[aguahombre]

Al Roth was quite successful at shunning early competition which would bring partner into the picture and unilaterally coming in later. I am not him, and Pard doesn't enjoy sitting there like a Stone.

[kenberg]

As North, if 3♠ is passed around to me, I would pass. If i had a stiff spade or possibly even better three spades, make that three small spades, I might act. Not with two spades. And with one spades and comparable values I would have acted firt round. So I guess I am saying that if you change a small club to a small spade I might give it a shot. Also I might not. At least it would be a closer.decision.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-31, 11:26, said:

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

As Mike said, it's a very close decision whether to play a style that allows for a double of 1♠. But passing 3♠ is not a close decision. You have a balanced hand. You need a better reason than a balanced hand with xx in their suit to force partner to the four-level. If you think the law tells you not to let the opponents play 3♠ just because they have 9 trumps, you should go to law school again.

[MrAce]

I would have bid exactly the same as NS did. Pass over 1♠ and pass over 3♠.

As they said passing over 1♠ is debatable, but passing over 3♠ is clear by both N and S imo.

[the hog]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-31, 11:26, said:

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

This problem is impossible. As i stated Nth has a double and it is clear.

[CSGibson]

the hog, on 2013-October-31, 18:02, said:

This problem is impossible. As i stated Nth has a double and it is clear.

Yeah, you said this, but you have a long an storied history of claiming actions are clear when a host of equally or more accomplished players either say that you are wrong, or that it is not clear, so I don't think we can take your insistent voice as evidence of the clarity of the situation to good players in general as opposed to you specifically and your own distinct style.

For what its worth, I think I would wind up doubling on the North hand, but I don't think it is clear; I don't think of myself as particularly conservative nor aggressive in terms of bridge players.

[the hog]

OK Chris, let me ask this: "Why would you not x?" You are short in S, ok a xx but still short. You have support for the other 3 suits. I assume everyone agrees that the H suit is not good enough to overcall. Partner is not a passed hand. x still looks totally obvious to me. I would have a discussion with my partners if they failed to x on this.
So why are you scared to x?

[CSGibson]

the hog, on 2013-October-31, 23:43, said:

OK Chris, let me ask this: "Why would you not x?" You are short in S, ok a xx but still short. You have support for the other 3 suits. I assume everyone agrees that the H suit is not good enough to overcall. Partner is not a passed hand. x still looks totally obvious to me. I would have a discussion with my partners if they failed to x on this.
So why are you scared to x?

I have sub-minimum values, I really only have one suit, and if it goes XX, we're very likely going for a number. Even if we are not going for a number, taking action on sub-minimum values can cause partner to play us for more, causing us to get too high, or, if partner knows we double this light, he might not compete aggressively enough on hands where we have full values.

That being said, I would still double because I think the risks are outweighed by the rewards, but pretending there are no downsides is absurd. I mean, your same points can be made with xx xxxxx xxx xxx - short in spades, support for the other three suits, but that's clearly not worth a take-out double because of the lack of values. There is a line, this barely creeps across my threshold. Make it a better shape - 1=4=4=4, or 1-4-5-3, and I would be more comfortable.

Interestingly enough, I asked recent partners whether they consider me a conservative, moderate, or aggressive bidder - I got 5 different answers completely spanning the spectrum…don't know what that says.

[the hog]

Well there you have it. This is not a sub minimum takeout double for me, but a perfectly normal x. Nor would it be sub minimum for any of my partners. I guess we are just a bit more aggressive.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-31, 14:42, said:

Al Roth was quite successful at shunning early competition which would bring partner into the picture and unilaterally coming in later. I am not him, and Pard doesn't enjoy sitting there like a Stone.

I have to disagree with the "unilateral" part of this. It's a legitimate style that is playable with both partners approaching these hands the same way. Perhaps not Al's strong point.

In our style we don't open nearly as many 11's as others, our T.O. doubles are the real deal but we overcall liberally and on 4 cards. Either one of us knows we can be facing passed hand 11's that others opened and it can create a lot of swings, not all good either. My partner MAY suck up an ugly 2♥ overcall here but we are probably getting burned on this one.

My point is that we BOTH do it by agreement so I consider the only unilateral part to be misbids as per system that accidentally happen to everyone.