goodwintr

Those last two comments imply that this double is the dreaded "two-way double" -- either it is penalty or it is takeout, and partner looks at his hand to determine which. There are some amusing stories about this sort of double, which occur when the doubler's partner couldn't tell (e.g., the opponents have a ten-card fit and the defender's have a singleton and a doubleton). Wheee! TLG

It used to be a penalty double, on the sort of hand that doubled in the sequence 1S-P-1NT-P; P-Dbl. That double used to show a spade stack and suggest leading spades against 1NT doubled. These days, I've seen players double 1NT for takeout in this auction, just like Ken has seen players double 2S for takeout in the similar auction 1S-P-1NT-P; 2S-Dbl. Perhaps it is all part of the modern tendency away from penalty and toward takeout doubles. TLG

It is hardly ever mentioned (and hasn't been mentioned here) that while Kaplan-Sheinwold was a "five-card-majors" system, it did call for opening one heart occasionally with only four hearts (four strong ones, of course). 1-4-4-4 was one hand that did this. It was in the 1963 book. I don't know whether it was in earlier or later versions. I don't have the 1963 book, but I heard it in 1963. Yes, "heard" it: Dr. Arthur Dye, the blind bridge master from Charlotte, N. Car., was a Kaplan-Sheinwold fan, and he had his secretary record the book for him on dictaphone tapes. Dr. Dye asked me to re-record it for him, as there were some flaws in the secretary's version. She wasn't a bridge player, and she kept saying things like "Not Rump" for "Notrump." I did the recording, and that's when I learned about the four-card one heart opening bids. (Probably Dr. Dye found my Down East rendition of "One Haaht" to be just as strange as his secretary's version of "One Not Rump," but he never complained to me about it. Maybe he had a third version done after I left town . . . .) TLGoodwin

Historical note: Jean-Rene Vernes argued (in La Majeure D'Abord, 1973) that it was spades that were most important. He used two of the suit bids of one, 1C and 1S, to show spades (1S for 5+, 1C for exactly four). [He also used two one-bids to show hearts, but one of them was 1NT, and he could never get a "license" for that, so he eventually abandoned it. His last version of the system (or at least the last one known to me), Le Canape Majeure D'Abord (2000), retained the 1C and 1S opening bids for spades.] It isn't easy to invent something in bridge that hasn't been invented before. I've been tinkering for a while with the "two-opening bids-for-spades" idea. It has interesting ramifications. Suppose the bidding starts (natural style, with opponents silent) something like 1H-2C; 2S. Opener has denied four spades (he would have opened 1C with that), so what does he have? I denominate this type of 2S bid a "strange spade." Usually responder bids 2NT over a strange 2S, allowing opener to define his hand. In this particular example, if opener next bids 3C, that shows a strong raise of clubs, whereas a direct raise to 3C (without the strange spade in between) shows a minimum raise of clubs. You can see the possibilities. Suppose the bidding starts 1C-1H; 1S. This spade bid is also strange, because opener (by hypothesis) has only four spades and won't be "rebidding" the suit. So 1S here is a strange spade, allowing opener to distinguish between direct and indirect rebids of 2C, 2D, 2H, etc. The (non-relay) system I have developed around this idea is called (guess what) "Strange Spade." It is by no means a hypermodern style -- in fact, except for the spades-related stuff, it is in some ways quite old-fashioned (and GCC-friendly, I believe). In the unlikely event that you are interested, contact me by e-mail, and I will be glad to send along a copy (about 16 pages PDF). TLGoodwin

Leaving aside the various gadgets that have been mentioned here (WJS, Woolf, etc.) and assuming everything is natural, then the answer is that it depends largely on the notrump ranges in the system. The same-suit rebid was a non-forcing signoff in old-fashioned Acol, but forcing to game in Goren-style Standard American. The meaning made sense in both cases, because the Acol 2NT rebid (starting at about 17 points) showed less than a Goren 2NT rebid (which started at about 19 points). If you are one of the few remaining 16-18 1NT players, you probably want responder's same-suit rebid over 2NT to be forcing. If your 1NT is 14-16, you probably want to be able to sign off at the three-level (either by playing the same-suit rebid as non-forcing, or by adopting one of the gadgets). TLG

Regarding the second auction: I have heard it said that when a player's first four "natural" bids are in four different suits, you can be 100% certain that there has been a trainwreck. I once heard Charlie Coon and a partner who shall not be named bid a hand as follows: Nameless Player: 1D; C.Coon: 1NT; NP: 2H; CC: 2NT; NP: 3S; CC: "What have you got, ****, six diamonds, five hearts, and four spades? Regarding the first auction: With certain assumptions, it might make some sense. Assume (1) that the partnership opens 1D with 4-5 in the minors (as some do); (2) 2C is forcing (as it is in Kaplan-Sheinwold or Roth-Stone), or at least "seldom passed" (as it is in other systems); and (3) 3H over 2C wouldn't be forcing (probably not consistent with the second assumption, but hey, it doesn't sound like these guys are deeply into theory). Theoretical shortcomings will catch up to them in the long run. In the meantime, it just looks like they just got a top without really knowing what they were doing -- frustrating for your side, but perhaps not the first time in the history of bridge that such a thing has happened. TLG

Yes, it is an example of taking the fit-bid principle too far. The hands offered for the "fit-bid" treatment (after an initial pass over the 1H opening bid) are all 1NT responses to 1H, aren't they? Doesn't 1NT, then 2H, show a hand that was too weak (or with hearts too short) for an original raise to 2H? If this isn't "standard" forcing-NT practice, when did it stop being so? Of course, the hands offered for the "long clubs, heart misfit" treatment in the given auction are also 1NT responses, aren't they? If it isn't "standard" forcing-NT practice that 1NT, then 3C, shows a weak hand with a mess of clubs, when did it stop being so?

The Flint-Pender system (Flint, Tiger Bridge, 1970) featured a 2NT response that had it both ways: it was either a traditional (in America) game-forcing balanced hand OR a strong game-forcing raise. Opener rebids on the assumption that 2NT is balanced. If responder has the strong raise he comes out of the bushes with a cue-bid on the next round. (Not by taking simple preference: that shows the balanced type with three-card support. Responder can also cue-bid with lesser support if opener rebids his own suit, so that four-card support isn't as important.) Flint and Edgar Kaplan were on a panel at the Fall Nationals in Pittsburgh in 1966, and someone asked about this 2NT response. Kaplan offered, "That's fine, until somebody bids 4D over your 2NT." Flint -- who had played with Pender in a National or Regional tournament just about every week for the past year (they were one-two in masterpoints in 1966) -- replied, "Well, it hasn't happened yet." I've used this method in a number of partnerships (not at the Flint-Pender level, to be sure), and it hasn't happened yet to me, either. The convention seems to be eminently workable, with a lot of the advantages you get from an old-fashioned balanced forcing 2NT response.

Free thinks "natural" means "standard." That can't be right: if one means to say "standard," then one ought to say "standard." I once had a partner who, when asked what kinds of leads he played, would say "natural." I guess he, too, thought "natural" meant "standard." It would make just about as much sense to say that "natural" means "good," and "non-natural" means "bad." The ACBL defines a "natural" bid: the definition is something like, "in a minor suit, it means at least a three-card suit; in a major suit, it means at least a four-card suit." That this definition is arbitrary is readily apparent. As far as I know, the League doesn't have a definition for a "natural system." (Interestingly, it does have a definition for a "relay system" -- not that the definition is easily understood.) I suppose when you come right down to it, a "natural system" is one in which the opening bids and responses are predominantly "natural" in the above sense. (Of course, this begs the question of what "predominantly" means. . . .) TLGoodwin

I am the other 3D bidder (so far -- it is early in the polling). I'm not so sure I am bidding 4H next if partner rebids 3S: I think I'll just let that go. ("Go down," probably.) I have a chance to find a 4-5 heart fit, but concede that 5-3 is going to get away.

Thanks for the replies, Whereagles. Until somebody shows it to be otherwise, I am assuming the questioned sequences (which include 1NT-2C; 2M-2NT, not specifically mentioned above: the outline says it is forcing and asks for a doubleton) are vestigial -- remnants of original Keri that slipped through to "revised Keri," even though the revisions make them inapplicable. "Just filling the steps" is a little hard on those of us who are already having enough trouble absorbing the method . . . . T.L.Goodwin

line two of that last post should say "strong hand with a five-card major"

It also occurs to me that there is something wrong with "3M shows five" in the above sequences: there isn't any strong responding hand that responds 2C in the first place, is there? An invitational hand with a five-card major might respond 2C: but that hand wouldn't want to bid 3M when opener shows a minimum with a 6-card minor, would it? I'm guessing that somebody defined responder's followups in these sequences before 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT was changed to "invitational, no interest in a major," not a strong hand as in original Keri.

The Revised Keri outline posted here (by The Hog and Inquiry) some time ago defined these sequences: 1NT-2C; 2NT-3C 1NT-2C; 3C-3D as "asks for desc fragment." (2NT in the first sequence means minimum with six diamonds, 3C in the second means minimum with six clubs.) Responder's 3M after the same start is defined as "nat., F, 5-card suit." So, my question is: what exactly does "asks for desc fragment" mean? If it means opener is supposed to show a 3-card side suit in descending steps, when would responder do that rather than bidding 3M? I think I am missing something, and would genuinely like to know what it is. Can anyone help? [Pending the explanation, I find it simpler to define these 3C and 3D rebids as showing invitational 6-card-minor types, or possibly a signoff type in the case of 3D, signing off now. Responder thinks his suit is better than opener's suit.] T.L.Goodwin

Back to the original topic, should the 1NT response to a five-card-major opening be forcing? Flint had quite a lot to say about this in Tiger Bridge (1970). He started by saying five-card-majors "are best played in conjunction with a response of one no-trump forcing for one round; indeed, there is otherwise not much point in the whole arrangement." He went on to say (in less conclusory fashion): "When I first encountered the idea of 1S-1NT being forcing, I thought, like most people, 'How pathetic not to be able to play in that most admirable of contracts, one no-trump!' On closer examination one finds that this objection has little substance to it. Suppose the bidding has begun 1S-1NT, and the opener is known to have five spades. Responder may hold: (a) Three spades, in which case two spades will be well playable. (:rolleyes: Two spades, in which case to play in two spades with a five-two fit will not necessarily be inferior to playing in one no-trump; and the partnership may find a better fit elsewhere. © A singleton or void spade, in which case there will surely be a better spot in another suit. It is on these moderate hands where responder is short in the opener's suit that the forcing one no-trump response is particularly valuable." I know, I know: that was written 36 years ago. Still, the question isn't whether the argument is old, but whether it has since been refuted. T.L.Goodwin

Double. A breach of discipline -- but then, opening three spades was also a breach of discipline (talk about being old-fashioned, I would have opened one spade). Doubling four diamonds may enable partner to double a conversion to four hearts. I have never heard, much less participated in, the given sequence (where I pass four diamonds and my partner bids four hearts). I doubt if he is sacrificing against a possible 130, so he must think he can make four hearts. Still, he could have bid that right over three spades if that is what he thinks, so I don't know why he is doing it now. I am eagerly awaiting his explanation. TLG

A similar double, 2H - P - 4H - P ; P - Dbl., just occurred in Verona. In Brazil, it appears, the double of 4H after passing over 2H is for takeout. The doubler had a weakish 4-0-5-4 hand, not good enough to double 2H for takeout. The result was minus 590. TLGoodwin

Sounds a lot like Turbo, Echognome. TLG

The original motivation for S.A.Texas was practical: players used to forget when the bidding went 1NT-4H (Texas for spades), and leave partner to play in some non-fit in hearts. S.A.Texas eliminated that problem, as you always had to stop and think what it meant when partner responded four of a minor. Nowadays nobody would ever forget a convention, of course, so you have the explanations above. TLG

Keri -- a method mentioned elsewhere in this forum -- has a way to show a six-card suit missing one high honor, which permits opener to step lightly on 3NT if he has the missing honor and three fast tricks elsewhere. As I recall it, Keri does this in a minor suit by responding 2C, then rebidding three of the long minor. I don't remember how the method does it in a major suit. My own (unofficial!) gloss on Keri in this area is to respond three of the long suit, whether it is a major or a minor, with HHxxxx and hopes that partner can bid 3NT with the missing honor and enough on the side. (I play weak notrumps, so 1NT-3X implies a side card as well as the six-card suit: it is too much to expect a weak-notrump opener to fill in the long suit and produce three more tricks.) One advantage of the method is that it lands in the contract you want to play if opener doesn't convert to 3NT.

Doesn't opener's reverse promise that he will bid once more? Responder might have a weak hand with a fistful of spades; but he might also have a good hand with five or more spades. Most people have a way for responder to show a "negative" hand, which might include bidding 2S with five or more in the suit, and then passing if opener next bids 3D.

1. 2D. Assuming 1S showed something besides any old four spades and presence at the table. (Not necessarily a Rothian "free bid," but something.) Over 3D, 3NT; over 2S, 2NT. 2. 3H. I am hoping he raises to 4H, so I can bid 5D and focus on spades. I don't think 5D (over 3D) has the same focus. Maybe 4D (over 3D) is better than 3H: it could attract a cue-bid in spades from partner, even on a small singleton. 3. P. Either you do or you don't. 4. 4D. Anti-splinter, showing an ideal holding opposite partner's singleton (or void). OK, this is fancy, but I read about it somewhere and have been wanting to try it out. Why can't partner have perfect cards for slam, even if 2C is non-forcing?

The point about encoding judgment is valid, certainly, when it comes to computer bidding. In the real world, though, it is important to realize that an evaluation system is just shorthand, and an approximation. I used to wonder why good players would start talking about a hand by saying, "I had 12 points," when everyone realizes that "12 points" leaves a lot unsaid about a hand. The answer, I think, is that "I had 12 points" is just shorthand, and is understood to be that, for a more complicated expression that cannot be reduced easily to numbers -- simply a basis for conversation, and not a statement about the actual value of a hand. I also used to sort of sneer at "4-3-2-1" evaluation, until I came to realize that as a rough approximation, for purposes of easy communication, it isn't bad at all.

What would the two-spade preference bidders do with the same hand lacking the ace of hearts (make it the ten, say), or the ace of diamonds (make it a low one), or the sixth diamond (toss it into clubs)? If the answer is still two spades, doesn't that mean simple preference -- a very common bid -- includes an awfully wide range of hands? Here, the 1NT-then-2S sequence means, "not enough strength, or not enough spades, to raise to 2S" -- when what you actually have is, "poor secondary spade support, good secondary heart support, six diamonds, and two aces." Another question (these are really questions, not disguised opinions): What is there about the supposed 5-2 spade fit, with two small trumps in dummy, that makes it more attractive than a supposed 4-3 heart fit, with AJx in dummy? If you had to guess, right now, which major suit would be the superior trump suit, wouldn't you guess hearts?