[mikeh]

BunnyGo, on 2012-August-09, 09:23, said:

Perhaps it's worth discussing why double of 1 heart is 4-5 spades?

This treatment can be very effective, but only if partner understands the implications.

It is (in my limited experience) usually played in conjunction with 1♠ being a hand that denies spades.

Thus with say xxx Jx KQ10xx Qxx and partner opening 1♣, with RHO overcalling 1♥, standard methods are stuck. We have enough that we want to be in the auction, yet we have no descriptive bid. Having 1♠ available for this type of hand serves a useful purpose. Imagine having to pass and then hearing LHO raise hearts.

We can use 2 level bids to deal with the 6+ spade length. Thus, in 2 of my partnerships, we use 2♥ as a transfer to 2♠, promising 6+ in length. Partner can play us for a weak hand, and we'll take more action later with a better hand.

After the double, if 4th hand passes, opener is expected to bid 1♠ with a 3 card holding, unless he has a reason to show another aspect of his hand...more on this below.

With 4 spades and a minimum, he bids 2♠...this 'gets you back to the field' compared to an uncontested auction in which responder had bid spades and we raised.

If 4th seat bids, then (depending on the auction and partnership agreement) opener can choose to raise spades to show 4 or to make a support double to show 3.

Properly handled, the partnership will usually be able to identify the degree of fit fairly well, unless the opps preempt beyond our support double range.

I don't play very often so I can't claim that the method is 'wonderful', since I have only a limited number of real life experiences with it, but it seems to me to be a useful method. In particular, the 1♠ bid comes up fairly often and I can say that it is a very useful gadget. Where I am uncertain is whether, in the long run, the undoubted cost of using double and 2♥ as indicated above is justified by the gains.

I should add that in one of the partnerships we play a weak 1N, which means that 1♣ is (quite often) based on a strong 1N hand, and now the transfer double and the transfer 2♥ both seem likely to work effectively, by right-siding spade contracts and keeping the overcaller on lead.

As for when opener should not show 3 spades....in my view it should be when opener has extras and, say, 3=1=5=4, or extra shape, say 3=0=5=5 or a single suiter with weak spades: Jxx xx AKJxxx Kx

So in the given sequence, I would expect a strong, in context, 3=1=5=4...say Kxx x AKxxx KQxx, catering to our holding AJxxx xxx Qxxx x or the like.

[Phil]

You give a perfect summary of the methods along with: (snipped)

mikeh, on 2012-August-09, 09:46, said:

So in the given sequence, I would expect a strong, in context, 3=1=5=4...say Kxx x AKxxx KQxx, catering to our holding AJxxx xxx Qxxx x or the like.

Then why did you ask this:

mikeh, on 2012-August-09, 00:26, said:

should it be?

Two MikeH's again??

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:57, said:

You give a perfect summary of the methods along with: (snipped)



Then why did you ask this:



Two MikeH's again??

You know what they say about consistency, don't you?

Besides, I don't see my posts as inconsistent. 'Strong in context' is not the same as 'forcing'.

All I did was to express curiosity about whether 3♠ ought to be 'forcing', given that neither bidder has yet taken more than a minimum action.....I mean, would anyone pass 2♥ with a 5=3=4=1 6 or 7 count?

I don't see 3♦ as promising values.....I think it to be a wide-range action, foisted upon us by the deprivation of bidding space and the pressure created by 2♥. We MAY have an invitational hand, and that possibility makes it appropriate for opener to bid out his pattern when he has a hand that would accept an invite

Thus 3♠ need not, on this view of the auction, be forcing.

The counter argument is that opener is clearly prepared to play at the 4 level should we have only 4 spades, so when we have 5, and hence a better playing hand, we should be forced to bid 4♠, even with a weak hand.

But Jxxxx Kxx QJxx x doesn't look like a hand that should pass 2♥ nor a hand that should play either 4♠ or 5♦.....imagine either opposite Kxx x AKxxx KQxx

Should we just say that the game is too tough....that we have to either defend 3♥ or go minus, possibly doubled, because we need to have a limited non-forcing sequence suddenly become forcing in a competitive auction?

I ask the question because I'm interested in the discussion, not because I have a firm view.

[phil_20686]

I thought partners bidding would show 3154 14-16 (or the equivalent in extra shape), like how you should raise at once after 1d-1s with 3 cards and min, but bid your clubs first with 3154 and 14-16.

[ggwhiz]

phil_20686, on 2012-August-09, 11:38, said:

I thought partners bidding would show 3154 14-16 (or the equivalent in extra shape), like how you should raise at once after 1d-1s with 3 cards and min, but bid your clubs first with 3154 and 14-16.

Sorry Phil, I disagree, well maybe 14 but a poor 14.

The idea from an earlier construct of yours that pard can have 17 after the opps bid 1, 2 then 3♥ and pard tried to simply buy the partscore at every step points to aliens at the table.

I don't think the double showing 4 OR 5 spades is common at all and the posters here don't seem to be familiar with it....... at all. And it gave your pard a big headache. Re-think it?

[phil_20686]

ggwhiz, on 2012-August-09, 13:58, said:

Sorry Phil, I disagree, well maybe 14 but a poor 14.

The idea from an earlier construct of yours that pard can have 17 after the opps bid 1, 2 then 3♥ and pard tried to simply buy the partscore at every step points to aliens at the table.

I don't think the double showing 4 OR 5 spades is common at all and the posters here don't seem to be familiar with it....... at all. And it gave your pard a big headache. Re-think it?

If I have 11-14 and three spades, I show partner my spades. That way when they bid hearts, partner will know what to do. The only reason not to show my spades at once is if I am good enough to show my spades at a higher level later. Obviously it doesnt always work out that way, but what can you do. I have passed up the chance to bid 1S. Therefore I have denied a weak hand with three spades.

If I had more than 17, I need to make a stronger bid than a NF two clubs.

[Flem72]

Phil, on 2012-August-08, 19:42, said:

A97x KJx QT7x xx

1♦ - (1♥) - dbl* - (p);
2♣ - (2♥) - 3♦ - (3♥);
3♠ - (p) - 3N - (p);
4♦ - (p) - ?

* - 4 or 5 spades

I also don't get the possibly 5 S thing, I saw two very good players end up in a shouting match over that style (which seems to be a SoCal thing?) after losing a good regional Bracket 2 KO b/c of it. Nevertheless: 3D = the neg X didn't show C, and did show S with D, but not 5S b/c 2S was available, and somewhat ambiguous as to HCP; 3N = yes, only 4 S, but decent H and decent HCP, bal. So why doesn't pard pass 3N? or in view of the ambiguity of 3D, pass 3H, since s/he doesn't expect 5S and short H?

[Phil]

Flem72, on 2012-August-09, 17:24, said:

I also don't get the possibly 5 S thing, I saw two very good players end up in a shouting match over that style (which seems to be a SoCal thing?) after losing a good regional Bracket 2 KO b/c of it. Nevertheless: 3D = the neg X didn't show C, and did show S with D, but not 5S b/c 2S was available, and somewhat ambiguous as to HCP; 3N = yes, only 4 S, but decent H and decent HCP, bal. So why doesn't pard pass 3N? or in view of the ambiguity of 3D, pass 3H, since s/he doesn't expect 5S and short H?

Hardly anyone I know from So Cal plays it.

[aguahombre]

BunnyGo, on 2012-August-09, 09:23, said:

Perhaps it's worth discussing why double of 1 heart is 4-5 spades?

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:31, said:

This is a very common method he seemed to understand the nuances of it pre-game.

Not only is it common, allowing 1S to deny spades (responding hand, but directionless), it is tailor-made for the further agreement that opener's 1S rebid shows exactly 3. It is certainly better than our 1S showing 4+ (They don't allow a 1S rebid by opener over 1S.)

Unfortunately, opener didn't know to rebid 1S and created a cluster-f***.

[kfay]

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:08, said:

I would take 3♠ as a 3-step sequence, much like:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2N
3♠

I addressed this in my first post but I don't think it's 100% analogous. Maybe 1/3 of the hands that would want to bid this way are game-forcing after partner decides he's too strong to just pass 1♥ (as I said, this shoes something). Which is why his bidding seemed so weird to me.

[han]

It's possible that partner would not bid 1S with a 3-1-5-4 distribution and something like a 16-count, being afraid that 1S would show a weaker hand and would end the auction. However, with a 3-1-5-4 distribution partner would always pass 3NT after this auction.

For his actual bidding he clearly has a nice hand with a 3-0-6-4 distribution. With 3-0-5-5 he would have bid 4C instead of 4D. Really I don't think that he can have any other shape. He must have significant extras otherwise he would have bid 1S instead of 2C.

I would bid 5D.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:06, said:

This is exactly what I thought. Kxx void AKJxxx AQxx?

Why would one bid 2 clubs with this hand?

[Lurpoa]

Hanoi5, on 2012-August-08, 22:27, said:

5♦

♥