[Jinksy]

(1m) X (3m) X

Or should it be something more specific?

[jogs]

It should be less specific. More specific would only create a situation where more hand types are unbiddable.

(1m) X (3m) 3M

Only promises 4 cards in that major. Also that major is longer than the other major.

(1m) X (3m) X

Usually both majors are the same length. Can be 4-4 or 3-3.

(1♣) X (3♣) 3♦

Just showing your cards.

(1♦) X (3♦) 4♣

Look at your cards again. Maybe you should have passed.

[Jinksy]

jogs, on 2016-October-15, 06:19, said:

It should be less specific. More specific would only create a situation where more hand types are unbiddable.
...
Usually both majors are the same length. Can be 4-4 or 3-3.

That would be more specific. If you have a five-card major (and any values), you surely bid it unless you're playing something particularly sophisticated (or you're exceptionally strong).

If both majors are supposed to be the same length, what do you do with eg KQx x AJTx QTxxx after (1♦) X (3♦)? What about with Kxxx Ax xxx KJTx? If you bid 3♠ on that, is there any point in Xing with eg Kxxx KJxx xxx Ax? P ideally wants to know what your spade holding is when you bid 3♠, not what your heart holding isn't.

[jogs]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 08:24, said:

That would be more specific. If you have a five-card major (and any values), you surely bid it unless you're playing something particularly sophisticated (or you're exceptionally strong).

When they open, our chances for a biddable and makeable slam is very small. Also if one exist other pairs will also have difficulties finding it.
Therefore our priority should be finding the best plus score.

Quote

If both majors are supposed to be the same length, what do you do with eg KQx x AJTx QTxxx after (1♦) X (3♦)? What about with Kxxx Ax xxx KJTx? If you bid 3♠ on that, is there any point in Xing with eg Kxxx KJxx xxx Ax?

This first hand is unlikely. If they are not vul, they have just fixed you.
3♠ with the second hand.
X with the 3rd hand.

Quote

P ideally wants to know what your spade holding is when you bid 3♠, not what your heart holding isn't.

You are bidding your relative length in the two majors.

[phoenix214]

On the sample hand where you are holding a diamond stack - you should judge between pass and 3N, this depends on partners tendences to reopen and how light are his doubles - you should know that better than me.

[Jinksy]

jogs, on 2016-October-15, 08:54, said:

When they open, our chances for a biddable and makeable slam is very small. Also if one exist other pairs will also have difficulties finding it.
Therefore our priority should be finding the best plus score.

I am well aware of that. I asked if the second X should show something more specific than 'no 5-card major and values', and you said it should be something less specific, then apparently excluded 5cMs from your hands which double and specified that majors should be approximately equal length. That means you're claiming it should be more specific - unless you're claiming that 5cM hands should be doubling as well.

Quote

You are bidding your relative length in the two majors.

This is how I think people typically use the bid, but it seems like an odd agreement. 'Relative length' is of far less use to the doubler in judging whether to push on than absolute length. If advancer bids 3♠ and the original double was on KQxx AQxxx x Qxx (or whatever you think marginal to bid again), it's going to affect his hand evaluation quite differently if, for eg he can rely on you having 5 spades, than if you can have (or have specifically shown) 4 spades and a small doubleton (or worse) in hearts.

Perhaps it's worth playing this way because the pressure not doing so puts on other hands is too high (which is what this thread is about), but 'so you can show relative length' is not a good reason.

[Phil]

Never discussed it but have heard that it should be both majors or neither.

[Jinksy]

Phil, on 2016-October-15, 11:37, said:

Never discussed it but have heard that it should be both majors or neither.

You mean two-way, or pick one and pass/bid with the other? If two-way, is the idea that if they raise diamonds to the 4 level you can X again for penalties or now bid 4♥ showing equal length?

[Kaitlyn S]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 08:24, said:

That would be more specific. If you have a five-card major (and any values), you surely bid it unless you're playing something particularly sophisticated (or you're exceptionally strong).

If both majors are supposed to be the same length, what do you do with eg KQx x AJTx QTxxx after (1♦) X (3♦)? What about with Kxxx Ax xxx KJTx? If you bid 3♠ on that, is there any point in Xing with eg Kxxx KJxx xxx Ax? P ideally wants to know what your spade holding is when you bid 3♠, not what your heart holding isn't.

I bid 3NT on the first hand. On the second hand I could bid 3S on a fair amount less and think that if partner has four spades then 4S is a good bet - partner likely has a stiff diamond, and I'd partner only has three spades, 3S is no bargain either and doesn't encourage partner to pull to clubs.

Everyone doubles on the third hand. It tentatively shows 4-4 majors but if you're willing to play a 4-3 with 3325 shape, go for it.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, you should know by now that jogs (like me) occasionally has some unusual ideas about bidding and to take some of them with a pinch of salt. Double here simply shows a hand that is not yet sure of the correct denomination. That is most commonly both majors (although typically not 5-5, which would cue rather than double) but might also be, for example, a GF 4M-5om or a balanced-ish hand without a major or a stop in m. If partner bids 3M, the both majors hand will pass or raise, the 4M-5om hand will bid 4om and the balanced hand will bid 3NT.

[jogs]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-16, 04:54, said:

Jinksy, you should know by now that jogs (like me) occasionally has some unusual ideas about bidding and to take some of them with a pinch of salt. Double here simply shows a hand that is not yet sure of the correct denomination.

While it is true that I often post opinions counter to the consensus, I do not think it applies to this thread. Obviously advancer does not know which is the best strain. Intervenor does imply no preference between the majors on this auction. With 4-3 in the majors advancer does have a preference.
The problem with 3 of a major requiring 5+ cards in the major is the double is(over burdened) covering too many possible hand types and patterns. While this style does solve bidding with some hand patterns it creates many more.
1♣ - (1♦) - X.
Many play this negative double to promise 4-4 in the majors. My suggested treatment of 3 of major is consistent with this treatment.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2016-October-16, 17:54, said:

1♣ - (1♦) - X.
Many play this negative double to promise 4-4 in the majors. My suggested treatment of 3 of major is consistent with this treatment.

Apples and oranges. You can hardly compare a one level auction with a completely different 3 level one.

If you read my post you will see that I did not advocate the idea that 3M should promise a 5 card suit but nor must double be restricted only to hands with an equal length in the majors, much less precisely 4-4. The trick is always that a double promises a flexible hand, though what that means varies according to the context of the auction. I posted my interpretation of that for this auction in the previous thread and am relatively certain that this more closely represents expert (or even common I/A) practice than your interpretation (but am willing to be proved wrong! ).

[Caitlynne]

I would say that advancer's Double merely denies a 5 card major since, with 5+ cards in one (or both) major(s), there is no need to have a highly flexible bid available.

The reason one likes competitive Doubles is the flexibility they offer - they maximize flexibility for partner to weight in.

Therefore, advancer's Double suggests that, if advancer does have 4 card length in a major, advancer is largely indifferent about the majors. So, 4-4 is possible (as is 3-3); 4-3 or 3-4 may be possible, but such a holding would be rare for, in general, advancer should just bid the 4 card major. The rare instance where advancer doubles with 4 cards in one major and 3 in the other would be when the 4 card major is very weak (i.e., no honor or maybe just the Ten) with notable values in the 3 card major.

Anyway, that would be how I would play it without discussion.

[jogs]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-17, 02:16, said:

Apples and oranges. You can hardly compare a one level auction with a completely different 3 level one.

It's more like comparing red and green apples.
Advancer has 3-2 in the majors and 8 or 9 HCP. There is no reason for advancer to think their side can make anything above 3♦. With this poor fit in the majors the sum their two long suit is 14 or 15. If the sum is 14, the tricks will be depressed. The best bid can easily be pass. With 4-4 in the majors the two long suit total can easily be 16+. This is favorable for high total tricks.

Our sum of our two long suits is equal to their sum of of their two long suits.
The expected total tricks is equal to the sum of the two long suits.

Bet you have not seen those two statements in print.

[jogs]

jogs, on 2016-October-17, 13:27, said:

Our sum of our two long suits is equal to their sum of of their two long suits.
The expected total tricks is equal to the sum of the two long suits.

Must retract the second statement. Make it weaker.
The greater the sum of two long suits, the greater the expected total tricks.
Total tricks tends to be greater than sum of two long suits.
The larger the sum of two long suits the more total tricks.
The two statistics are correlated but not a strict one-to-one correlation.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2016-October-17, 17:03, said:

Total tricks tends to be greater than sum of two long suits.

It seems to me we should be able to take this statement and combine it with your other favourite formula to all but solve the game. Let us take as an initial estimate that each side gets approximately half of the total tricks, then:
E(tricks) >= (T1 + T2)/2
and
E(Tricks) = T1 + H/3

So
T1 + H/3 >= (T1 + T2)/2
T1/2 + H/3 >= T2/2
2H/3 >= T2 - T1

Easy game!

[jogs]

Nonsense, this game is not solvable. You have excluded the error of the estimates.
It is possible to lower the errors. It is not possible to eliminate the errors.
This is a probabilistic game.

[Zelandakh]

You are quite correct that it is nonsense jogs.