[bid_em_up]

Mike,

I will try to explain my point of view on X as opposed to 1♠ using a couple of your own quotes from other threads:

Mikeh said:

At imps, the cardinal rule, when choosing a final strain (as opposed to level), is safety. If game is out of reach, aim for the safer partial, not the higher scoring one.. and carry this theme through game and slam decisions.

So aren't we more likely to be in the right strain by starting with an immediate double? We actually win automatically in 2/3 chances (whenever partner bids hearts or spades), and it is entirely possible this hand actually belongs in diamonds.

mikeh said:

So I opt for the slight overbid of 2♠. While we may end up too high, we will always find the right strain, and, when it is close, it is usually better to be in the right strain one level too high than at the right level but in the wrong strain.

In both of these quotes, you appear to state (my loose interpretation) that we are always better off playing in the right strain. Imo, an immediate 1♠ bid really should say "I think this hand will play best in spades unless you (partner) have a better place to play" and yet, at this point in the auction, there is absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. Partner may well have a better place to play on this hand, but have no reason to bid over 1♠.

In fact, I believe that if you were to run another simulation, you are likely to find that 4♥ is the most likely game prospect, not 4♠ (and 5♦ isn't entirely out of the picture, either).

On this particular board, these are the original combined N/S hands

---

Change the North hand just a fraction to either:

---

or

---

Obviously 4♥ is a reasonable game on either of these hands, and yet....we may be passed out in 1♠ if we bid 1♠ instead of immediately doubling. Because of this, I much prefer putting both majors in play at my first opportunity to do so, rather than at a second chance later in the auction........that may never come. Of course, the possibility also exists that you may well be going down in 1♠, where even if you have no game, you may be making a partial in hearts or diamonds.

The only assured way of finding our likely best fit IMMEDIATELY is to double. While partner certainly may bid diamonds, this hand is still good enough to force for one more round by bidding 1S. But he may always bid 2D over the X, or 2H, or 2S, or 3D or 3H preemptively. It is these types of hands that the X is much more likely to cater to and improve our subsequent auctions (again, just my opinion), than the hands where partner happens to be a weak 3-3-3-4 and is forced to pick a 3 card suit.

If, by chance the bidding is at 3♣ by the time it gets back to me, with partner having failed to bid, I still dont have to bid 3S (as someone else blindly suggested), I can still X again for takeout, or decide that its the opponents hand and pass.

In fact, I have been so overwhelmingly convinced that X is the correct first call at IMP's, that in my current partnership, we will double on any 5-4-3-1 hand without any HCP requirement beyond being a normal takeout double. It took a long time for me to overcome my sentiments regarding the advantages/disadvantages of doing so, but the overall results have proven (at least to me) that this is the best way of treating these hands.

Note, I am only convinced of this @ imps, where the scoring differential between a minor suit contract and a major suit contract isn't significant. At MP, since majors outscore minors, and higher scoring contracts win higher percentages, I would still prefer to bid the major first unless the hand is actually strong enough to double then bid.

[SoTired]

Boy, there is a lot of subjective opinions here. Like who to classify as an "expert?" MikeH's definition I would call a "top expert".

Another thing is how beginners are taught versus how top experts play.

Beginners are taught only basic bidding. As a player advances, the player learns more bids both broader and deeper. For example, a beginner is taught Stayman and Jacoby Transfers. As they advance they might learn 4-suit transfers and Texas (broader). As they advance some more they might learn how to handle slamish 5-card minor and 4-card major hands (deeper).

I believe most beginners are taught that a simple overcall is limited to 16HCP. That with more the player dbls and then bids their suit. Bidding their suit and then doubling is a more advanced topic mainly because the second double may not always be available as takeout.

Beginners are constantly coming here with "how do you bid this hand" because their lessons did not cover anything but how to bid the common hands. It is a disservice to this forum to use that question as a chance to trot out your favorite pet convention/treatment or for a top expert to contradict commonly taught strength levels because an expert bidder knows how to handle different strength hands with their 2nd and 3rd bids. "If the bidding is this, I can dbl, and if that, I will q-bid, and if the bidding goes this way, then I'll bid a new suit which in this situation is not natural, etc, etc." Oh, Yes... Don't forget that over/under bids are forcing unless the pot size is twice the vulnerable slam bonus minus the freckle count.

(I made that last part up)

[bid_em_up]

SoTired, on Apr 4 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

Another thing is how beginners are taught versus how top experts play.

Beginners are taught only basic bidding.....

I believe most beginners are taught that a simple overcall is limited to 16HCP. That with more the player dbls and then bids their suit. Bidding their suit and then doubling is a more advanced topic mainly because the second double may not always be available as takeout.

I guess this sums up what I was originally trying to get at in my initial reply to Ben.

1st, Ben, I will apologize for being snarlish in my responses, yesterday. Having a bad day, combined with a headache and allergies, I was not @ my best. Sorry.

My original intent was that Ben seemed to imply that the 1♠ bid is acceptable in his original post. I will not disagree that in the context of R/S that 1♠ is perfectly fine. But again, it is not what beginners or intermediates are normally taught, at least not in the US (I won't pretend to know what is taught in Norway or Germany or any other country, since I don't live there....but I would expect it to be the same if they are being taught SAYC or 2/1, which are the methods I will normally infer unless stated otherwise).

Beginners & Intermediates are taught to double and bid their 5 card suit with 17+ hcp. This hand actually evaluates to about 20 playing points, assuming a fit can be located (17 hcp, 3 distributional) so clearly qualifies for X then bid, from a beginner/intermediate perspective.

Given that we are in the B/I forum, I don't know that "we" should be giving creedence to bids which require advanced methods, such as R/S, and especially not without giving acknowledgement that we are using such methods. I feel that most beginner/intermediate players who may come to these boards, would like an answer that is most likely to correspond to their current methods or what they have been taught. It really isn't an issue so much of what I think bid then X or X then bid should mean, we can each come to our own agreements or judgements on that ; it is an issue of what has the beginner/intermediate player more likely to have been taught and then try to answer appropriately. I hope that makes sense, I can't seem to word it any better.

If I was still a beginner, or intermediate (and some days, I feel like one) and I came to this forum, and saw Ben or Mike advocating a 1♠ bid without any further discussion or explanation of why they are bidding 1♠, then I would be forced to assume that 1♠ is absolutely the correct call on this hand, no matter what methods I am playing.

Since Ben is a BBO yellow (and a fine player), and Mike obviously is a world class player, their words will naturally carry more weight on the subject than any one elses....which is why I was so vehement that 1♠ is wrong, and especially in this forum. I have no problem with actually discussing such methods in this forum, as long as it is clear that the bid I am making is within the context of such methods, and not as a matter of claiming that 1♠ is gospel.

Arend, I do not/did not claim that beginners/intermediates are incapable of understanding R/S or that it is too difficult for them (at least I don't think I did). But unless it is specifically stated that I am playing these methods, then what is the beginner/intermediate player who comes to the forums, sees Ben/Mike/you claim 1♠ is correct (or at least acceptable) which is contradictory to everything that they have been taught, with no further explanation, supposed to think?

They may or may not realize that unless they make other modifications to their methods or agreement regarding overcall ranges, hand patterns, etc. that the 1♠ bid simply just does not work in their current methods and instead, will now think that bidding 1♠ is both perfectly acceptable and the correct bid (heck, Mike and a BBO yellow said so, it must be true).

Again, I apologize for the earlier rants or any ill feelings I may have caused.