[jdonn]

I had a friend email Larry Cohen with something you would be very interested to read regarding making takeout doubles with voids, but it's in my hotmail which I can't access from work. If someone who is able to check and thinks I trust them messages me privately I will give them my password and have them forward me the message at my work email or just post it themself.

(I am posting this in this forum instead of general bridge discussion only because we sent him a hand that I think originated in this forum. Sorry if my choice of forums offends anyone who hoped to see an interesting bridge hand!)

Edit: Mistype, I mean to say LC replied to the email and it's his reply I want to post.

[mike777]

Great as I have mentioned many times, he has a very short chapter on this subject in his book. It leaves many questions on this whole subject of takeout or balancing x on a void. Thank you very much.

[jdonn]

No offers yet. Friends, countrymen, Jlalls, anyone!

[jdonn]

Alright now we are in business. Many thanks to Jlall and my 'goto guy'.

Email:
Hi Larry --

Sorry to bother you on such trivialities, but apparently there's a discussion on the BBO forums on the hand :

IMPS, neither vul

void Kxxx QT9xx AKxx

The auction goes 1S P 2S to you. People are citing you as a reason not to double here, saying "avoid doubles with voids". Apparently you have greatly influenced some people into never doubling with a void. May I get an answer from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and quote your reply?


Reply:
Yes, I like to avoid doubling with voids -- but here, there is no choice but to double. If I were, say, 0=3=6=4, I might prefer to bid the 6-card suit. But, with a true 3-suiter and a void, you have no alternative to double. If I were very light, and afraid of a make if partner left it in, I also might not double -- but this hand has plenty of defense.

LC

[mike777]

Interesting.

This hand is a clear double but change a few tiny things that LC spells out and he would not double. Interesting and thanks.

So takeout doubles, with a "true" 3 suiter and defense, double. Thanks.

I note he did not discuss the issue of reopening doubles such as:

1D=(1s)=p=p
? with a true 3 suited hand and a void.

He does say in his book he avoids high level takeout doubles, not the issue here.
I assume he still would avoid a double in that case even with defense and a true 3 suiter.......

[jdonn]

I don't know where you get 'not balancing doubles'. He was simply answering the one hand we asked him about. The point seems to be he considers a void a negative factor and might use it as a reason to go the other way if it's close, but it doesn't talk him out of an otherwise absolutely normal double.

For 1♦ 1♠ p p I would assume he is looking at it the same way. On a truly normal double, true 3 suited hand, still double, but if he was very light and lacked defense he might pass.

[mike777]

jdonn, on May 30 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

I don't know where you get 'not balancing doubles'. He was simply answering the one hand we asked him about. The point seems to be he considers a void a negative factor and might use it as a reason to go the other way if it's close, but it doesn't talk him out of an otherwise absolutely normal double.

For 1♦ 1♠ p p I would assume he is looking at it the same way. On a truly normal double, true 3 suited hand, still double, but if he was very light and lacked defense he might pass.

KQJ987...Q95...KJ52...void


1s=(2c)=p=p
?

On this one he says bid, do not double.
From his chapter on avoiding voids.

Make it 5=4=4=0...not sure now.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 30 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 30 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

For 1♦ 1♠ p p I would assume he is looking at it the same way. On a truly normal double, true 3 suited hand, still double, but if he was very light and lacked defense he might pass.

I don't think he would ever pass, he would bid 2C if he didn't X.

Yes that is true I should have said "not double", not "pass".

[Foxx]

mike777, on May 30 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

KQJ987...Q95...KJ52...void


1s=(2c)=p=p
?

On this one he says bid, do not double.
From his chapter on avoiding voids.

Make it 5=4=4=0...not sure now.

I can easily see what would make a double unattractive here. Very early in my bridge career, I faced a situation similar to this one and chose to bid 2♦. As it turns out partner had ♣QJ8xx and was going to leave a double in for at least 800. My feeling is that if LHO has his bid, it is very conceivable that a double could be left in and coming back around our ears. My reservations about double are not so much about the void but about the fact that we have only three hearts. We will often end up in a 4-3 heart fit when we have better available. That's why I think a reopening double with 5-4-4-0 would be routine and even with 6-4-3-0 still probably right. At the table with this hand, I'd probably reopen with 2♠, and will wait to double for a hand that can take a trick on defense.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 30 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Interesting.

This hand is a clear double but change a few tiny things that LC spells out and he would not double. Interesting and thanks.

So takeout doubles, with a "true" 3 suiter and defense, double. Thanks.

I note he did not discuss the issue of reopening doubles such as:

1D=(1s)=p=p
? with a true 3 suited hand and a void.

He does say in his book he avoids high level takeout doubles, not the issue here.
I assume he still would avoid a double in that case even with defense and a true 3 suiter.......

My memory is a little cloudy on this, but I think his point was that at the higher levels your partner is more prone to leave in doubles. When you double with a void it is more likely the opps are at a Lawful bidding level and your gain will be minor or turn into a loss.

KQxx, void, AQJxxx, AJx. 1H-P-4H- LC advice here is 5D and not double.

[mike777]

Foxx, on May 30 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

mike777, on May 30 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

KQJ987...Q95...KJ52...void


1s=(2c)=p=p
?

On this one he says bid, do not double.
From his chapter on avoiding voids.

Make it 5=4=4=0...not sure now.

I can easily see what would make a double unattractive here. Very early in my bridge career, I faced a situation similar to this one and chose to bid 2♦. As it turns out partner had ♣QJ8xx and was going to leave a double in for at least 800. My feeling is that if LHO has his bid, it is very conceivable that a double could be left in and coming back around our ears. My reservations about double are not so much about the void but about the fact that we have only three hearts. We will often end up in a 4-3 heart fit when we have better available. That's why I think a reopening double with 5-4-4-0 would be routine and even with 6-4-3-0 still probably right. At the table with this hand, I'd probably reopen with 2♠, and will wait to double for a hand that can take a trick on defense.

This all may be true but it is simply not discussed or even hinted at.
His only point is avoid doubles with a void. He does not discuss the major suit length or possible shapes where you would x or not. His only discussion point was sure we beat the hand barely but you miss a slam.

Keep in mind this is a teaching book.

[Winstonm]

Quote

His only point is avoid doubles with a void. He does not discuss the major suit length or possible shapes where you would x or not. His only discussion point was sure we beat the hand barely but you miss a slam.

I don't know if you are talking about a book or an article, but in one of his books on LAW he talks about the starting assumption that partner is 4441 and therefore the further you are from the shape the less likely partner will make the right decision, as with no other information he assumes 4441.

The other time I remember him wanting to avoid doubles with voids was at low levels when partner may convert - the ability to lead a singleton trump through declarer is often the difference on these types hands.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on May 30 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

KQxx, void, AQJxxx, AJx. 1H-P-4H- LC advice here is 5D and not double.

Wow. Personally, I would be surprised if this is a majority view. I would double, anyway.

[redbird97]

Well, I am glad to see that LC does agree with my double.
It is really hard to imagine what other bid you are supposed to make here.

[Fluffy]

redbird97, on May 31 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

Well, I am glad to see that LC does agree with my double.
It is really hard to imagine what other bid you are supposed to make here.

2NT: 2 places to play , just joking