NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/games/bridge/7542

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!nntp.Stanford.EDU!altus
From: [e-mail] (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr News)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:10:25 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Wing) writes:
>
>I agree with Bo-Yin here ...  the attitude "don't do X because if situation
>Y happens, you'll be screwed" is just not going to make you come out ahead
>in the long run.  This is a hold-over from the '30's, where no-trump openings
>denied a small doubleton, pre-empts were quite sound, etc. etc.
>
>There are plenty of experts who don't hold this attitude, despite what
>Bob claims ...  witness esp. those who play forcing-pass and such systems,
>where fert bids abound, 8-counts are routinely opened (I'm not counting the
>fert as an opening), etc. etc.  On first glance these systems are just
>BEGGING for disaster, and occasionally it happens. But they're willing to
>live with that, because of the benefits in other circumstances.  Most of
>these experts, however, come from other countries, which may explain why
>Bob doesn't acknowledge their existence.
>

this isn't quite the same thing.  routinely opening 8-counts, when your
partnership agreement is as such, occasionally gets you into trouble
when you get nailed at a very low-level...  but as someone who has opened
quite a lot of 8-counts in his day, let me tell you, it just doesn't
happen that often...

but making a takeout double intending to show a strong balanced hand
when you have a singleton in a suit which partner would have to bid
on the 2-level (hint:  which suit is (s)he statistically most likely
to bid?) AND you have no safety in 2NT (which you would have to bid
over this expected response) is something which rates to gain you very
little and lose you much.  bob may have taken things too far when he
said that taking any chance is bad bridge, but the point here is that
doubling on this hand, unless you have agreements which prescribe double
here, is not likely to gain you much vs. overcalling 1NT, and is very
likely to get you to a hopeless spot.  to say that bob's comments on this
are a hold-over from the 30's is utterly ridiculous.

btw, there are more reasons not to do some of the things you mentioned
than fear that if Y happens you'll be screwed.  i know a pretty good
player who now doesn't open a strong notrump with a worthless doubleton.
do you think he's living scared of what might happen to him?  what if i
tell you that he also does the following:
1.  never bypass a three-card suit with two of the top three honors at
         the one or two level after a minor-suit opening
2.  except when vul vs. not, ALWAYS bid when your RHO opens 1NT and you
         have a singleton
3.  at matchpoints, ALWAYS open the bidding in 4th seat, no matter what
         you hold
4.  plays 10-12 NT's in ALL seats whenever the opponents are VUL, regardless
         of your vulnerability


i'll also tell you that in Pasadena in a nationally-rated event, after i
opened a 10-12 NT VULNERABLE, he, holding KTxxx, AQx, xx, xxx decided to
play 1NT redoubled when he could have gotten out to spades or majors.
suffice it to say that LHO played a most unfortunate card at trick five
which cost him 18 Victory Points;  the result is unimportant.  is THIS
the bidding of someone who is scared to do wild things which might result
in a huge loss?  and yet, he won't open a strong notrump with a worthless
doubleton!  imagine that...



--steve altus