[shevek]

Where you play, what does this mean to most people?

1♣/1♦ - (1♥) - X

Is it

a) takeout, nearly always exactly four spades

b) takeout, denying four spades, since 1♠ would show 4+

c) shows 4+ spades (because people play some sort of inversion where 1♠ is takeout without four spades)

Or something else

[echo25]

I think the global standard is
that dbl shows no spades (usually no heart stoppers too) and 1♠ shows 4+ spades. This is b).

I play that dbl shows 4+ spades and 1♠ is transfer to NT, without 4 spades. Such transfers in defence are really useful, because NT is played from better hand. This is c).

Before I use to play transfers, I had bidded dbl as exactly 4 spades and 1♠ as 5+. It makes finding a spade suit 5-3 or 6-2 easier. This is a).

I'm from Poland and people play all this styles here and b) is the most popular.

[helene_t]

a, but always four, not just nearly always. Not a particularly good agreement but for some reason it has become standard.

[gwnn]

a') is standard as Helene says (with always exactly 4 spades).

Experts (everywhere) are as far as I know switching to c') a lot, in which X shows 4-5 spades, 1S denies spades (so a minor-oriented hand that doesn't want to bid 1NT), and 2H/2S show 6+ spades (2H inv+ or thereabouts, 2S weakish). This has the advantage over 1S=4+ spades and X=denies spades that opener can potentially rebid 1S showing exactly 3 spades so you can stop there with a 4-3 fit. It also has the advantage over X=4+ spades, 1S=denies spades that opener knows a bit more about responder's hand.

[miamijd]

a) is certainly std in the USA. "Nearly always" is right. 1s will never show 5+ spades (then you would bid 1s), but on rare occasions it might be only 3 if you have a decent hand and no other bid. For example:

1c (1h) ??

AKx xxx Kxxx xxx

Here, X seems like the best of a bunch of bad choices.

Cheers,
mike

[PhilG007]

 shevek, on 2016-February-16, 18:56, said:

Where you play, what does this mean to most people?

1♣/1♦ - (1♥) - X

Is it

a) takeout, nearly always exactly four spades

b) takeout, denying four spades, since 1♠ would show 4+

c) shows 4+ spades (because people play some sort of inversion where 1♠ is takeout without four spades)

Or something else

As partner has already bid,the double is for penalties.

[mgoetze]

Agree with Helene and Csaba, see http://www.bridgebas...ic/39224-1m-1h/ and http://www.bridgebas...s-not-4-spades/ for more on the merits of c).

[gwnn]

In case people were still worried whether or not PhilG007 is a social science experiment (or something identical to one for all practical purposes), this should be conclusive proof.

[Zelandakh]

What Helene wrote (as usual!). In addition to your 3 options, I will give another, a variation of b, that I used as a junior, namely that 1♣ - (1♥) - X showed 4+ diamonds, a form of skip-bid double. This did not deny 4 spades any more than a 1♦ response to 1♣ would have though. As for what is best, from these possibilities c is (arguably) the most efficient and has steadily been gaining ground. Finally, please ignore Phil, this double was not even penalty back in Culbertson's day - that response was just stupid!

[fourdad]

http://www.bridgeguy...ve_doubles.html

[rhm]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-17, 00:35, said:

a, but always four, not just nearly always. Not a particularly good agreement but for some reason it has become standard.

I am not sure whether this is poor agreement. It is certainly an easy agreement though not very sexy.
But I am sure the rest of your system and your bidding philosophy has an impact.
For example
How are your minor suit openings structured?
Does responders Pass deny values? (Not the way I play. I often refrain from bidding 1NT after RHO overcalled when that might wrong-side notrumps.)
Do you play negative free bids?
etc.

The critical path is if advancer will next raise or jump-raise hearts.
I find the difference between 4 and 5 spades in responder's hand crucial for opener to compete in spades effectively and it is in spades where the money is.
With negative free bids holding less than 4 spades it is rare you can not move over 1♥.
When it happens you are almost always balanced not short in hearts.

Rainer Herrmann

[zillahandp]

Three spades half a heart stop, no more than three of minor bid and not enough to bid other minor at two level ? More likely p has forgotten the system. Not 4 spades p could bid them.

[oryctolagi]

 PhilG007, on 2016-February-17, 02:52, said:

As partner has already bid,the double is for penalties.

 gwnn, on 2016-February-17, 03:28, said:

In case people were still worried whether or not PhilG007 is a social science experiment (or something identical to one for all practical purposes), this should be conclusive proof.

You want to know something? I was first playing bridge when most of you guys on here (or your parents) were still in nappies, back in the 1960s.

I learnt a lot of my bridge back then from an excellent little handbook by Terence Reese, no less (and you're surely not about to dismiss him as a dumbass player or something....?)

In the book, he quite explicitly states "If partner has already made a bid, a double is for penalties with the expectation of defeating the contract".

Of course, I know full well that I can't play by that book any longer. Bridge has changed beyond recognition in the 50 years since, and I've had to learn my way into BBO systems the hard way, with many slip-ups on the way. I still don't understand much of plenty of other players' convention cards, even in the Acol Club. But I get by, now. And yes, I know that double of an opponents overcall at the one level no longer means penalties. After all, we have negative doubles now (which I do understand....)

So I'm wondering where we get by insulting other contributors to this forum, possibly for no other reason than that they were, like me, playing bridge a long time ago. Oh well, if someone else can be a p****, so can I.

[gwnn]

Some ideas are good, some ideas are interesting, some are fun, some are acceptable, some are ok because they're simple, some are bad but you can get by with them. Some are ridiculous, some are dumb, some are so bad I refuse to accept that anyone seriously espouses them. Now, I don't think I play anything remotely as bad as "all doubles are penalty when partner opens" in bridge (color me closed-minded) but I'm pretty sure I do equivalently incompetent in cooking, running, fixing bikes, programming, ... The difference is that I don't go to the fitness forums saying that anyone who isn't running like Phoebe is a fake expert and I don't tell everyone that my way is obvious. I may or may not apply their advice in day-to-day life, but at least I don't call them all clueless.

[oryctolagi]

OK, so you say Reese had it totally wrong. You're entitled to that view. As I said, I don't follow him to the letter any more.

I still don't see what relevance your earlier post has, though.

[rmnka447]

As others have stated, the double usually shows 4 ♠ here in the US. The only exception might be a hand with long ♣ that's too weak to bid 2 ♣ directly but too strong to pass.

1 ♠, then guarantees 5+ ♠ here. Opener holding 3 or 4 ♠ has more clarity about whether to raise ♠ directly or not. Over 1 ♠, there's no problem raising with 3 ♠. Over a double opener will normally only raise with 4 unless holding some hand where raising with 3 and possibly playing a 4-3 fit seems like the right thing to do.

[gordontd]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-February-17, 08:38, said:

OK, so you say Reese had it totally wrong.

He didn't continue to give the same advice in later years, so are you saying that Reese said that Reese had it totally wrong?

[Vampyr]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-February-17, 08:38, said:

OK, so you say Reese had it totally wrong. You're entitled to that view. As I said, I don't follow him to the letter any more.

No, he didn't say that.

Reese was absolutely correct according to standards of the day. In fact this is the only permitted meaning of a double (after partner has bid but not including a protective double, I believe) at many rubber bridge clubs.

The agreement I like from the OP is ©, though I acknowledge that knowing whether partner has 4 or 5 spades can sometimes be crucial.

(a) is not bad, but I would say "usually" instead of "nearly always". Undiscussed I would always assume (a), probably omitting the "nearly". And neither I nor my partner will be dealt problem hands.

[Vampyr]

please delete duplicate

[gwnn]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-February-17, 08:38, said:

OK, so you say Reese had it totally wrong. You're entitled to that view. As I said, I don't follow him to the letter any more.

I still don't see what relevance your earlier post has, though.

Maybe you can read my second post which explains my first post pretty accurately. There is a difference between supporting an outdated, inferior method and supporting an outdated, inferior method while naming everyone who disagrees with you (i.e., pretty much everyone) various names (which the poster in questions has done plenty of times in the past -- check out his posts).

In unrelated news...
https://en.wikipedia...i/Scissors_jump
Are you saying all those olympic champions from the 10s and 20s had it totally wrong?? Who are you to say so? You're entitled to that view I guess, but just because all the professional athletes abandoned the scissors jump doesn't make it superior per se.

As the philosopher Minchin said, keep an open mind but if it's too open, your brain will fall out.
edit: apparently not originally Minchin but perhaps Feynman, but the principle is still correct.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2016-February-17, 09:49