[pclayton]

I had this auction on Friday: 1H - (2C) - 2S - (3C) - ?'

I suppose a 3D should be forcing, but similar to the other thread, a 3H call is less clear.

If the opponents were to bid and raise spades in this auction (and I made a negative double for instance), we would have a g/b 2N call available.

Over the actual,, we have more of a problem, since g/b isnt available.

Why not use double as a type of g/b here? What are we giving up? I suppose that if you use double as a 'I have a good bid but dont know what to do' its useful, but by the same token we we should b in a forcing auction. Certainly not forcing to game, but to 3 of openers major. So pass could sensibly substitute to handle this problem hand.

Double can show a weaker hand that wants to compete: xx, AKJxxx, Kx, xxx versus a direct forcing 3H that could be up to a very strong hand. Isnt this sounder than having to jump to 4H with a 15 count and 6 good hearts?

Double could also be a competitve raise to 3S. It could also use the differntiate between a weak 2 suited h/d opener and a sound, old fashioned 'free bid'.

The toughest part I think is figuring out the continuations if opener passes. What does double say by the 2S bidder (Id vote for a hand with no clear direction, denying a fit for opener's suit). 3 of a suit is natural, but probably non-forcing.

This sequence could also apply to 1x - double - 2y - 3C, although I think that the 2y call definitely limits opener's hand, so the sdouble isn't as useful.

It could also work in a stolen bid situation as in 1x - 2C - 2y - 2N - dbl where 2N is perhaps a mixed or limit raise or perhaps g/b by the opponents.

[awm]

This type of hand is actually very easy for Sam and me, playing that doubles are takeout in virtually all low-level auctions. Playing "standard" agreements:

(1) Double is penalty-oriented, and partner will often pass.
(2) Pass is takeout-oriented, and partner will not pass it out, but will often not double.
(3) Bidding is unclear about the range, because it may be hard to describe the hand otherwise.

Playing our agreements:

(1) Double is takeout-oriented, giving partner the chance to convert and defend.
(2) Pass is the normal call is we want to penalize or with a bad hand; partner will almost always double unless very distributional, at which point we can bid to show a bad hand or pass to defend.
(3) Bidding shows a good hand, because bad hands pass initially.

The advantage is that we basically gain another sequence by passing first, since partner will almost always make the lowest call (double). The equivalent sequence doesn't exist in standard methods since double will almost always be passed out and pass (while forcing) doesn't particularly suggest partner double (which would be often passed out) rather than making another call.

In addition, if in some situation we are unsure of whether an auction is forcing (and no matter how much you've discussed it, these will occasionally come up), it doesn't change the meanings of our passes and doubles substantially. Sure we might pass (intending to defend) and then find that partner passed it out instead of penalizing (thinking pass was NF), but we won't double (intending as penalty) and then see partner take it out (probably a much worse disaster).

[Winstonm]

I think it makes more sense to have double express extra value in case partner wants to convert - direct bids would be less hand.

[pclayton]

I considered making the double the strong call but it seems to me that our best reason to double them off is when we dont have a big fit and we dont have a game.

I like the idea of being able to make a forcing call with 3x here. It should be clear that overcalls and raises are frequently noise on this auction. i want to be able to explore intelligently and be able to compete / penalize with marginal values

[mike777]

Is there a reason to not have pass show a minimum opening hand and double or a suit bid as more than a minimum hand?

[pclayton]

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

Is there a reason to not have pass show a minimum opening hand and double or a suit bid as more than a minimum hand?

Does that mean you pass with: xx, AKxxx, KJxxx, x? Or xx, AKJxxx, Kx, xxx?

Personally, I want to compete with these hands, but I want to differentiate between these and:

Ax, AKJxxx, Axx, xx and
xx, AKQxx, AKxxx, x

[mike777]

Ok Phil why is it correct to want to compete directly over 3clubs with those minimum hand examples?

[pclayton]

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

Ok Phil why is it correct to want to compete directly over 3clubs with those minimum hand examples?

Because these hands have nice shape and fair playing strength.

The more important reason is that pard's upcoming 3♠ call over 3♣ will bury you.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Jan 7 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

Ok Phil why is it correct to want to compete directly over 3clubs with those minimum hand examples?

Because these hands have nice shape and fair playing strength.


The more important reason is that pard's upcoming 3♠ call over 3♣ will bury you.

OK, thanks, I admit if pard bids 3s after I passed I would just bid 4spades with your two example hands.

I would expect partner to be better than:
AJT963..Q7...Q42...J3 since he would bid 3s over 2clubs per Lawrence

[pclayton]

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 7 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

Ok Phil why is it correct to want to compete directly over 3clubs with those minimum hand examples?

Because these hands have nice shape and fair playing strength.

The more important reason is that pard's upcoming 3♠ call over 3♣ will bury you.

OK, thanks, I admit if pard bids 3s after I passed I would just bid 4spades with your two example hands.

argh.

Lets give you: x, AQxxx, KQxxx, xx then. How do you like the 3♠ rebid now?

[Winstonm]

Let's consider available bids game or below, provided we agree that in the auction the "free" bid reverts the bidding back to SAYC style and not 2/1:

Pass - minimum, no spade support
Double - better than minimum, no support, didn't open 1N so likely 3+ clubs
3D - weaker playing hand, non-forcing
3H - weaker playing hand, non-forcing
3S - weaker support hand, non-forcing
3N - to play
4C - strongest support
4D - stronger playing hand, forcing
4H - stronger playing hand
4S - stronger support

[keylime]

My first rough guess on what I'd play (not discussed; need to) would be something like this:

X - any minimum that is nonfitting
pass - neutral, asks pard to double or bid on but pard can't pass
freebid - g/f
3NT = g/f in responder's suit
3 of responder's suit = support, N/F

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 7 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 7 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Is there a reason to not have pass show a minimum opening hand and double or a suit bid as more than a minimum hand?

That is exactly what I play.

Quote

Does that mean you pass with: xx, AKxxx, KJxxx, x? Or xx, AKJxxx, Kx, xxx?

Yes of course. Why would you bid with these hands?

People really play a free bid that isnt a raise after partner has made a 2/1 as forcing?

Winston's scheme just reverses things and makes it so you have to X on virtually all good hands without a spade fit, which I really don't like. I would rather bid my suit immediately with the (far more frequent) forcing hand and pass with the bad hand than the other way around.

The initial suggestion has no bid for a good hand without any clear direction.

This approach seems inconsistent to me, but Ken's 3N post has put me in a surly mood this morning (sorry Ken ).

If a free bid by opener shows extras, why wouldn't it be forcing on responder?

When pard makes a 2/1 in comp, it doesn't promise the world, but we should have the majority of the deck. Personally, I like the idea of opener being able to make a NF call over 3♣ that competes and describes his shape, even though its a minimum.

JL - I think you are also implying that this auction does not create a force on responder - since I suppose Opener has a ready made bid for every type of strong hand. I suppose this is standard, but I can't think of a reason why it ought to be. When was the last time you sold out to 3♣ in this sequence? I'm not sure I ever have.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston's scheme just reverses things and makes it so you have to X on virtually all good hands without a spade fit, which I really don't like. I would rather bid my suit immediately with the (far more frequent) forcing hand and pass with the bad hand than the other way around.

Maybe the scheme would be playable if a new suit forced to 4 of the minor or 3 of either major? That way, good hands 5422 and weaker 5/5 hands could both freely bid and X would be extra values with no clear action?