Help
notproven, on 2016-June-29, 14:51, said:
This series of posts illustrates why bidding on BBO is so horrendous: most players make up their own systems and call it "Bridge". The original post is a beginner question about 2/1. So I went to Mike Lawrence's book on 2/1 - THE BOOK. You might also want to read Eddie Kantar or Marty Bergen or some other World Class player/writer, but they'll all give you the same answer to this beginner problem. Check my posts; I didn't just make up something, I confirmed all of it in Mike's book first.
Granted, many of truly expert pairs have adopted useful variations: supported by pages of system notes and hours of discussion and play. But, first they all read about the system and thoroughly understood the principles. That's why they win world class events, not because they've picked up a few dubious tips from the local club. If you want to deviate from standard, fine, but make clear what is standard first, then tell us why your variation plays better.
Granted, many of truly expert pairs have adopted useful variations: supported by pages of system notes and hours of discussion and play. But, first they all read about the system and thoroughly understood the principles. That's why they win world class events, not because they've picked up a few dubious tips from the local club. If you want to deviate from standard, fine, but make clear what is standard first, then tell us why your variation plays better.
Stephen Tu, on 2016-June-30, 02:09, said:
Which Mike Lawrence book? His Workbook on the 2/1 system? Or some other text? Please quote a page number, because I cannot find it. I perused my copy, he like gives 2 negative double auction examples, neither of which is 1d-2c-dbl or 1c-2d-dbl. I don't see anywhere where he claims negative double has to guarantee both unbid suits.
Every reference I have, negative double does not guarantee both unbid suits unless specifically the auction 1c-(1d)-dbl. In other situations, you can double with one unbid major with sufficient strength for the level, and either a stopper in the overcalled suit, so you can bid NT later, or support for partner's opening suit, so you can take a preference. You just need a reasonable backup plan if partner bids the major you don't have. Reserving dbl only for those hands that have both unbid suits IMO is underutilizing the cheapest most flexible call by a ton, and leaving a lot of hands essentially unbiddable. You support partner's minor instead, and take a horrible MP score because the major fit scores better. Or you decline to invite because it's too thin to invite 11 trick minor game but if you knew partner had major fit you'd take a shot at the major game. You have some auction like 1c-(2s)-?? And you can't double because you don't have diamonds, so you bid 3nt and miss the superior 4H. Or 1c-(3d)-? you want to bid game in major if you have fit, 3nt/5c if not, how can you cater to both possibilities without being able to double with one major only?
I've read a ton of bridge books in my life from a lot of those authors. I think I would have remembered if negative double always guaranteed both unbid majors.
I learned almost exclusively from books from top class authors. I didn't pick up the idea that negative double doesn't guarantee both majors from some total random at the club. I can't see how guaranteeing both majors is playable. What can possibly be wrong with doubling, then pulling back to clubs if partner bids hearts? What does that even mean if double guarantees both majors, you play that as a game try in the major I guess?
I'm pretty sure how I play is standard. Guaranteeing unbid suits on all auctions is non-std. If you dispute this, please give title, publication date, and page numbers of the book supporting your thesis.
First 3 books I looked at, Modern Bridge Conventions by Root/Pavlicek, Washington Standard by Robinson, Bidding Dictionary by Truscott, all support my contention as standard. I can supply page numbers if you don't believe me. I doubt any of the books in my collection say otherwise.
Every reference I have, negative double does not guarantee both unbid suits unless specifically the auction 1c-(1d)-dbl. In other situations, you can double with one unbid major with sufficient strength for the level, and either a stopper in the overcalled suit, so you can bid NT later, or support for partner's opening suit, so you can take a preference. You just need a reasonable backup plan if partner bids the major you don't have. Reserving dbl only for those hands that have both unbid suits IMO is underutilizing the cheapest most flexible call by a ton, and leaving a lot of hands essentially unbiddable. You support partner's minor instead, and take a horrible MP score because the major fit scores better. Or you decline to invite because it's too thin to invite 11 trick minor game but if you knew partner had major fit you'd take a shot at the major game. You have some auction like 1c-(2s)-?? And you can't double because you don't have diamonds, so you bid 3nt and miss the superior 4H. Or 1c-(3d)-? you want to bid game in major if you have fit, 3nt/5c if not, how can you cater to both possibilities without being able to double with one major only?
I've read a ton of bridge books in my life from a lot of those authors. I think I would have remembered if negative double always guaranteed both unbid majors.
I learned almost exclusively from books from top class authors. I didn't pick up the idea that negative double doesn't guarantee both majors from some total random at the club. I can't see how guaranteeing both majors is playable. What can possibly be wrong with doubling, then pulling back to clubs if partner bids hearts? What does that even mean if double guarantees both majors, you play that as a game try in the major I guess?
I'm pretty sure how I play is standard. Guaranteeing unbid suits on all auctions is non-std. If you dispute this, please give title, publication date, and page numbers of the book supporting your thesis.
First 3 books I looked at, Modern Bridge Conventions by Root/Pavlicek, Washington Standard by Robinson, Bidding Dictionary by Truscott, all support my contention as standard. I can supply page numbers if you don't believe me. I doubt any of the books in my collection say otherwise.
I'll come in on this a bit.
Mike Lawrence: Double! New Meanings for an Old Bid. Copyright1994, Pages 12-17 or so. I will select some.
on page 15 he gives the auction 1D-2C.
Then he poses the question: "If East doubles two clubs, does he promise both majors?:
He answers his question:
"No, East can double with only one major but he had better be careful."
He provides examples:
No:
73
AQ74
874
J653
Yes:
JT73
Q8
A742
KJ3
In this latter one, if partner responds in heart to the double, ML recommends NT.
General theme: If you ask partner to bid whatever major he has, and if you only have one major, you need a back up plan when he bids the major that you don't have. Of course so.
A couple of things that I think are true:
After 1D-(2C) and presumably after 1C-(2D)
Not all experts agree on just how to handle this.
Few if any experts insist that the negative double shows support for both majors.
If you only have on major, you need some foresight. Or detailed agreements.
I play a fair amount of pick-up on BBO. I run into problems, but not so many that I collapse in agony. With the OP hand I double because I believe I can land on my feet pretty much however it goes, just as long as partner keeps an open mind.
A regular partnership sits down and works through the details. Playing pick up, you wing it. Sometimes it is something in between.
Recommendations for pick up on BBOI
#1 Develop a sense of humor.
#2 What is elementary and standard for you might be weird for someone else.
#3 Go for the practical, not the optimal.
I double on the OP hand. I freely admit that after that, when partner leaps to 4H, I have a guess to make. I bod 5C or I bid 6C. If we were Meckwell, we might have other optinos, but we aren't 6C is on. So of course I would have bid it. Of course.
Btw. I regularly try to get partners to buy the Conventions disk by ML that BBO sells. I have had very limited success in this. Everyone is positive that s/he already knows how such and such a convention is played. I make no claims that ML has the best approach. As I said earlier about Steve Robinson, he isn't God. But if two people read the same literature, this might help. It really isn't all the same.