[FrancesHinden]

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

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

Obviously you wouldn't dream of playing this in a 5-card major system, or even an open-the-minor-first-on-44-hands system, but why does it matter what NT range you are playing?

One difference I can see is that after 1C (1D) action (2D) there's much to be said for playing support doubles in a strong NT base, but double as a strong NT in a weak NT base. So playing strong NT it's easier to sort out the size of a major suit fit quickly, so this method might be better in a weak NT base.

But then possibly support doubles are a poor idea in any strict 4CM system because you should be raising to the 2-level on 3-card support in competition very freely anyway; perhaps you want to use the double for something else in a strong NT system.

p.s. I'm not sure I really agree with your conclusion, because playing a 4-3 fit is not necessarily a bad thing anyway in favour of actually finding my fit.

[FrancesHinden]

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?

Not I.

I am pretty certain I don't know for certain how "thousands and thousands" of people play this sequence. It doesn't come up that often at the table, and sometimes when it does I don't necessarily find out how the opponents play it. I do know that one of a major is very frequently bid on a 4-card suit, which comes up far more frequently.

I was originally taught a form of basic Acol, when that came to include non-penalty doubles at the 1-level, I was taught it showed 4-4 in the majors and later that it might also be a weak 5-4.

I have to confess that, like jallerton, I was completely unaware of the "a four-card major" treatment.

{I play 5-card majors with gnasher}

In order of popularity, the meaning I see used for this double is

1. both majors
2. we haven't discussed it
3. neither major
4. penalties
5. other

[FrancesHinden]

As for the original ruling, if I were adjusting to a contract of 4C then I would think about including a percentage of 4C-1. I can't remember if we were told somewhere earlier in the thread anything about North, but based on the standard of bridge shown in some of the other threads (and David's comment about there being many very poor pairs there) I would expect it to go off quite often.

[FrancesHinden]

I've been thinking about the play in 4C a bid more. It's a nice play problem. On the auction as given, you've really got no idea what the major suit lengths are. Here are some possible lines on a top diamond lead:

1. Draw trumps, play ace of hearts, heart to the queen (one off).

2. Ace of diamonds, diamond ruff, trump, diamond ruff, trump, run the 10 of spades. Win the third round of spades and play a heart to the queen, then finesse on the way back (making). Playing for the drop on the second round also possible but less likely (one off).

3a. Eliminate diamonds, draw trumps, exit in spades, cross in trump and play a heart to the 10 (making).
3b. Eliminate diamonds, draw trumps, exit in spades, corss in trumps and play a heart to the 8 (one off).

3a & 3b are the 'obvious' lines and they are each equally likely to be successful.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

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

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

Obviously you wouldn't dream of playing this in a 5-card major system, or even an open-the-minor-first-on-44-hands system, but why does it matter what NT range you are playing?

Yes, when I said "4-card majors", I meant the style where you open a major if you've got one.

The method gains (arguably) on the hands where opener has no 4-card major.
Playing a weak notrump, these hands are less frequent.

Quote

p.s. I'm not sure I really agree with your conclusion, because playing a 4-3 fit is not necessarily a bad thing anyway in favour of actually finding my fit.

I haven't yet reached a conclusion (in fact, your and Campboy's comments about 4-3 fits seem quite a good argument against the method). Anyway, it sounds like you're disagreeing with one of of my premises.

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 10 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

I've been thinking about the play in 4C a bid more.  It's a nice play problem.  On the auction as given, you've really got no idea what the major suit lengths are.  Here are some possible lines on a top diamond lead....

The play is of interest, but your analysis on a top diamind lead may not be relevant. I suspect that a more likely defence for the cateory of players who bid like East/West would be to cash ♠AK and then switch to ♦K. Now a competent declarer might find the folowing line:

Ace of diamonds, diamond ruff, trump, diamond ruff, cash ♠Q, trump, lead ♥Q. If this is covered, declarer wins, crosses to dummy in trumps and leads another heart towards ♥108. Now even if West plays low and declarer misgueses by finessing ♥8, she still makes because East is endplayed on winning ♥9 - all assuming East has resisted petering on the first round, of course!

I agree that it is just about plausible that 4♣ will go off, but TDs should be aware that the application of "sympathetic weighting" will often eliminate unlikely scenarios favourable to the offending side in the final ruling. This appears to have been the basis of the ruling in practice:

VixTD said:

I gave serious consideration to perhaps 10% of 4♣ -1, but my co-director adjusted to 100% of 4♣ =.