)
The frequencies of the different major-suit fits were:

East has [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3 diamonds [space] 4+ diamonds
 5-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 7.2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
 5-3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]21.9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]27.0
 4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]12.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]14.8
 No fit, std methods ambiguous * [space] 8.8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6.3 
 No fit, no ambiguity [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 50.1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]37.2

* These are deals where responder has one 4-card major and opener has exactly three of those. In standard methods, this leads to ambiguity about whether there is a fit or not. Playing that 1M promises five, this ambiguity does not exist.

These figures suggest that playing 1M promises five gains over standard methods several times more often than it loses.

Well, that depends. These figures suggest that if your partner makes a response showing four+ of the major, you have exactly three, and RHO raises then there is a very good chance that partner actually has at least five. If you act on the assumption that he does then you only lose out to the alternative method when you play in a 4-3 fit, but you gain over the alternative method when you find your 4-4 fit. 4-4 is much more likely than 4-3 by your figures.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Jul 9 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

I don't feel all that strongly about the current EBU alerting for doubles, though it is clearly non-intuitive.  It's just a bit over the top to see suggestions that it is a terrific and widely admired achievement.  How could it be?

It is easy to understand, explain, and get right. These are the important qualities.

Quote

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4.  Who these thousands are, I don't know.

Well, with my favourite partner I play these doubles as takeout or, more generally, a hand that has no better descriptive call. A variety of shapes can be held.

[jdonn]

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 9 2010, 02:15 AM, said:

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

Yes, I can think of only one or two people who play that way.

[VixTD]

I asked six players at my club last night who I thought fell into the category of player we're talking about what they would expect partner to have in the auction 1♣ - (1♦) - X. Three said at least 4-4 in the majors, the other three said at least 4-3 in the majors, but preferably 4-4.

Gnasher, I'm sorry to keep pressing the point, but what is the advantage of using double to promise one four-card major? All this seems to do is tantalise partner holding something like ♠K10xx♥Qx♦xx♣AKxxx when RHO raises to 2♦. If partner has spades, we want to compete in our eight-card fit rather than letting them play in theirs, whereas if partner has hearts we are better out of it.

If you're going to reserve 1♥/♠ responses to show 5+, why not double with any other hand with values to compete and no five-card major? If you include 1NT hands in the double, might this free up 1NT for other purposes, perhaps promising 4-4 in the majors, so you don't lose that option?

[gwnn]

jdonn, on Jul 9 2010, 01:15 AM, said:

I love how posters have met either no one who plays something or throngs of people who play it. Does anyone know a few people here and there who play that way?

I remember a nice trick to find out what people really think about someone, you should not ask them 'What do you think about him', but rather 'What do people in general think about him'.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on Jul 8 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

Quote

And as an aside, worth little no doubt, I have never yet met anyone who plays by agreement that the negative double can be 2-4.  Who these thousands are, I don't know.

Well, with my favourite partner I play these doubles as takeout or, more generally, a hand that has no better descriptive call. A variety of shapes can be held.

Same here.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on Jul 8 2010, 03:24 PM, said:

Until this week I assumed the majority of players used double to show both majors.

I still think this is true.

[MBV53]

I don't think two out of six would bid 4d. eventhough 4d is a logical alternative,majority passes that hand. TD ruling 4cn= appears to be perfect.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
Sr. National Director,
Chief Director, India.