[OleBerg]

Cyberyeti, on Jul 25 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 25 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

Pass wtp.

Partner has told you that slam is not a possibilety, and that she has a very good idée about what to do if the opponents compete. No reason to overrule with an ordinary maximum hand.

He's not allowed to hold xx, AKx, Kxxx, Kxxx or xxx, AKxxxx, xxx, K ?

Maybe, but they are borderline.

Any losses sustained from defending 4♠X on these are collateral.

"Double = I would like to bid on, pass only if you are heavily inclined to defend." Makes the most sense to me.

[OleBerg]

Cyberyeti, on Jul 25 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jul 25 2010, 04:42 AM, said:

pass wtp. double=I want to defend doesnt make sense BTW.

Opposite a lot of nondescript hands where partner will pass if you do, you do want to defend doubled.

You really expect partner to bid or double on xx, Axxxx, Jxx, Jxx for example or xx, Axxxx, Kx, xxxx. If you think partner doesn't bid 4H on this, there are plenty of other possibilities.

And opposite a lot of nondescript hands where partner will pass if you do, you do want to defend undoubled.

By not forcing opener to bid anything but pass, on hands where he wants to defend, you can eat your cake, and have a part of it.

On many of those hands where you could succesfully double, your wide-ranging 4♥ have already given you a plus-score, on a hand where you would normally go minus.

Of course nothing is bulletproof, but a "penalty-like" double seems to take care of the least amount of problems.

[gwnn]

KJTx
xxxxx
AQx
Q

AQx
Qxxxx
AKxx
x

KQxx
xxxxxx
AK
x

[bluecalm]

Those are all "let's defend doubles"...

[gwnn]

You asked me a question and I answered it. I am posting from
my phone and quoting partially is rather tiresome.

[bluecalm]

I just don't understand that first you say:

Quote

pass wtp. double=I want to defend doesnt make sense BTW.

and then you give 3 hands which all wants to defend 4♠.
What am I missing ?

[kayin801]

bluecalm, on Jul 25 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

I just don't understand that first you say:

Quote

pass wtp. double=I want to defend doesnt make sense BTW.

and then you give 3 hands which all wants to defend 4♠.
What am I missing ?

He's saying that given your OP conditions, those are hands that he wants to double with, because he has trump tricks and likely tricks in side suits.

He also says that your agreement to do so doesn't make sense. Yes it sucks that we can't X with those hands if we have a different agreement of what X means, but they only rate to go down 1 or so if partner has the preemptive hand so its not a huge loss, and partner will X 4S with some defensive values that he thinks are useful and they will go for a phone number.

[bluecalm]

Quote

He's saying that given your OP conditions, those are hands that he wants to double with, because he has trump tricks and likely tricks in side suits.

Yeah ok. I was asking about hands he would double with assuming his favorite agreements, not the ones I gave in OP.
I just want to understand what kind of hands are good dbl's assuming you have the best agreements there.

[kayin801]

bluecalm, on Jul 25 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

He's saying that given your OP conditions, those are hands that he wants to double with, because he has trump tricks and likely tricks in side suits.

Yeah ok. I was asking about hands he would double with assuming his favorite agreements, not the ones I gave in OP.
I just want to understand what kind of hands are good dbl's assuming you have the best agreements there.

Something like x, AKxxxx, KJ10xx, x maybe, stuff that might defend well if partner has HCP in the blacks and fewer hearts, so our heart honors might cash

[the hog]

bluecalm, on Jul 25 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Quote

pass wtp. double=I want to defend doesnt make sense BTW.

Ok, I get it. So what's some example hands you would double with if the hand from OP doesn't qualify ?

Quote

You have a problem created by your system

Obviously I have a problem, this is why I am posting seeking for advice.
I don't get why people are pointing this out all the time I mention those 1M - 4M auctions. Obviously we will have some problems, obviously they will have hard time too. Obviously I think our problems are smaller than theirs. Got it ?

Yes I "Got" your point of view. However I and many others strongly disagree. Further you did post this, so you should have expected comments about methods many of us think are inferior.

[655321]

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

Yes I "Got" your point of view. However I and many others strongly disagree. Further you did post this, so you should have expected comments about methods many of us think are inferior.

I think most people agree that playing opener's double as 'let's defend' is not a good idea.

That wasn't your complaint though, you thought that responder shouldn't be raising with preemptive hands as well as 2344 13 counts. I think it is wrong to say that 'many others' and 'many of us' disagree with raising with a wide range of hands - after all that is one of the big strengths of playing limited openings.

[bluecalm]

Hi 655321, what about giving me some example hands you would double with in this situation so I can finally understand what kind of double you guys play here ?

To Hog: have you actually played this method yourself and have seen the results it yields or you just don't like it because it looks stupid to you ?

[the hog]

bluecalm, on Jul 26 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

Hi 655321, what about giving me some example hands you would double with in this situation so I can finally understand what kind of double you guys play here ?

To Hog: have you actually played this method yourself and have seen the results it yields or you just don't like it because it looks stupid to you ?

Played it many years ago when I played precision. After running into problems of when to doulbe and when not to and of a couple of missed slams, we decided it was better to show construcive raises and to leave 1x 4x to hands where slam was practically impossible.

[gwnn]

bluecalm,

Any hand that would like to bid 5H normally in SAYC but is uncomfortable doing so opposite precision 4H bid. Say in SAYC you have for responder

90% 5+ hearts, 0-7 points
10% 4 hearts, 4-8 points (and some awesome shape)

In your or other people's system it would be
30% 5+ hearts 0-7
30% 5+ hearts 8-12
20% 4 hearts, 10-14
20% 3 hearts, 12-14

Obviously there are hands that you'd like to bid 5H on opposite a SAYC 4H bid but not opposite the latter probabilities, because there is a higher chance they go down and there might be a lower chance to make. With these hands you double. "Partner if you have a SAYC raise, bid 5H, if you don't, then don't". This makes perfect sense to me and I don't know what is unclear to you.

Opener can be 5-5 or 6331 or 6421 or so. Not too much shape because with that you can still bid 5H.

[dake50]

An expectable 1H opener.
Have 5xH, 2-2 DT, no S-trick.
Won't partner expect this hand?

Could have S:Kxx +CAK +DA --that suggests defend =X.
Or 6-7xH +4xC +S-void --that goes 5H.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Obviously there are hands that you'd like to bid 5H on opposite a SAYC 4H bid but not opposite the latter probabilities, because there is a higher chance they go down and there might be a lower chance to make. With these hands you double. "Partner if you have a SAYC raise, bid 5H, if you don't, then don't". This makes perfect sense to me and I don't know what is unclear to you.

Everything is clear, thanks.

[gwnn]

kayin801, on Jul 25 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

He's saying that given your OP conditions, those are hands that he wants to double with, because he has trump tricks and likely tricks in side suits.

He also says that your agreement to do so doesn't make sense. Yes it sucks that we can't X with those hands if we have a different agreement of what X means, but they only rate to go down 1 or so if partner has the preemptive hand so its not a huge loss, and partner will X 4S with some defensive values that he thinks are useful and they will go for a phone number.

yay, you are also my forum hero now.