I'm back on the subject of the ineptly named "Equal-level Conversion" after a double, a topic I last covered three years ago in Equal Level Conversion. I'm not entirely sure I still agree with my previous blog, but that's another story.
An odd thing happened to me playing with the GIB robots on BBO. Well, I shouldn't say "odd" because much of what they do is sub-par and humans should expect the unexpected. Nevertheless, I thought the GIBs would have more of a clue in this auction.
Here was a situation I faced with a hand that was something like the following: ♠AKJ7 ♥Q4 ♦KQJT3 ♣86. My RHO opened proceedings with 2♥. I don't recall the vulnerability. Double seemed like the obvious call (to me, at least). LHO passed and partner (GIB) bid the inevitable 3♣. I "corrected" to 3♦, showing two places to play (the pointy suits). Partner bid 4♦. Just to be on the safe side, I checked the explanation for my 3♦ bid: "twice rebiddable diamonds 19+ points" or something like that.
But if I really had that hand, I could have jumped in diamonds rather than doubling (we hadn't agreed Leaping Michaels). Admittedly, bidding 4♦ takes us past 3NT but it would describe a hand with something like "twice rebiddable diamonds 19+ points" and no heart stopper (although 3♥ would also tend to show a hand like that).
My point here is that, when the opponents have preempted, it's very much more likely that we want to double with a two-suiter than when the bidding starts with the one-level. Two-suited hands over any ordinary opening bid can be shown with Michaels, overcalling twice, or (with a suitable agreement) some other shape.
But, over a preempt, you no longer have Michaels available (unless you are playing Leaping Michaels and they open a weak two) and you simply may not have room to bid twice. Therefore, it's much more likely that you want to double with a two-suiter rather than some magnificent one-suiter (which you may be able to show with a simple jump).
Even when the "correction" is not at equal level (as it was in my example), I believe that pulling partner's response to the next cheapest unbid suit has to show a two-suited hand, even if that may force partner to an uncomfortable level.
Showing posts with label takeout double. Show all posts
Showing posts with label takeout double. Show all posts
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Friday, January 6, 2017
Bad takeout doubles
Continuing my series on common beginner mistakes, I note, with relish, that there are many players who don't understand the inherent dangers of making weak takeout doubles. This is because they have never suffered from the imposition of the "blue card".
Here's a case in point from a recent STAC game. You are white vs. red, and you deal yourself this collection: ♠Q975 ♥AJ84 ♦965 ♣K4. You have the world's most ordinary hand: 10 hcp and 4432 distribution. You wisely pass and this is followed by two more passes. RHO opens with 1♣ (playing 2/1 with strong notrump). Are you tempted to double? Surely, you have the most perfect hand for it. Both majors, shortness in clubs... But you still only have 10 hcp and your partner wasn't even able to scrape up a third-seat opener to protect you.
You double. LHO redoubles and partner, who must be weak, declines to choose a suit. Opener passes and it's back to you. What do you do? Surely, you must bid 1♥ now. This will be doubled by your RHO and if you are lucky, you will take five tricks for -500 which will be great if they have a vulnerable game. Actually, I think 800 is the more likely penalty.
Still, you decide to pass and the contract is 1♣XX. Your defense isn't perfect, and the very skillful declarer manages to make a meaningless overtrick for 630, despite being in a 3-3 trump fit. It turns out that your partner, the one who declined to take out the redoubled contract, had QJTxx opposite your Kx.
Now, how do you like these substandard takeout doubles?
Here's a case in point from a recent STAC game. You are white vs. red, and you deal yourself this collection: ♠Q975 ♥AJ84 ♦965 ♣K4. You have the world's most ordinary hand: 10 hcp and 4432 distribution. You wisely pass and this is followed by two more passes. RHO opens with 1♣ (playing 2/1 with strong notrump). Are you tempted to double? Surely, you have the most perfect hand for it. Both majors, shortness in clubs... But you still only have 10 hcp and your partner wasn't even able to scrape up a third-seat opener to protect you.
You double. LHO redoubles and partner, who must be weak, declines to choose a suit. Opener passes and it's back to you. What do you do? Surely, you must bid 1♥ now. This will be doubled by your RHO and if you are lucky, you will take five tricks for -500 which will be great if they have a vulnerable game. Actually, I think 800 is the more likely penalty.
Still, you decide to pass and the contract is 1♣XX. Your defense isn't perfect, and the very skillful declarer manages to make a meaningless overtrick for 630, despite being in a 3-3 trump fit. It turns out that your partner, the one who declined to take out the redoubled contract, had QJTxx opposite your Kx.
Now, how do you like these substandard takeout doubles?
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Equal-level Conversion?
Are you one of those people who fills out the overcalls point range on the convention card with something like 8 to 16? My answer to that question is a very British "Rubbish!" How can anyone seriously suggest that overcalls are about high card points? Especially the people designing convention cards!
To me, the difference between overcalling and doubling then bidding a suit is all about the suit quality and the shape of the rest of the hand. There are some really excellent offensively oriented hands that might do it with only 15 to 16 high card points. And others with 18 or 19 that are really only good enough for a simple overcall. Here's a hand from the other day where we were the only pair to reach game: ♠AKQJ72 ♥QT5 ♦A5 ♣64. All were vulnerable and my RHO, the dealer, opened 1♦. I regard this hand as somewhere in the vicinity of the tipping point between starting with 1♠ and double. But the quality of the spade suit tipped the balance in favor of double. The next player passed and, naturally, partner bid 2♣. After RHO passed, I bid 2♠. My partner, Alexander, who recognized this for what it was, had few qualms about bidding 3NT which he made with an overtrick. His hand was: ♠6 ♥K9 ♦QJ63 ♣J98732.
The only complication that we have to worry about is due to the concept of "equal-level conversion." Like some other bridge conventions or rules, such as "negative free bids" or "restricted choice," equal level conversion is about as badly named as anything could be. I've previously mentioned this subject briefly in Gosh, what a hand! The problem is that not everyone knows how to distinguish an equal-level-conversion from a good, one-suited hand. How can we be certain what's going on?
For the last several years, I've been thinking along the lines suggested by Robson and Segal in their book on competitive bidding (see that other blog entry for a reference). They talk about bidding above two-of-opener's-suit. But last evening at the bridge club [this was actually six months ago as I am now writing], I realized that there is one and only one determining factor which separates an "equal-level" conversion from a GOSH (good one-suited hand). Did you skip over the third suit after partner's response?
You pick up, in fourth seat, red on white,♠4 ♥AJ976 ♦AKT943 ♣A. LHO opens 1♠ partner passes and RHO raises to 2♠. How are you going to treat this monster? My friend Peter chose to bid 3♠, resulting eventually in the top spot of 5♥, but he was at another table. I'm really not sure what's best here, although I think I like 3♠, as it cannot possibly be passed by partner. At this vulnerability, double can't be too dangerous because partner will never pass the double for penalties. What about 2NT? Although it seems unlikely that this could be to play, it might be misinterpreted and then when partner chooses clubs and you rebid diamonds, partner might wonder if it was supposed to be natural all along.
So let's say for the sake of argument that you double and partner bids, as expected, 3♣. You are going to bid a red suit but which one you bid makes all the difference. When you double and partner selects one of the three unbid suits and you correct to the next cheapest (in this case 3♦), you are showing a two suited hand (note that the next cheapest might not be at the same level as the cheapest if for example hearts was their suit). This just shows a two-suited takeout and would be described, potentially erroneously, as an equal-level conversion.
But if instead you bid the fourth suit, bypassing the next-cheapest, then you are showing a GOSH (good one-suited hand).
Here's another hand from the same session to illustrate the principle of the (non) equal-level conversion. You hold ♠A432 ♥98 ♦AJ4 ♣QJT2 and with favorable vulnerability you decide to double the 1♦ call on your right. Personally, I like to have a little more ammo for this kind of off-shape double but the vulnerability is in your favor. If partner makes the expected 1♥ call, you will bid 1♠ showing the black suits. Here, you have converted at equal level, but partner may have to raise the level if he likes clubs more than spades. In practice, your LHO is the one with the balance of power (not partner) and he (LHO) redoubles. Partner bids 2♣ denying four cards in either major and they end up in a heart game, making five.
Occasionally, there will still be some ambiguity. If, going back to the first hand, my spades and hearts were switched, and the auction proceeded as before 1♦ X p 2♣ p ? 2♥ could still be showing a major two-suiter. If partner chooses spades and you bid 3♥, partner should get the message. But what if he likes the majors equally and passes 2♥? You might miss a game when you have a really outstanding hand (better than this one). In such a case you might have to make a jump bid of 3♥ over 2♣, but I think that would be rare.
And don't forget that you do need some extras (say 13 hcp?) if you have an off-shape double that will require conversion as you will often end up a level higher than you'd really like. Even then, you're likely to suffer the occasional 800.
Clearly, you have to be confident that partner won't misinterpret your rebid after a takeout double. As long as you have that assurance you can be much more frisky in your off-shape takeout doubles.
To me, the difference between overcalling and doubling then bidding a suit is all about the suit quality and the shape of the rest of the hand. There are some really excellent offensively oriented hands that might do it with only 15 to 16 high card points. And others with 18 or 19 that are really only good enough for a simple overcall. Here's a hand from the other day where we were the only pair to reach game: ♠AKQJ72 ♥QT5 ♦A5 ♣64. All were vulnerable and my RHO, the dealer, opened 1♦. I regard this hand as somewhere in the vicinity of the tipping point between starting with 1♠ and double. But the quality of the spade suit tipped the balance in favor of double. The next player passed and, naturally, partner bid 2♣. After RHO passed, I bid 2♠. My partner, Alexander, who recognized this for what it was, had few qualms about bidding 3NT which he made with an overtrick. His hand was: ♠6 ♥K9 ♦QJ63 ♣J98732.
The only complication that we have to worry about is due to the concept of "equal-level conversion." Like some other bridge conventions or rules, such as "negative free bids" or "restricted choice," equal level conversion is about as badly named as anything could be. I've previously mentioned this subject briefly in Gosh, what a hand! The problem is that not everyone knows how to distinguish an equal-level-conversion from a good, one-suited hand. How can we be certain what's going on?
For the last several years, I've been thinking along the lines suggested by Robson and Segal in their book on competitive bidding (see that other blog entry for a reference). They talk about bidding above two-of-opener's-suit. But last evening at the bridge club [this was actually six months ago as I am now writing], I realized that there is one and only one determining factor which separates an "equal-level" conversion from a GOSH (good one-suited hand). Did you skip over the third suit after partner's response?
You pick up, in fourth seat, red on white,♠4 ♥AJ976 ♦AKT943 ♣A. LHO opens 1♠ partner passes and RHO raises to 2♠. How are you going to treat this monster? My friend Peter chose to bid 3♠, resulting eventually in the top spot of 5♥, but he was at another table. I'm really not sure what's best here, although I think I like 3♠, as it cannot possibly be passed by partner. At this vulnerability, double can't be too dangerous because partner will never pass the double for penalties. What about 2NT? Although it seems unlikely that this could be to play, it might be misinterpreted and then when partner chooses clubs and you rebid diamonds, partner might wonder if it was supposed to be natural all along.
So let's say for the sake of argument that you double and partner bids, as expected, 3♣. You are going to bid a red suit but which one you bid makes all the difference. When you double and partner selects one of the three unbid suits and you correct to the next cheapest (in this case 3♦), you are showing a two suited hand (note that the next cheapest might not be at the same level as the cheapest if for example hearts was their suit). This just shows a two-suited takeout and would be described, potentially erroneously, as an equal-level conversion.
But if instead you bid the fourth suit, bypassing the next-cheapest, then you are showing a GOSH (good one-suited hand).
Here's another hand from the same session to illustrate the principle of the (non) equal-level conversion. You hold ♠A432 ♥98 ♦AJ4 ♣QJT2 and with favorable vulnerability you decide to double the 1♦ call on your right. Personally, I like to have a little more ammo for this kind of off-shape double but the vulnerability is in your favor. If partner makes the expected 1♥ call, you will bid 1♠ showing the black suits. Here, you have converted at equal level, but partner may have to raise the level if he likes clubs more than spades. In practice, your LHO is the one with the balance of power (not partner) and he (LHO) redoubles. Partner bids 2♣ denying four cards in either major and they end up in a heart game, making five.
Occasionally, there will still be some ambiguity. If, going back to the first hand, my spades and hearts were switched, and the auction proceeded as before 1♦ X p 2♣ p ? 2♥ could still be showing a major two-suiter. If partner chooses spades and you bid 3♥, partner should get the message. But what if he likes the majors equally and passes 2♥? You might miss a game when you have a really outstanding hand (better than this one). In such a case you might have to make a jump bid of 3♥ over 2♣, but I think that would be rare.
And don't forget that you do need some extras (say 13 hcp?) if you have an off-shape double that will require conversion as you will often end up a level higher than you'd really like. Even then, you're likely to suffer the occasional 800.
Clearly, you have to be confident that partner won't misinterpret your rebid after a takeout double. As long as you have that assurance you can be much more frisky in your off-shape takeout doubles.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Three strikes - you're out
In previous incarnations of my rules for competitive doubles, I've talked about imagining that each pair has one bidding box to share between them. Obviously, you don't normally need two copies of each bid and the box comes with plenty green pass cards. There's a yellowish double card, an amber double card and several red double cards. Assuming no other penalty-triggering events have occurred, the double cards must be played in the order given. The first is for takeout. The second is two-way and/or cooperative. The third is penalty. [For more on the double rules, see DSIP rule summary and others.]
Obviously, this is just an illustrative scenario, not real life. But the idea of the third double being for penalty is a valid one. These days, I just call it the "three strikes" rule. Here's an example of it in use from a recent pairs game. With no-one vulnerable and in fourth seat, I picked up this hand: ♠ AJ7 ♥ AK3 ♦ 53 ♣ AQ654. RHO opened 1♦ and I had to choose an action. For better or worse, I made a takeout double (unusually, this was one of two occasions on which I doubled with 3-3 in the majors). LHO raised to 3♦ and it came back to me. I doubled again, this time cooperatively. Partner pulled to 3♠ and RHO bid 4♦. I doubled again. This time it was pure penalties. Yes, partner could have pulled with a very weak distributional hand. But he sat for it.
The result was down one – +100 for our side. This turned out to be the absolute par on the board though happily worth 60% of the matchpoints. As it happened, the final double made no difference to our matchpoint score. There were 19 total tricks on the deal, 10 for us in clubs, 9 for them in either red suit. We had a 10-card club fit and they had heart/diamond fits of 8 and 9 cards respectively. Of sixteen tables, all but four played a contract in our direction, six in their 4-3 spade fit and six in the 5-5 club fit.
It's quite satisfying when things work as they're supposed to. We were slightly lucky perhaps that 5♣ couldn't make against normal defense (they get two fast diamonds and eventually must come to a spade). Still, that's what you might reasonably expect with two balanced hands and 24 hcp. The bottom line is that each side did what it had to in order to reach the par result.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Rebidding after a double
Let's look at a few auctions that involve rebids after a takeout double:
However, it seems to me that in auction #2, where partner has shown substantial values, 3H would simply confirm four hearts and a relatively minimum double. Presumably, in order for partner to bid 3D, he's either got sufficient values to play 4D if he has no heart support, or 3NT, or 4H if he has four hearts.
But I admit this is an area I'm not sure about. And I doubt if there's anything in the books about this.
Comments?
- (1S) x (p) 2D (p) 2H
- (1S) x (p) 3D (p) 3H
- (1S) x (p) 2D (p) 3H
However, it seems to me that in auction #2, where partner has shown substantial values, 3H would simply confirm four hearts and a relatively minimum double. Presumably, in order for partner to bid 3D, he's either got sufficient values to play 4D if he has no heart support, or 3NT, or 4H if he has four hearts.
But I admit this is an area I'm not sure about. And I doubt if there's anything in the books about this.
Comments?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Raising partner's forced response to a takeout double
I stirred up quite a controversy last week playing with Lance. Just what sort of hand do you need to raise partner's forced response to your takeout double, assuming that RHO rebids something? The rule that I've been following for many years now is that you can raise to the two-level with a non-minimum takeout double, especially if our side is non-vulnerable. Apparently, where I thought this was "expert standard", it's actually an item for partnership discussion.
Just what is a good enough hand to raise? Does it show a really good hand, as it would surely if RHO didn't bid again? Let's say that the auction has gone as follows:
Is this hand good enough to raise to 2♠: ♠A985 ♥3 ♦AK96 ♣AJT8? I suspect everyone would raise: either to the two or three level depending on partnership agreements. This hand evaluates to about 21 points assuming partner really has four or more spades. If he has something like Kxxx xxx Jxx 9xx, game is about a 50% proposition. However, if partner has xxxx xxx xxx xxx, then it will be very hard to make even 2♠ but surely in that case, the opponents can make 3♥ so unless they double (or we are vulnerable) and we go down two, we should still be OK.
What about this? ♠Q985 ♥T32 ♦AQ6 ♣AT8? I can't imagine anyone raising with this hand - it's a marginal takeout double of 1♥ in the first place.
My hand was somewhere in between: ♠Q985 ♥T3 ♦AK96 ♣AJ8 and I raised to 2♠, thinking that I was doing the "normal" thing. Lance then surprised me by doing what I thought he couldn't possibly do (given his non-jump initially) – he bid game with ♠KT642 ♥Q86 ♦74 ♣Q42 (five working points but also a fifth spade). The defense wasn't perfect and with a slightly more favorable guess in the trump suit, he could actually have made it, but in the end went down one.
Afterwards he said he expected me to have a "huge hand." What surprised me was that the GLM at our table agreed with him. Hence my interest in finding out what my bridge friends would do.
Here's what I'd like to suggest: 2♠ (in competition) shows a hand with four spades, at most two small of the enemy suit (maybe Kx) and 14-16 working points. With more hcp and/or especially good distribution, a jump to 3 would be about right. A very good hand with only three-card support and something in the enemy suit can double. A huge hand can cue bid (we wouldn't be having this discussion if their suit outranked ours), forcing us to the three-level and begging partner to bid game with any useful card. On that basis, my hand was a minimum for my action.
I'd like to suggest one final rule of a more general nature which is perhaps an extension of the Horizon principle. Let's say that you make a call which shows no interest in game (a non-jump opposite a takeout double for instance or a simple raise of partner's major suit opening). Partner later makes a non-forcing call. Even though your hand may have improved since your initial action, you cannot now bid game all on your own if there is an intermediate call available (assuming we are not sacrificing).
Comments welcome.
Just what is a good enough hand to raise? Does it show a really good hand, as it would surely if RHO didn't bid again? Let's say that the auction has gone as follows:
| RHO | You | LHO | Pd |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♥ | X | p | 1♠ |
| 2♥ | ? |
Is this hand good enough to raise to 2♠: ♠A985 ♥3 ♦AK96 ♣AJT8? I suspect everyone would raise: either to the two or three level depending on partnership agreements. This hand evaluates to about 21 points assuming partner really has four or more spades. If he has something like Kxxx xxx Jxx 9xx, game is about a 50% proposition. However, if partner has xxxx xxx xxx xxx, then it will be very hard to make even 2♠ but surely in that case, the opponents can make 3♥ so unless they double (or we are vulnerable) and we go down two, we should still be OK.
What about this? ♠Q985 ♥T32 ♦AQ6 ♣AT8? I can't imagine anyone raising with this hand - it's a marginal takeout double of 1♥ in the first place.
My hand was somewhere in between: ♠Q985 ♥T3 ♦AK96 ♣AJ8 and I raised to 2♠, thinking that I was doing the "normal" thing. Lance then surprised me by doing what I thought he couldn't possibly do (given his non-jump initially) – he bid game with ♠KT642 ♥Q86 ♦74 ♣Q42 (five working points but also a fifth spade). The defense wasn't perfect and with a slightly more favorable guess in the trump suit, he could actually have made it, but in the end went down one.
Afterwards he said he expected me to have a "huge hand." What surprised me was that the GLM at our table agreed with him. Hence my interest in finding out what my bridge friends would do.
Here's what I'd like to suggest: 2♠ (in competition) shows a hand with four spades, at most two small of the enemy suit (maybe Kx) and 14-16 working points. With more hcp and/or especially good distribution, a jump to 3 would be about right. A very good hand with only three-card support and something in the enemy suit can double. A huge hand can cue bid (we wouldn't be having this discussion if their suit outranked ours), forcing us to the three-level and begging partner to bid game with any useful card. On that basis, my hand was a minimum for my action.
I'd like to suggest one final rule of a more general nature which is perhaps an extension of the Horizon principle. Let's say that you make a call which shows no interest in game (a non-jump opposite a takeout double for instance or a simple raise of partner's major suit opening). Partner later makes a non-forcing call. Even though your hand may have improved since your initial action, you cannot now bid game all on your own if there is an intermediate call available (assuming we are not sacrificing).
Comments welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)