Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The results of this poll is consistent with what I anticipated. I interpret them as meaning that people are playing 2NT in such a situation as some form of scramble, most likely minors. The reason for this poll was to get a sense of the degree to which the more accomplished bridge community play 2NT on such an auction as being some form of takeout or scramble? (on this sequence, more likely minors).
As some might have suspected, this is the companion hand to Axx, Ax, AT9xx, AKx.

To refresh peoples' memories, the bidding had gone as follows: P - P - 1 by rho - Dbl - 2 by lho - P - P - at which point I made a second Dbl. (This 2nd dbl was also chosen by about 3/4 of the respondents of the previous poll). Partner then responded 3 instead of 2N with the KT, 98x, xxxx, Txxx hand (making +110 but missing the 9-card fit +130, still losing a few imps due to some larger plus scores our way due to ‘unusual’ results at a few other tables) and then proceeded to disapprove of my 2nd dbl. He has often disagreed with me on the meanings of “second doubles”, seeming to play them more penalty oriented.

I informed my partner of the results of these two polls. He seemed to accept the results but asked about what would I be doing with big balanced hands (“just don't have 20”).

Over time I have observed that I have been having difficulty handling strong, balanced hands either bal 18-19 after we open the bidding and the opponents interfere at the 2-level, or after the opponents open, i dbl, and the compete to the 2 or even 3-level. (We have good methods for when there is no interference as do most people) But a simple auction such as 1 - 1 - P - 2 - ? when i have a balanced strong hand has often created difficulty, and i have been unclear about the meaning of 2N here (Good-bad? 4-6 in minors good? what?) The concept of “I have the strength, I hope for you to have the shape” has been mentioned to me on a few occasions, especially in certain mp competitive situations.

I guess what I would appreciate is some discussion in general regarding the meanings of second doubles. I had always been taught that the 1st X is for takeout, the 2nd X is primarily for takeout, and the 3rd X is penalty oriented. I am aware that the meanings can depend to some degree on the bidding, but help on differentiating between 2nd doubles that mean you have significantly more than the minimum your initial double showed versus showing a strong, balanced hand would be very much appreciated. I wonder how much agreement there is on this subject among the more accomplished bridge community? If just a discussion is too diffuse, then i guess i will just continue to poll individual hands and accept the idea that strong, balanced hands can be a pain in competition. Perhaps that is one reason why some people are playing a 2 opener to show balanced 18-19/20 hands (Big Bang) similar to Mex 2.

anyway:
TIA (thx in advance)
DHL
Dec. 3
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my wife says this question is a no-brainer: YES, always
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was an interesting board. It raised the obvious question about the differences between rebids of 2, 3, and 4s after partner's double negative. My partner and I had never discussed this (how many of you have?).
The companion hand was Txx, x, Jxxxx, Jxxx The hand made 4H only because the Q dropped dbltn. Do you want to be there? At imps? At match points? Is it better to play 2 followed by 3 as passable and an immediate 3 as forcing, or the other way around?
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you to everyone who has already or is yet to respond to this poll.
As mentioned in the OP, my bid over the opponent's bid of 3 elicited some disagreement.

Like about 3/4th of the respondents, I also doubled, thinking it still showed t/o dbl shape but with extras, perhaps a hand good enough for a game (or slam) try as partner could have been bidding 3 on shape to compete.
My partner advised me that it was a penalty double, only to reconsider (maybe) after I informed him/ her that 70 % (at the time) of the respondents to this poll disagreed with him. Fortunately, he/ she had a hand that could clearly convert the X to penalties: -1100 with declarer misplay.

But this disagreement on the meaning of a 2nd double after having initially made a takeout double continues.

I had been taught that as a default framework the 1st double is takeout, the 2nd is still takeout but with extras, but that the 3rd was penalty. Was I taught incorrectly? Or does it depend on the auction? I would appreciate feedback on this because this issue impacts on how to handle strong, balanced hands in competition (too strong or wrong shape for 1NT overcalls).
(ex: 1 - Dbl - p - 2 - 2 - Dbl: what is this dbl?)

TIA
DHL
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To all those who voted that 3 is natural here (4 s): what is your punt bid? example 2254, 1345 with weak s or, some 1354 hand with a mediocre suit, none having an stopper? Does 3 promise 5+, does 3 promise 5-good or 6+ s? What are your agreements?
TIA
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SAYC convention card is available on acbl site: acbl.org, Learn, Important Documents, Convention Cards, on lower right side is tab where TDs could go to print out multiple copies of SAYC CCs ahead of time to provide to those they are instructing to play SAYC. It's another PIA for the TD, but …………
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: the operant letter here is the “I”. It carries with it certain assumptions (or is it presumptions) that, for my personal experiences, often haven't been supported by reality. Anyway, as previously documented/ confessed elsewhere, it's always my fault, responsibility transfers in competition or not.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DSIP is an oxymoron.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always get scolded or dissed: this is nothing new.
In fact, when I was born, the doctors spanked my father. It's taken over 65 years but I've gotten over it.
I'm now more interested in how to better evaluate such hands.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
agreed
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like David's idea of blaming the opps for not having made a responsive double as a defense for my not having raised to 3. Had they done so, then i might have felt more comfortable about bidding 3 on light values.
Hmmm, blaming the opponents for my own mistakes seems like an up-and-coming, hopefully viable legal defense tactic. (Oh well, my son, also an atty, says it isn't viable.)
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't mind revealing that I was east, that I was torn between Pass and 3, and that I expected constructive arguments, spears thrown, and useful suggestions. I'm not that proud, and my skin is pretty thick…sort of matches my head. I can take it.
I admit openly that I was on a fence re whether or not to bid 3. I am quite familiar with the lott and that 4-cd supt/ 9 trumps is a virtue. However, i must also add that we do not have a way to distinguish between a weak and a constructive raise to 3 (no xfer advances, etc), that i definitely would have raise with the Q vs J, that i was concerned about partner playing me for a bit better hand (he can be quick with the cube/ red card), and that i was concerned about encouraging a lead from partner. Based on various discussion, perhaps the latter concern was faulty reasoning. The argument that passing vs bidding 3 permitted opener an easy 2nd bid has merit imo.
Results aside, the real question I have, I guess, is whether or not a raise to 3 with my hand is the percentage bid. Judging from the many who have implied or stated that passing 2 was insufficient, it sounds like most feel that 3H is the percentage bid. But is this in general, or is it in context of having additional bids available for differentiating weak from more constructive raises. Methodology Does Matter
Sept. 23
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dare to agree with Alexander that double of 3 might better be played as responsive, showing 4 , and 4/5+ s.
If one ignores the original 1 opening, the bidding has gone 1 - 2 - 3 - ?. would not a double here be responsive? This way you get to describe your hand type asap. Who knows, partner might choose to convert (unlikely) but at least you've gotten your suits and hand type described. (and you're still below 3NT)
Maybe you won't get your blood against frisky opponents, but at least you are most likely to not get your own bidding screwed up, and there might be something in the bidding that can tip you for a play for an extra trick.
Anyway, just a suggestion from a non-expert person who loves precision and started playing the original system (version 1) in 1970
Aug. 4
Donald Lurie edited this comment Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
posted this hand to see how many, if any, would open it 1NT. I opened 1, P responded 1NT-f, I rebid 2, and needed a break or two when partner took a preference to 2. Needless to say, on this occasion, partner had little in the majors, much more in the minors, and NT made 2 or 3. (can't recall now the companion hand-notes probably buried somewhere-will provide if can find). I said to P after the hand that I “knew” i should have opened it with 1NT :).
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it really wasn't so much what contract we got to. it was the process of getting there that i found to be so unusual if not amusing. still won 9.9 imps for 6 +1
fwiw, the out-of-the-blue 4 bidder hand was 82, J109874, 852, 85. closer to an initial 2 overcall which, in itself, would have made things interesting depending on what one choses to bid with my hand (maybe 3 ?, maybe 2N?) the comment about another missed grand was somewhat “tongue-in-cheek” (not really serious) 6 was fine
July 18
Donald Lurie edited this comment July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave: That's “Say kids, what time is it?”
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seeing how the trend so far is for a 2NT response by the east hand, with your permission (or without), I would like to share with you all what transpired next. It was a first for me.
After
Pass - Pass - 1 - Pass
2NT - Pass
The next round of bidding brought this: 3 by partner and then, out of the blue, 4 by rho.
So it's now gone:
Pass - Pass - 1 - Pass
2NT - Pass - 3 - 4 -
What is partner showing with his 3 bid? 5-6 in pointed suits? What to do over 4 Rightly or wrongly, I bid 4 (Probably should Pass)
So now it's
P - P - 1 - P
2NT - P - 3 - 4
4
Partner now bids 5. (He likes to torture me) After my eyes got back in focus, I interpreted this as exclusion, presumedly for s, and bid 6 (2 w/o)
Partner now Passed 6 and i looked around for my “Aleve” bottle.

This was Partner's hand: AQ106, void, KQJ74, AKJ9

Another Grand missed.
When was the last time you played in a slam when the trump suit was first named as a response to a keycard ask at the 6-level. A first for me. Making 7.
Getting to 7 might have been much easier on partner had I responded 2 instead of 2NT to his 1 opener.
Can you all recommend a better way to get to 7?
TIA
note: I submitted this as a bidding poll to see how many might initially respond 2 to 1. My partner assured my that we might then have wound up in 9 had I initially responded 2.
July 17
Donald Lurie edited this comment July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this partner, in 3rd seat, will likely be prepared for a possible 2NT from partner.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did. patience. will give companion hand tomorrow. it gets better :)
fun hand
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this has to do with doubling the transfer suit, not making a takeout double
July 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top