OleBerg

In forcing-pass situations, you have the option of passing and then pulling partners expected double. Where I play, the standard is, that when we have found a fit, passing and then pulling, has the same general meaning as the direct bid, just stronger. (With all the implications that contains.) But what when we havent found a fit? An example, inspired by another thread: 2♣ - (3♣) - Pass - (4♣) ??? What is the difference betweem a direct bid, and passing and pulling partners double?

So what is pass Nuno? Surely you can't pass a hand out after a 2c opening and let the opps play undoubled? As Ole said, I do play Dbl = take-out Pass = forcing, asking pard to dbl with shortness (If asked for a name, I would call the agreement "Reversed forcing pass".) However, I don't do this for purely technical reasons. Rather, I do it because it agrees with the meta-rule: "dbl = take out until a fit is found". Nuno, you have a problem here; if you pass on a big balanced hand and pd doesn't have shortness????? Just to specify what agreement I was describing: Dbl = Take-out. Pass =Asks partner to double, if he would have left a penalty double in. (If was asked for the name of the agreement, I would call it "Reversed forcing pass".) So you double (in fourth position), with any hand that wouldn't have pulled a "penalty"-double from partner. This includes the unlikely hands with lenght. As for what is standard, I'd expect that when "we have forced to game", like here, "double is penalty". (So I also play that a double of 3♣ would have been penalty/warning. I wouldn't be so sure what to expect here from an unknown partner though.)

So what is pass Nuno? Surely you can't pass a hand out after a 2c opening and let the opps play undoubled? There is actually quite some merit to reverse the meaning of the bids here, i.e. Pass = "Penalty" (Balanced), and double = Take-out, but I would consider that a special agreement. The advantage is, that it will often enable the strong hand to make a "pass and pull". And the strong hand can use more ways more than the weak hand. And if the strong hand doesn't get to make the "pass and pull", it is because the weak hand has overrulede the "Penalty", and has thus described itself very well.

Being a big fan of Transfer-Walsh, I can't help thinking of ways to make it simple. SImple-Transfer-Handy Walsh, is an idée that came into my mind almost without me noticing it. It is not for the pair working serious with their system, but maybe it could be well-suited for a casual partnership. I believe it will be most advantagous in MP's (Where the most casual partnerships are). Well, here goes: You play your normal system, except for these: - Transfer Walsh - 1♣ - 1♥, 1♠ = Four card hearts, natural continuations. - 1♣ - 1♥, 2♥ = Three-card raise. - 1♣ - 1♦, 1♥ = Four card diamonds, natural continuations. - 1♣ - 1♦, 2♦ = Three-card raise. The strain on memory should be manageable, and apart from that, this is my evaluation: Pro's: - You solve some difficult hand types, which often will allow you to get to 1NT with confidence. - In the first sequence, you will never miss a 4-4 heart fit. - You distinguish three-card raises from four card raises. Con's - You give the opponents an extra way to enter the auction. Is it worth it? (Oh, and anybody who has a better H-word for the akronym is more than welcome to chip in.)

Pass without much thought, but painfully aware that we might end up looking a little silly.

Thank you all for your replies. It seems I have assumed to much about the European style. Anyway, I've been stuck often enough in sequences like 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (Pass), that I should have figured that one out. MikeH wrote: "I will be interested in hearing the extent to which overall methodology impacts the arguments in favour of 1♣." One thing that occurred to me, is that NT-range might have an effect. Proponents of the weak NT often argues, that it is not when you bid 1NT (12-14) that it shines, but rather when you do not bid it. Thus in the sequence: 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (Pass) you are much less likely to be stuck, as opener will have either an unbalanced hand or extra strength (15+). (And as 12-14NT is very, very popular among strong players in Scandinavia, the problem would likely crop up with a much smaller frequency. Furthermore, for simplicity's sake beginners are taught to bid up the line in DK, so that could very well have an impact on why it isn't even discussed here.)

Why open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors? (As a general rule. I can make up the exceptions myself.) I have never heard of any europeans doing this, and I am almost 100% sure, that no scandinavian international players do that. However, it seem relatively popular in the forum, so it must have some merit. What is it?

1♣ seems completely obvious to me. (I must admit I am used to opening 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.) Only problem is when partner responds 1♠, where I will show 4-5 in ♣+♥, when I bid 2♥. Opening 1♦ will not solve this dilemma however.

If East has this hand, he has obviously lost his marbles, and I will win the match easily.

Would have bid 3♥ the first time. I have a million ways to support partner, so this hand is good enough for the weakest possible raise. It is not "safe" to bid 3♥, but look what trouble pass got us into. Anyway, as it is, I cannot play hide and seek with support and working points. 4♥ is akin to a wtp, even though it might easily be wrong.

Double. I've made my own bed and must sleep in it (defend). I don't double because I definetly believes it is of, but when I lead the ♦A, partner will know it is a singleton, and can Lavinthal on the first card.

Reluctant pass. No one likes bidding better than me, but I wont this time. We might miss out on something, but it is not very liekly that we are "robbed blind". Often, by acting, we will either turn a plus score into a slightly better plus score, or into a minus score.

3♦. Doesnt show stoppers in diamond, but if partner bids 3♥, I'll bid 3nt. Hearts rate to be 4 with partner, 4 with opener, and 5 with responder. I really have no Idée whether it is best for my opponents to lead hearts or diamonds, so I am not going to do anything fancy to prevent a lead or rightside the contract. I'll simply communicate with partner, and hope it leads us to the best contract, which might even be 6♣.

I agree 100% A lot of fair points, but: - Source of tricks. (You are right, but partner might have.) - Illusory stopper. (We know partner is very likely to have at least 3 hearts, and hearts might not be lead.) - Spade lenght. (They are stoppers, not tricks.) - Probabilety. (That might be, but the win is bigger when we are right. And there is 8 points floating out there.) - Win/loss raport. (This is not an argument, but a conclusion based on the above arguments. I obviously disagree, as I bid 3NT. Pass could easily work out though, and I would never claim it to be a mistake. I'd rather call it a bold bid.) Playing Lebensohl will do us no good (if we double), as partner will base his bid on us holding something that resembles 15 HCP.

3NT. Trying to cater for the hands, where there is exactly eight tricks in NT, is much to ambitious.

I am not moving. On double, partner will be 4♥ with a good-looking 10-count. Thus on 4♦ he would surely move with a good looking 8-count. So, even if 6♥ is more likely to make, than 5♥ is to go down, it will only be by a small margin. (And yes, I expect everyone to be in at least 4♥.) There is another problem, however: It is far from certain that partner will do the right thing, if we move on. He might easily bid a bad slam, or stay out of a good one.

I could be wrong, but I don't see why you should do that. - If ♥'s are 2-2 then East will return a ♥ and you are down if ♠K is off - If ♥'s are 3-1 then East will have to return a ♠, but you have no entry to your hand anymore to finesse ♥. ...And maybe opps lead 3th-5th and the lead was 3rd best? Or put in a slightly different way: If the King of spades is off-side, you one down for certain. If the King of spades is onside, they lead a non-heart (A spade seems obvious), and you can never be better off than your own guess.

I rise with the King. If it brings down the jack, I am home. If not, I eliminate the minors (Clubs first), and hope that I can endplay East on the ♥J to lead away from the ♠K. Without a possible endplay, it is more difficult, but surely some number-Crunchers can figure it out.

and the bidding goes 2NT pass 3NT and partner doesn't find the spade lead. :blink: Or do you have X as conventional for spades?? No, I play a double to ask partner to lead his shorter major. I guess he'll hit the right one anytime he isn't void in spades...... :P Really, I thought it was universal that this asks for a diamond lead in this kind of auction (opener's minor). Of course you have to be carefull with unknown partners, but in a regular partnership, it makes much sense to play like jdonn, agreeing the double to mean something like: "Please lead my suit, do not lead away from your tenaces". In this sequence the opponents are bound to have a lot of minor-cards, so reserving the double for hands that can run diamonds seems a little awkward.

The swingy action is to pass throughout and not let them identify that there is this glaring problem in spades... Makes me remember a hand from the other night: Bidding: 1NT* - (Pass) - Pass - (Double) All pass. * 12-14 The player on lead had ♦AKQxxxx (Opener had 12, responder 7 balanced, and the doubler had 12.)

4♠ Extremely difficult for them to double me, when I have the four high spades. I will be at most 800 vs their vul. game. (ok, it will not always make, but I will not always get doubled.)

I force this to game. There are just to many hands partner will pass. It will play well facing the ♣Q and xx in spades.

What can I do but agree with Frances here... Take up Vaudeville?

If 1♣-1♠ promises some values, like 5+ hcp, it doesn't cost much to let 2♥ be a 2 way bid: Either a natural reverse, or a strong balanced hand. After 2♥, 2♠ is a relay, where 2NT shows the balanced hand, and other bids show clubs + hearts.

The Sub-Mariner.