iclub doubled
lakes
3 2. lho passes.
my partner has 1 point with distribution of 3 3 3 jxxx and bids 1nt.
i went to 3nt and down 3 or 4.
was 1nt by partner ok? what should she have bid?
was my double a correct bid?
jonathan23
> my rho opp opens 1 club. i double with 20 hcp and distribution of 4 4
> 3 2. lho passes.
>
Usually it helps to say what basic system (e.g. Standard American,
Acol, Precision, etc.) you are playing, and what kind of game you are
playing (duplicate or rubber?). Here it probably doesn't make a _lot_
of difference. I'll assume 1C was a natural opening bid.
> my partner has 1 point with distribution of 3 3 3 jxxx and bids 1nt.
>
> i went to 3nt and down 3 or 4.
>
> was 1nt by partner ok? what should she have bid?
Your partner seemed to be stuck for a bid. Passing the double says
you can defeat 1C and should not be done without some values and good
trumps (Jxxx is not good enough). Usually you have to have some
strength to advance your partner's takeout double to 1NT. I think the
old Standard American rule was 8-10 HCP with a stopper in the
opponents' suit. Now some say you can respond 1NT with 6-10 HCP. I
don't know what's best, but I will guess that most will say 1 HCP is
not enough.
Your partner should think at first that you have a hand without
anything in clubs and a lot less strength (for instance you could have
as little as about 10 HCP and only one club), so no trump should not
be attractive.
To make a non-encouraging response without taking too big a risk, I
have seen some of the bridge books say to bid your best/cheapest 3-
card major suit at the lowest level and I think I would try that
first. Since you are likely to have a 7-card fit (yes, on a bad day
it can be a 6-card fit) if you stay at a low level that's usually
playable, and at least it shouldn't go down enough to make a really
bad score.
On this hand if your partner scraped up a least-of-evils 1H or 1S
you'd probably raise to 3 [and rightly so], so you will end up playing
at the 3 level. Still, that shouldn't go down 3 or 4 tricks because
you have a strong hand. So a plus score might not be possible, but
you should be able to get a smaller minus while preventing the
opponents from playing for their partscore (they have 19 HCP and might
possibly make two of something if they have a good fit in another suit
and you let them find it).
>
> was my double a correct bid?
I can't see what other good choice you would have in most basic
bidding systems. I think you were too strong to pass, you had no good
overcall, and you had support for all the unbid suits. So a normal
(strong) takeout double.
Hope this helps,
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
judyorcarl
Double was correct and book.
1NT is surely wrong and unplayable as a method. After a double of 1
*spade*, it might be playable to use 1NT as 4=3=3=3 bust, because
you're going to the 2-level anyway. But after 1CX, you have to allow
all possible chances to play at 1 something.
Your partner should have bid 1D in tempo, and hoped to avoid a trump
lead. You should then have bid 1NT. Still probably minus.
Carl
Nick France
1NT should show values which partner doesn't have. I would bid 1D
with partner's hand as this is less encouraging than 1H or 1S. You
can then rebid 1NT which shows 19-20 points and a balanced hand (I'll
assume you have a club stopper).
Nick France
Co Wiersma
you double is good and also your 3NT bid was good
double asks parter to choose between diamonds , hearts and spades
with the emphasis on hearts and spades
so thats what partner should do
choose
and after partner's bid
you should show your extra's by making a second bid
Co Wiersma
Lorne
news:1a7ba7e6-de22-420a...@c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> my rho opp opens 1 club. i double with 20 hcp and distribution of 4 4
> 3 2. lho passes.
>
> my partner has 1 point with distribution of 3 3 3 jxxx and bids 1nt.
This is wrong. IN shows some values, normally 6-9 pts. Bidding it on such
a weak hand makes the game unplayable as partner will bid 2N with 17-18 and
3N with 19+. Normal thing to do when fixed like this is to bid a minor as
that is least likely to get partner exited, so 1D is the bid.
>
> i went to 3nt and down 3 or 4.
3N is clearcut with a 20 count.
>
> was 1nt by partner ok? what should she have bid?
>
> was my double a correct bid?
Yes.
Hasse
Some play 1C may be short or 2+. If they correctly ALERT that you may
play Polish defense i.e as if you had opened an artificial 1!C or
short 1D is the negative reply. If they have not alerted that bid you
call TD. Its alertable.
Not really what you have asked for i know :) so just bid 1!D.
Co Wiersma
I dont think its good to play 1NT as a weak bid after 1S opening
specially not for a beginner
First they have to learn the basic rules
And yes , I would bid 1D also
but strictly for tactical reasons
and then I am not even sure if it is the best choice
If this player bids 1H next time instead of 1NT
I think it be a huge improvement
Co Wiersma
judyorcarl
> judyorcarl schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 9:20 am, lakes <larrymst...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> my rho opp opens 1 club. i double with 20 hcp and distribution of 4 4
> >> 3 2. lho passes.
>
> >> my partner has 1 point with distribution of 3 3 3 jxxx and bids 1nt.
>
> >> i went to 3nt and down 3 or 4.
>
> >> was 1nt by partner ok? what should she have bid?
>
> >> was my double a correct bid?
>
> > Double was correct and book.
>
> > 1NT is surely wrong and unplayable as a method. After a double of 1
> > *spade*, it might be playable to use 1NT as 4=3=3=3 bust, because
> > you're going to the 2-level anyway. But after 1CX, you have to allow
> > all possible chances to play at 1 something.
>
> > Your partner should have bid 1D in tempo, and hoped to avoid a trump
> > lead. You should then have bid 1NT. Still probably minus.
>
> > Carl
>
"I dont think its good to play 1NT as a weak bid after 1S opening
specially not for a beginner"
I don't think it's good either. But it's a playable agreement, where
bust 1NT after 1CX is unplayable.
> First they have to learn the basic rules
>
> And yes , I would bid 1D also
> but strictly for tactical reasons
> and then I am not even sure if it is the best choice
>
"If this player bids 1H next time instead of 1NT
I think it be a huge improvement"
1. 1H over a 1D advance shows 5+
2. 1H is more of an underbid than 1NT
Carl
>
> Co Wiersma- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Co Wiersma
I think you got my meaning all confused
I did mean
if this player
with this one point hand
in this situation
next time
bids 1 H instead of 1 NT
that be a big improvement
Co Wiersma
if its good advice , I think it dont matter if its really what is asked for
but
as for this situation
it is as often
very important to understand the basics very good
long before you start with advanced tricks and gadgets
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
The advantage of responding 1D rather than 1H is that it increases by
at least 50% the chance that opener will bid. You *badly* want to be
on defense.
Carl
Fred.
Standard practice is to treat 1N after a double as a constructive
call, perhaps 9-11 HCP. Given this understanding, your 3NT call would
be completely justified.
Standard practice given a bad hand such as your partner held would be
to bid a suit. Personally, I would call 1D even though this is the
suit where doubler is most likely to have a short holding, simply
because 1D is the call that leaves the other three players at the
table the most possible room to save you by biddding.
Any suit opener calls, even a diamond raise, is likely to have 5
cards. If the hand belongs to the opponents, this is a time you will
be happy to let them outbid you.
Fred.
Kieran Dyke
"lakes" <larry...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1a7ba7e6-de22-420a...@c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Double is good. 3NT is good.
1NT actually shows high cards. Most would play it as about 7-10. So, your
partner has to bid something else - I suggest 1D, which makes no promises at
all.
Over that, you need to find another bid. 1NT is the best choice if you have
anything in clubs - it shows your high cards accurately (19-20) and gives
your partner a chance to pass with rubbish. Other than that, either 2C
(which raises the level of bidding and probably won't learn you much) or
maybe rebid 1H or 1S if the suit is VERY strong.
Tiggrr
Sid
Your double was spot on. The 1NT bid promises 7-9 points and a sure
stopper.
Partner should bid just 1D. What was your hand actually?
Sid
Eric Leong
A 1NT response to a takeout double of 1C never shows a one point hand.
Partner should have bid 1D.
Eric Leong
Kenny McCormack
This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
to a strong club opener. But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
CLC in a nutshell.
Eric Leong
wrote:
> In article <ebc7363f-39d7-4ca2-95b2-4d45bebaa...@f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 6:20 am, lakes <larrymst...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> my rho opp opens 1 club. i double with 20 hcp and distribution of 4 4
> >> 3 2. lho passes.
>
> >> my partner has 1 point with distribution of 3 3 3 jxxx and bids 1nt.
>
> >> i went to 3nt and down 3 or 4.
>
> >> was 1nt by partner ok? what should she have bid?
>
> >> was my double a correct bid?
>
> >A 1NT response to a takeout double of 1C never shows a one point hand.
> >Partner should have bid 1D.
>
> This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
> artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
> to a strong club opener. But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
> reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
>
1D was not meant as an artificial bid or a psyche.
It is an automatic text book bid.
Eric Leong
Kenny McCormack
Eric Leong <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
>> artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
>> to a strong club opener. �But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
>> reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
>
>1D was not meant as an artificial bid
I wasn't suggesting that it was - in your context.
I was suggesting that it would be a useful way to play the bid. It
would solve the hole in standard systems where you have a bust hand in
response to a t/o dbl.
>or a psyche.
I was being cryptic. My point was that I think the ACBL forbids
"Herbert negatives" (or any variation thereof) because playing them
allows some sort of psychic operation(s). I'm not clear on the details,
but I seem to have read something to this effect long ago.
You are probably more knowledgable on the history of this than me.
>It is an automatic text book bid.
Well, that's going a bit far. In the MSC, they consider the word
"automatic" to be a dirty word.
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
> artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
> to a strong club opener. But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
> reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
The GCC allows "CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses
(including free bids) thereto". So I think 1D as a Herbert negative
would be legal. (A takeout double is a convention.)
-- Adam
Kenny McCormack
You could be right. I'm posting from memory. I do know that I heard at
one point that it ("Herbert Negatives") is verboten.
This could be one of those things where it matters what you call it.
For example, if you call it a "relay", it's verboten. So, you call it a
"transfer" instead.
We used to kid each other that "We don't use the 'R word' here".
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> >> This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
> >> artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
> >> to a strong club opener. But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
> >> reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
>
> >The GCC allows "CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses
> >(including free bids) thereto". So I think 1D as a Herbert negative
> >would be legal. (A takeout double is a convention.)
>
> You could be right.
Well, since I'm quoting the official ACBL regulations verbatim, I'd
say there's a pretty good chance of it.
> I'm posting from memory. I do know that I heard at
> one point that it ("Herbert Negatives") is verboten.
It depends on what it's a response to. For example, a negative 1D
response to 1C (any kind of 1C) is OK, since the GCC specifically
allows it, but a negative 1H response to 1D isn't (unless 1D is strong
and forcing). A Herbert response to an overcall isn't allowed, but a
Herbert response to a takeout double is OK. A Herbert response to an
overcall is OK over an intervening negative double. There's no one
blanket rule about them.
> This could be one of those things where it matters what you call it.
> For example, if you call it a "relay", it's verboten. So, you call it a
> "transfer" instead.
Wrong again. The ACBL convention charts have various rules about
relay *systems*---and the charts define what they mean by this. But
there is no rule against relay bids, whatever those are. Those are
conventions that may or may not be legal depending on context. For
example, over 1NT and an overcall, 2NT is often played as a relay to
3C (Lebensohl; some call it a "puppet"), and that's legal because
anything is legal over a natural 1NT opening that promises 10 or more
points.
You should look over the GCC. It's really quite straightforward, and
it's pretty easy to understand although there are some ambiguities.
Mostly, it doesn't depend on fuzzy terminology like "relay" that don't
have clear definitions. It seems as though you've instead formed some
vague impressions of the rules that aren't entirely accurate, perhaps
by overgeneralizing (e.g. someone told you that Herbert responses to
overcalls were illegal so you concluded that they meant all Herbert
responses) or obsolete information (the old Class A through F
convention charts, before there was a GCC).
-- Adam
Co Wiersma
> In article <ff221109-97c5-4d86...@z21g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Leong <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> This discussion suggests that it would be a good thing to play 1D as an
>>> artificial negative to a t/o dbl - sort of analogous to the 1D negative
>>> to a strong club opener. But ACBL regs prohibit this - for no sensible
>>> reason that I can see; I assume the real reason is psyche control.
>> 1D was not meant as an artificial bid
>
> I wasn't suggesting that it was - in your context.
> I was suggesting that it would be a useful way to play the bid. It
> would solve the hole in standard systems where you have a bust hand in
> response to a t/o dbl.
>
>> or a psyche.
>
> I was being cryptic. My point was that I think the ACBL forbids
> "Herbert negatives" (or any variation thereof) because playing them
> allows some sort of psychic operation(s). I'm not clear on the details,
> but I seem to have read something to this effect long ago.
>
> You are probably more knowledgable on the history of this than me.
>
>> It is an automatic text book bid.
>
> Well, that's going a bit far. In the MSC, they consider the word
> "automatic" to be a dirty word.
>
Herbert would in this situation work very nice
BUT
its not a good idea to let your system be made purely as a result of
incidents
Herbert is a complication of your bidding system
and afaik , most top players dont play it ( any more )
even if they have very complicated bidding systems
so my advice would be
skip this convention and if you wanna complicate your system
there are plenty of better spots
Co Wiersma