Sort suit count with Take Out Double?

[Bertil]

Some textbooks say that a TO shows an opening hand without a good 5-card suit.
Another description says it shows a hand with 13 valuation points, so that
the TO hand can count short suit points, 5-3-1, to obtain the 13 pts.since the TO
hand expects to become dummy with an ordinary TO hand. Is this realistic?
The TO hand has no assurance of an 8-fit, and thus is not justified in counting
short suit points.

As an alternative I would suggest counting the number of losers in the opened suit and add 11. Then if the total equals at least 13 I would examine the hand
for potential trump support of at least 3 cards. Since the advancer cannot
guarantee at least 4 card in the bid suit, there is no justification for up-
grading the TO hand.
Keep in mind I'm referring to Std.Am. type bidding.
Stig

USA.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ac9732c4-bea0-4faa...@googlegroups.com>,

Mel Colchamiro has a nice rule of thumb in his book "How to Play Like an
Expert Without Being One". Count the number of cards you have in
opener's suit, and add 10 -- that should be your minimum point count.

Counting losers in the opened suit is not really a good idea, IMO.
Honors in opener's suit are not helpful -- you'd rather have them in a
suit that fits with partner. I'd rather make a TOX with xxx in opener's
suit (3 losers) than QJx (only 2 losers); the latter is better for
defense than offense.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Actually, Edgar Kaplan's 1965 book advocated nonvul takeout doubles of 1C thru 1H with 11 "points" counting shortness in opener's suit at 5-3-1. To double 1S required 13.

I have never had any at-the-table problem with that, so far as I can remember.

And advancer was even more aggressive: Shortness in opener's suit at 3-2-0. Shortness in any other suit at 5-3-1. PLUS one point for the 5th card in any suit but opener's and 2 more points for the 6th and longer cards.

After all that enormous promotion, responder gave a single jump with 9-11 and cued with 12 up.

Not "realistic" maybe, in terms of making a contract, but really putting it to the opening side.

Carl

[David Goldfarb]

In article <barmar-1166A7....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Mel Colchamiro has a nice rule of thumb in his book "How to Play Like an
>Expert Without Being One". Count the number of cards you have in
>opener's suit, and add 10 -- that should be your minimum point count.

I like that, except that it feels just a little too conservative:
I'd rather use 9 instead of 10. Frex, it feels wrong to pass 1H
with something like:

AQxx
xx
Kxxx
Qxx

I'd always want to double with this, and holding a point less I'd
still consider it.

--
David Goldfarb |"Tom?...I don't get you."
goldf...@gmail.com | "Nobody does. I'm the wind, baby."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

[Bertil]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 5:12:36 PM UTC-4, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> Actually, Edgar Kaplan's 1965 book advocated nonvul takeout doubles of 1C thru 1H with 11 "points" counting shortness in opener's suit at 5-3-1. To double 1S required 13.
>

Reading Kaplan's "Winning Contract Bridge Complete" I cannot find the statement
you just made. On what page did you read it?
If he wrote what you claim, he would have made a TOX with only 6 HCP + a void,
such as with Kxxx-Kxxx-xxxxx-0 if the opening bid were 1C. I just don't believe it.

Stig

[Nick France]

On Jun 7, 5:12 pm, "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think the only thing you are missing is subtracting a point if you
only have 3 cards in an unbid major (at least that is how I remember
it). I think people underestimate how aggressive Kaplan was with
shape. The reason for a double of 1S is higher is advancer has to
respond on the 2 level (in effect just add 2 points for each level).

Nick France

[Nick France]

That guideline amounts to about a point higher than most experts would
want. In the last bridge world standard survey (and yes I know its 12
years ago), the question was ask as to what Y should be for a takeout
double of 1C

Axxx Axxx Yxxx x

and 60% of the experts picke a Queen. If anything the standard is
probably lower today. Of course, I'm missing why any of the suggests
are any easier than the normal standard for computing the value of a
hand for a takeout double.

That being count your HCP except for Queens and Jacks in opener's suit
and then add distribution points. I favor the 1-3-5 but if you are
like Bergen and like 1-3-4 better that is fine. Also many authors
would suggest subtracting 1 point from this if you have only 3 cards
in an unbid major.

What Mel's method is suggesting is that shortness is worth 1-2-3 and
you need 13 points to double. This rule of Mel is more of trying to
sound different than being different.

Nick France

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Takeout doubles are about SHAPE (and occasionally for strong single-suiters and Very strong balanced hands).

Partner HAS a suit of 4 cards or longer or she doesn't have 13 cards. If the 4 cards are in Opener's suit, she might bid no trump. Otherwise, the more unbid suits in which you have 4 or more cards, the lighter that you can be. If your partner can't miss a 4-card suit, you have a likely 8-card fit. So, with (544)0 with a void in Opener's suit, I will probably double with as little as two kings and a queen. This appears to give 4 or 5 points for the void. But, with only two cards in one of the unbid suits and 4 cards in 5's suit and 4-3 in the other two, it takes about 13 HCP (discounting doubleton jacks) for me to take and aggressive action (and then I will usually overcall 1NT).

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 9:40:00 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 5:12:36 PM UTC-4, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Actually, Edgar Kaplan's 1965 book advocated nonvul takeout doubles of 1C thru 1H with 11 "points" counting shortness in opener's suit at 5-3-1. To double 1S required 13.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Reading Kaplan's "Winning Contract Bridge Complete" I cannot find the statement
>
> you just made. On what page did you read it?
>
> If he wrote what you claim, he would have made a TOX with only 6 HCP + a void,
>
> such as with Kxxx-Kxxx-xxxxx-0 if the opening bid were 1C. I just don't believe it.
>
>

"Competitive bidding in modern bridge."

Actually, he addressed hands like that. Said you really can't double.

But if you don't wish you had the nerve, then bridge is not for you. (This last is me not Kaplan.)

Carl

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 7, 9:40 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 5:12:36 PM UTC-4, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> > Actually, Edgar Kaplan's 1965 book advocated nonvul takeout doubles of 1C thru 1H with 11 "points" counting shortness in opener's suit at 5-3-1.  To double 1S required 13.
>
> Reading Kaplan's "Winning Contract Bridge Complete" I cannot find the statement
> you just made. On what page did you read it?
> If he wrote what you claim, he would have made a TOX with only 6 HCP + a void,
> such as with Kxxx-Kxxx-xxxxx-0 if the opening bid were 1C. I just don't believe it.

I think he covered that in his book on defensive bidding. He didn't
think doubling _that_ light would work out. On the other hand, I think
he would have doubled if you add either the QJ of Diamonds _or_ a
Major-suit Queen.

--
Will in New Haven

[Bertil]

But that is not part of Std.Am. bidding as outlined by e.g Max Hardy or
Barbara Seagram or Karen Walker.
If there has been a recent article in the Bridge Bulletin, please cite it.

Stig

[judyo...@gmail.com]

I do not believe there is any "std Am" criterion for takeout doubles at the 1-level.

The books you cite say something because they have to say something. Or they may be the personal preferences of the authors.

Carl

[Bertil]

I suggest you look up Norma Sands book" Standard American Updated"
and Ned Downey& Ellen Pomer's book "Standard Bidding with SAYC'.
Like the other books I mentioned, these two also state that a TOX shows an
opening hand in strength. Maybe you should look up what Std. Am. bidding is.

Stig

[Will in New Haven]

The discussion had referenced Kaplan's book on competitive bidding. No
one asked what is standard and no one had asked what should we teach
beginners. I don't care what's standard and I don't care what you
teach beginners.

[Will in New Haven]

Maybe you should note what people play in actual competition. Oh,
that's right, you don't PLAY in actual competition.

[Nick France]

On Jun 8, 8:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Maybe you should read a little more and understand that a book like
Norma Sands is very general. In another post you also quoted Barbara
Seagram as saying a takeout double requires an opening hand. It
should be noted she put "13 or more points" after this remark. An
important fact to note is she didn't say High Card Points. She goes
on to give as an example of a good takeout double of 1D as

AKQ3 QT98 54 J96

You will note that this is only 12HCP so to make 13 she must be
counting the doubleton as 1 point. I dont have the other two books
with me (I'm not home) but I am sure Pomer's book will have a
discussion of distribution points.

You started this thread but criticizing the use of distribution
points. I am will to wager every source you have quoted uses
distribution points to evaluate a takeout double. Seems you can't be
consistant.

Nick Frnace

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
> I suggest you look up Norma Sands book" Standard American Updated"
>
> and Ned Downey& Ellen Pomer's book "Standard Bidding with SAYC'.
>
> Like the other books I mentioned, these two also state that a TOX shows an
>
> opening hand in strength. Maybe you should look up what Std. Am. bidding is.
>
>
>

In fact, in the very first Bridge World Standard poll, in the late 60s, "light distributional takeout doubles" were selected by a majority.

What polls do you imagine the authors you cite took to claim that their methods were "standard"?

Carl

[jonathan23]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 4:02:00 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> Some textbooks say that a TO shows an opening hand without a good 5-card suit.

That seems to be an oversimplification to me. I can think of quite a few examples that don't fit that definition.

The takeout double's message is fairly simple. It is "I want to compete but would like your input on where and how high. I am prepared for whatever you bid." That means the doubler is ready to either pass or raise advancer's response, or has enough to make an independent suggestion later.

> Another description says it shows a hand with 13 valuation points, so that
> the TO hand can count short suit points, 5-3-1, to obtain the 13 pts.since the
> TO hand expects to become dummy with an ordinary TO hand. Is this realistic?
>

It's been fairly common practice for several decades now, although I'm sure experts don't stop to add the distributional points, they just know instinctively when to double. If it was unrealistic, don't you think it would have gone the way of the many "standard" bidding practices from that era that are now obsolete? Or that there might be a strong and visible minority doing other things? (I believe there are people who do other things, but I'm not sure they're that visible to the casual observer.)

> The TO hand has no assurance of an 8-fit, and thus is not justified in
> counting short suit points.

Like all bids, the takeout double is a bet that you can improve your score. When you have three suits, betting that partner can fit one of them is not unreasonable. A takeout double where two suits have been mentioned by the opponents already (especially if the auction is at the two level) is acknowledged to be more risky.

>
> As an alternative I would suggest counting the number of losers in the opened
> suit and add 11. Then if the total equals at least 13 I would examine the hand
> for potential trump support of at least 3 cards. Since the advancer cannot
> guarantee at least 4 card in the bid suit, there is no justification for up-
> grading the TO hand.

It should be fairly feasible to test that theory. There should be an identifiable subset of hands where your suggested method and "standard" methods diverge. Testing a sample of those might give an answer as to whether better scores are achieved. As they say in math, "show your work."

>
> Keep in mind I'm referring to Std.Am. type bidding.
>

Which is a nebulous concept at best, and does not dictate hand evaluation methods. Standard methods simply divide the spectrum of hands into "weak", "minimum", "medium", and "strong." Evaluation methods are tools to assist in deciding how to classify particular hands. Differences are usually only found in borderline cases, which have always been debatable.

--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada

[jonathan23]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 6:07:54 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:

>
> But that is not part of Std.Am. bidding as outlined by e.g Max Hardy or
> Barbara Seagram or Karen Walker.

None of those people are dictating standard methods, they are attempting to describe standard methods as they are found and translate them into descriptions that will let others reproduce them reliably.

And when did Max Hardy write a book on "Standard American" bidding? As far as I know, he was always a disciple of two over one game forcing, which might have some similar-looking bids but is a different animal.

>
> If there has been a recent article in the Bridge Bulletin, please cite it.
>

An article in the Bulletin wouldn't be an authoritative definition or redefinition of "standard" methods, it would be the writer's opinion with some editorial approval. People who write for the Bulletin frequently express opinions that contradict other published opinions, even widely-held ones. If there was no debate or dialogue, there wouldn't be anything to publish, there would just be one book on "the best way to do everything."

[Bertil]

So you think that what was done half a century ago is a suitable standard today?
Can't you find any more recent articles in the Bridge Bulletin, that serves
ordinary players of today? Find an article from the past 5-10 years.

Stig

[jonathan23]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:20:08 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:

>
> I suggest you look up Norma Sands book" Standard American Updated"
> and Ned Downey& Ellen Pomer's book "Standard Bidding with SAYC'.
> Like the other books I mentioned, these two also state that a TOX shows an
> opening hand in strength. Maybe you should look up what Std. Am. bidding is.

I suggest you look up the definition of "Standard American" in any edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge from the last thirty years or so. Things are not nearly as black and white as you are arguing them to be.

Goren made his name by _simplifying_ hand evaluation and bidding decisions so that reasonable accuracy would be within the reach of more people. I don't think he really invented any bidding methods, but he was good at explaining and teaching them. Making bidding decision-making more complicated is retrogressive for those who need such rules. Advanced players don't follow mechanical "rules", they just "know."

[Bertil]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, jonathan23 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 6:07:54 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > But that is not part of Std.Am. bidding as outlined by e.g Max Hardy or
>
> > Barbara Seagram or Karen Walker.
>
>
>
> None of those people are dictating standard methods, they are attempting to describe standard methods as they are found and translate them into descriptions that will let others reproduce them reliably.
>
>
>
> And when did Max Hardy write a book on "Standard American" bidding? As far as I know, he was always a disciple of two over one game forcing, which might have some similar-looking bids but is a different animal.
>

In 2000 Max Hardy wrote 'Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century"/

Stig

[Sid]

"jonathan23" wrote in message
news:1e7c8208-cfc8-41ee...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:20:08 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:


I suggest you look up the definition of "Standard American" in any
edition of the ACBL
Encyclopedia of Bridge from the last thirty years or so.
Things are not nearly as black and white as you are arguing them to be.

===============


It is getting yellower now. :)

Sid

[jonathan23]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 3:36:29 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
>
>
> In 2000 Max Hardy wrote 'Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century"/
>

I have that book. Despite it's title, it's about two-over-one game forcing, which Max Hardy believed should be the "new standard." But it's not about "Standard American" as generally understood.

[Bertil]

Yes, B.Seagram adds 1 pt for a doubleton because she is stuck on Goren's original method of evaluation of opening hands. She needs to be advised of
what Kantar has to say about counting short suit points: " Some players fall
in love with singletons and voids. They love them so much that they count
extra points right off the bat . Do everything you can to avoid becoming one
these players. They are a tragedy waiting to happen....you need a good fit
before you can count extra points for short suits"

He also writes about "Knowing when to make a take out double: 11 or more HCP.."

Stig

[Will in New Haven]

I am sure that he would double on the hand in question and probably
with one or two HCP less. So would everyone I play against in open and
A flight events. What you do in your little private fantasy world is
your affair.

[Bertil]

You are evidently some kind of occultist, who can foretell what Kantar would do
by consulting your Ouija board. Too bad it does not help you to become
National and World Champion.

Stig

[Nick France]

You really haven't read Seagrams book have you. In Chapter 2 she
gives both methods and says they normally come to the same number.
She doesn't pick one over the other and suggest you don't try to
change your partner if they learned one way and you the other.

Of course, now you criticize counting short suits and in the past you
criticize Grant for counting long suits. Guess both are too simple
for you. Time for you to really read Seagram's second chapter. You
really need the lesson taught there.

Nick France

[Nick France]

The problem is Stig is all over the place. He quotes books without
really reading them. Hardy's book was the one I use to use to teach
intermediates the 2/1 system. I have since changed to using the Grant
and Rodwell book. One day he will actually have a positve system not
one that criticizes everyone elses.

Nick France

[Nick France]

Where I am staying had a copy of 'Modern Bridge Conventions' by Root
and Pavlicek. It is acknowledged that SAYC was based on a system
close to 'Common Sense Bidding' by Root (or was it Pavlicek). It is
interesting to note what they say about takeout doubles in 'Modern
Bridge Conventions.

They start by saying that it typically shows an opening hand with
support (three or more cards). You have a hangup with everyone using
the word 'opening hand'. But when you read further under point 2.
they say:

'With a singleton or a void in the enemy suit and 4441 or 5440 shape,
the strength of a takeout double may be shaded slightly.'

as an example they give

KJ94
3
A964
QT32

as a good takeout double of 1H. If you count it is only 10HCP and is
not an opening hand. It is obvious they are counting points for
distribution but aren't assigning an actual number (Can't imagine how
you can live with that).

Since their standards were the basis for SAYC the standard for
'Standard American' might best be said as an opening hand when you
have two of the opponents suit, but several points lighter when you
have a singleton or void in the opponent's suit.

Nick France

[Bertil]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:10:00 PM UTC-4, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
>

> > I suggest you look up Norma Sands book" Standard American Updated"
>
> >
>
> > and Ned Downey& Ellen Pomer's book "Standard Bidding with SAYC'.
>
> >
>
> > Like the other books I mentioned, these two also state that a TOX shows an
>
> >
>
> > opening hand in strength. Maybe you should look up what Std. Am. bidding is.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> In fact, in the very first Bridge World Standard poll, in the late 60s, "light distributional takeout doubles" were selected by a majority.
>
>

I'm amazed that you could not find a modern view on TOX in BW.
In BWS of 2000 it was found that 60% regarded Axxx-Axxx-Qxxx-x to be a minimum
hand for TOX of 1C.
But I wonder it replacing the A's with KJ would be too weak?
Has there been any more recent discussion in BW?

Stig

[judyo...@gmail.com]

> I'm amazed that you could not find a modern view on TOX in BW.
>
> In BWS of 2000 it was found that 60% regarded Axxx-Axxx-Qxxx-x to be a minimum
>
>

My point was and is that light distributional TOX have been a feature of expert and would-be-expert bidding for a very very long time.

Carl

[Will in New Haven]

I play against top players fairly often and they seem to make their TO
doubles on shape and often do so on fairly light HCP. You, on the
other hand, have played against virtually NOBODY. You have no record,
having never made any attempt to play at even a moderate level.

I probably have more regional wins than you have teeth left.

[Tom]

Come on folks. Just ignore this troll. Isn't it obvious that he only
asks rather meaningless questions so he can follow up with equally silly
arguments. He will wither and go away if you don't feed him.

Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519ba16d-b9b0-4560...@googlegroups.com:

[Fred.]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 4:02:00 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> Some textbooks say that a TO shows an opening hand without a good 5-card suit.
>

> Another description says it shows a hand with 13 valuation points, so that
>
> the TO hand can count short suit points, 5-3-1, to obtain the 13 pts.since the TO
>
> hand expects to become dummy with an ordinary TO hand. Is this realistic?
>

> The TO hand has no assurance of an 8-fit, and thus is not justified in counting
>
> short suit points.
>
>
>

> As an alternative I would suggest counting the number of losers in the opened suit and add 11. Then if the total equals at least 13 I would examine the hand
>
> for potential trump support of at least 3 cards. Since the advancer cannot
>
> guarantee at least 4 card in the bid suit, there is no justification for up-
>
> grading the TO hand.
>

> Keep in mind I'm referring to Std.Am. type bidding.
>

> Stig
>
>
>
> USA.

I like using the dummy point evaluation (5-3-1) in
the adverse suit requiring a minimum of 11 points when
non-vulnerable and partner can respond at the one level.
Require 1 point more vulnerable, and 2 points more for
each added level.

This requires more dummy points when the opponents show
the spades, but gets you in more freely when you likely
have them.

Fred.

[Fred.]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 4:02:00 PM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> Some textbooks say that a TO shows an opening hand without a good 5-card suit.
>
> Another description says it shows a hand with 13 valuation points, so that
>
> the TO hand can count short suit points, 5-3-1, to obtain the 13 pts.since the TO
>
> hand expects to become dummy with an ordinary TO hand. Is this realistic?
>
> The TO hand has no assurance of an 8-fit, and thus is not justified in counting
>
> short suit points.
>
>
>
> As an alternative I would suggest counting the number of losers in the opened suit and add 11. Then if the total equals at least 13 I would examine the hand
>
> for potential trump support of at least 3 cards. Since the advancer cannot
>
> guarantee at least 4 card in the bid suit, there is no justification for up-
>
> grading the TO hand.
>
> Keep in mind I'm referring to Std.Am. type bidding.
>
> Stig
>
>
>
> USA.

PS. You are justified in counting short suit points when
you support all the unbid suits because you almost always
have a fit. And, in the rare cases you don't partner will
identify the problem early.

I think it is much safer to double 1H holding the likes of

xxxx
-
Axxx
QTxxx

than with

QTx
Axx
KJx
Axxx

With the first hand partner is likely to have a real fit, and
some points. If we get too high the opponents can probably
make something.

With the second hand, I am much more likely to find partner
weak and/or with a poor fit. I'll double 1H with this hand, but
I won't be happy about it and would consider a pass to be a
reasonable shooting action at match points.

Fred.

[Will in New Haven]

Actually, I don't count _any_ distributional points for a takeout
double. I look at the shape of the hand and it's _suitability_ for a
double. Just as you do, I also note the level at which partner must
respond.

With a very suitable shape, four in every other suit or similar, I
require nine HCP or so if partner can respond at the level of one,
eleven if partner must bid at the two level no matter which unbid suit
he or she picks. Also, the quick-trick structure must be fairly good
if the point count is minimum.

With a somewhat suitable shape, a doubleton in opener's suit and no
fewer than three in any unbid suit, I like to have two more HCP.

With a 4333 hand, I need thirteen HCP with four in the unbid Major,
fourteen without and, frankly, I sometimes pass anyway and rarely
regret it when I do.

With really unsuitable shape, I need a hand too good for our overcalls
or for a 1NT overcall and those hands are rare.

[Bertil]

With only 11 pts you would double with a 4-4-5-0 hand such as Jxxx-Jxxx-QJxxx
because you would count 1 pt for the 5th card, if the opening bid were 1C.
You write like you might be Fred G, an advisor to A.Grant, who sets the
strength of doubler's hand at 13. She seems to think that the W scale is all
a beginner needs to evaluate a hand, and thus regards 2Q=1A. But Bergen
writes that there is 1.5 pts difference and Kleinman thinks it is 1 pt.
You are advocating extremely low standard for TOX contrary to Kantar and
practically all other writers.

Stig

[Bas van Gils]

I can't believe that 'the complete book on takeout doubles' by Lawrence hasnt come up yet. Read it. It works :)

[Bertil]

I asked earlier for a recent article about TOX, but nobody responded.
And yet, Larry Cohen wrote two a year ago in the Bridge Bulletin.
He shows a number of hands suitable for TOX, but not one of them is based
on counting 5 pts for a void and all have about opening HCP strength.

Stig

[iand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 10 June 2013 15:52:23 UTC+1, Will in New Haven wrote:

> I play against top players fairly often and they seem to make their TO
>
> doubles on shape and often do so on fairly light HCP. You, on the
>
> other hand, have played against virtually NOBODY. You have no record,
>
> having never made any attempt to play at even a moderate level.
>
>
>
> I probably have more regional wins than you have teeth left.

++++Leaving aside the last point, which is unverifiable without scouring through endless results and Stig's mouth, one of which I don't have the time for, the other the stomach, I think this hits the nail on the head. You can't learn this sort of thing from books, nor from teachers. Bridge is so much more than an algorithm: if it wasn't, it wouldn't have lasted five minutes. Your book, or your teacher, can give you an idea of what the principles of bidding and card play are. These should be as simple as possible both for easy digestion and in terms of frequency. Real experience comes from sitting down and playing, mainly both partnering and opposing people who are better than you are. And if you don't do that, you'll never learn.

Burdening a learner with "points" to start with is bad enough. Extrapolating this leads to confusion if done too early, and isn't that clever when you get more advanced (I'm not entirely without qualification when I say this: I taught bridge at Nico Gardner's London School of Bridge and was for a time the English Bridge Union's Director responsible for Education. You may disagree with me but my ignorance of the subject isn't total). Players (and indeed the game) can only really prosper if people are taught sensibly and clearly how to play, how to lead from the right hand etc and what playing in a club is like. Armed with this, they should be encouraged out into the real world (the real world needs a bit of telling about how to behave towards newcomers, obviously). Then they'll fly. The best swimmers were the ones just thrown into the pool by their parents. The ones that didn't drown, obviously.

Bridge is a game where you have to combine book-learning with experience. You can have as much as you like of the former, but without the latter you're going nowhere. If you're going to sit there worrying about points, length points, shortage points, protection points, losing trick count, the principle of the transferred king and all the zillions of things with different names, you'll never play. But play once and you'll realise that three card support for partner's major isn't so bad if you have a singleton elsewhere.

And the way to find out what successful players make take-out doubles on is to play against them, because if you just ask them most of the time their answer would be "I doubled because it looked right". This goes for everything else, as well.

[Will in New Haven]

Frankly, I agree on "_about_ opening HCP strength." But there are
hands with solid opening HCP strength where a double would not be
wise, at least with most partners, and the hand you sited Axxx Axxx
Qxxx x, as a minimum double of 1C is not an opening bid.

Change one of those Aces to KJ? which you asked about up there. That's
a weaker hand and I might not double. It's that close. The shape issue
is about suitability for a takeout double, not about counting points.

[Fred.]

Yes. I was assuming a suitable hand for a double.
And I do look at the quick trick structure to assess
risk versus possible gain when vulnerable.

But, in response to Bertil's question, I do use 5-3-1
with a lower limit of 11 or 12 dummy points ATV. And, with
appropriate adjustments for unsupported quacks and honors
in the adverse suit I consider it a useful sanity check.
I really hate to pass a hand with the right shape for
a takeout double.

Fred.