Another poll

[Hanoi5]

W/R:

 

♠KQx

♥Jxx

♦Jxx

♣AJxx

 

Partner opens 1♦ and as you're about to bid 2Nt, RHO bids 1♥. What do you bid?

[gwnn]

i like to bid my 4 card minor in these cases. not the best bid in the world but probably the simplest and least dangerous.

[aguahombre]

this is one of the reasons why we use neg double to deny spades.

[Jlall]

2C...why is this a problem?

[aguahombre]

2C...why is this a problem?

2c is not a problem if you and partner agree that it doesnt't mean much. That is not intended as sarcasm, just a style note. 2C seems to be the only answer if you need both X and 1S to show 4 and 5+.

[Codo]

I prefer the solution that double denies 4 spades and shows this hand.

[gnasher]

I prefer the solution that 1♠ shows a balanced hand and asks partner to bid notrumps. Since we're not playing that, I bid 2♣, obviously.

 

2♣ means quite a lot: it says that I have clubs, the values for the two level, not primary diamond support, not 4-4 in the blacks, and not a 2/3NT bid.

 

If this hand-type is a reason for playing that a negative double denies four spades, it's not much of a reason. Standard methods allow you to distinguish between 4- and 5-card spade suits. Playing that a negative double denies spades, you get to distinguish between 4- and 5-card clubs suits. I know which I think is more useful.

[Codo]

Nicely said Andy, but not the complete truth.

 

A double shows a balanced hand, 2 club an unbalanced hand, which is useful in competetive auctions.

 

But I agree with the conclusion that you do not need this tool at all. It is nice to have here and makes some problems in other situations.

[helene_t]

If 1♠ is transfer to notrump, you also bid 1♠ with 3433. Thinking about it, do you need a natural 1NT bid at all, playing that method?

[gnasher]

If 1♠ is transfer to notrump, you also bid 1♠ with 3433. Thinking about it, do you need a natural 1NT bid at all, playing that method?

I don't think you do. If responder has a balanced hand he bids 1♠; if opener is also balanced he replies 1NT. Usually one of you will have a stop. If neither of you has a stop but you also have no fit, 1NT is often as good a partscore as any. You can then use 1NT by responder to show clubs, releasing 2♣ for some other purpose.

 

This type of scheme suffers from the same defect that all your spade hands are doubling, so you can't distinguish different spade lengths. You can mitigate this by using some two-level bids to show spades, like this:

 

Double = 4 spades, 5 bad spades, or 5 spades in a weak hand

1♠ = balanced

1NT = clubs

2♣/♦ = diamond raises

2♥ = 6 spades any strength, or 5 spades game-forcing

2♠ = 5 spades, invitational

 

Alternatively, you might use 2♣ to show some of the spade hands.

[suokko]

If 1♠ is transfer to notrump, you also bid 1♠ with 3433. Thinking about it, do you need a natural 1NT bid at all, playing that method?

No need. Here is one variant of possible meaning of bids

1♣(1♥)-:

X transfer to ♠ 4-5 cards any strength or mild invite 6+

1♠ less than 4♠ transfer to 1NT

1NT 5+♣ constructive or GF+

2♣ 5+♦ constructive+

2♦ unbal 4+♣ inv+. If GF then exactly 4

2♥ 5+♠5+♦ constructive+

2♠ weak

2NT,3♦,3♥ transfers to 6+card good suit, good invite or better (no side suit)

3♣ preemptive

3♠ asking partner to bid 3NT (to play in 3NT)

3NT just in case you are bored and want to declare 3NT :)

[helene_t]

Hmm. If I have a balanced hand with <4 spades, <4 diamonds and <5 clubs, I usually have a heart stopper, unless I am weak enough to afford to pass.

 

OTOH, with 5+ clubs I may well want partner to declare notrumps.

 

So I wonder if such a scheme would lead to fewer wrong-sided notrump contracts then standard methods. I suppose it will lead to fewer wrong-sided clubs contracts, though.

[suokko]

Hmm. If I have a balanced hand with <4 spades, <4 diamonds and <5 clubs, I usually have a heart stopper, unless I am weak enough to afford to pass.

 

OTOH, with 5+ clubs I may well want partner to declare notrumps.

 

So I wonder if such a scheme would lead to fewer wrong-sided notrump contracts then standard methods. I suppose it will lead to fewer wrong-sided clubs contracts, though.

yes. Problem is that you have to think twice before transfering to ♣ in case you might wrong side the NT contract. (Specially important for match points) you have option to bid 1♠ first and then to show your hand with some natural bid.

 

Plus sie is that most of times opener is going to declarer. Overcaller is opening leader from stronger hand which might cause problems finding the best lead.

[bluecalm]

In polish club it's no problem, 2H = invitational+ with !d support as 1D opening is almost always 5+D.

In better minor systems with dbl promising 4S well... I bid 2H anyway. If partner doesn't have anything in H, then D is our best spot usually (except 4-4 minors). If he has something in H he will bid 2/3nt and it will be all again.

[peachy]

If this hand-type is a reason for playing that a negative double denies four spades, it's not much of a reason.

Well said!

[aguahombre]

I prefer the solution that 1♠ shows a balanced hand and asks partner to bid notrumps.

 

If this hand-type is a reason for playing that a negative double denies four spades, it's not much of a reason.  Standard methods allow you to distinguish between 4- and 5-card spade suits.  Playing that a negative double denies spades, you get to distinguish between 4- and 5-card clubs suits.  I know which I think is more useful.

So, in your preferred methods, you choose to distinguish the difference in club lengths rather than spade lengths --as a byproduct of the 1S bid which denies spades and the neg double which shows 4+.

 

Again, to be clear --unlike some people -- I am not claiming that our "neg double denies" style is better than anyone elses. But I think it has pretty much the same effect on this round of bidding as your choice.

 

Neg double of 1H shows a hand that:

-would have bid some number of NT but doesn't have a heart stop. OR

-would have responded 1H, is balanced, and has really crummy hearts. OR

-would have bid 1D/1C but cannot bid 2D. (not applicable to 1D opening)

 

It seems that using 1S instead of double to show these things is a distinction without a difference, and we both agree to not distinguish between spade lengths.

[gnasher]

So, in your preferred methods, you choose to distinguish the difference in club lengths rather than spade lengths --as a byproduct of the 1S bid which denies spades and the neg double which shows 4+. 

 

Again, to be clear --unlike some people -- I am not claiming that our "neg double denies" style is better than anyone elses.  But I think it has pretty much the same effect on this round of bidding as your choice.

 

Neg double of 1H shows a hand that:

-would have bid some number of NT but doesn't have a heart stop. OR

-would have responded 1H, is balanced, and has really crummy hearts.  OR

-would have bid 1D/1C but cannot bid 2D. (not applicable to 1D opening)

 

It seems that using 1S instead of double to show these things is a distinction without a difference, and we both agree to not distinguish between spade lengths.

I don't use 1♠ to show these things. I use 1♠ to show an unlimited balanced hand, with or without a stop. I do this for three reasons:

- So that we can play notrumps from the right side

- So that I can explore alternative contracts without misleading partner as to my hand-type

- So that I can use 1NT and 2♣ as transfers

 

I think that these benefits are significantly more valuable than the proclaimed benefit of your methods, which is to be able to distinguish between four- and five-card club suits.

 

I also think that if I had to double on all hands with spades, these benefits wouldn't be sufficient to justify the loss of definition in showing spade length. That's why I use 2♥ and 2♠ to cater for some of the hands with spades. Even so, I'm not sure that what I play is better than standard methods. I am, however, sure that it's better than using double as denying four spades and 1♠ as any hand with spades.

[Jlall]

I think 1S with balanced and 1N with clubs is inferior because you wrong side it a tremendous amount of time when you bid 1N clubs imo.

 

Would rather make 1S an artificial bid with many hand types including a negative freebid with clubs, and leave 2C to show clubs so that we don't wrongside there.

 

If you don't want to use 1N natural and want to include all balanced hands in 1S, then I think using 1N as 6+ spades is fine, or using 1N and 2C both as clubs depending on rightsiding issues.

[olien]

How about this over 1♥, just an idea:

 

X shows 4♠ or strong with 5♠

1♠ is a NT response

1NT shows 5♠ NF

2m natural forcing

2♥ showing 6+♠

2♠ INV+ raise of minor

 

Just a momentary thought

[olien]

Edit: raise to 2 of partner's minor is just competitive

[gnasher]

How about this over 1♥, just an idea:

 

X shows 4♠ or strong with 5♠

1♠ is a NT response

1NT shows 5♠ NF

2m natural forcing

2♥ showing 6+♠

2♠ INV+ raise of minor

 

Edit: raise to 2 of partner's minor is just competitive

That seems quite sensible. Alternatively, you might try

 

X shows 4♠ or weak with 5♠

1NT shows 5♠ F1

[Cameron_1]

If you care this is the structure I have played in the past:

 

1♣ (1♦)

X 4♥/5♥ <FG

1♥ 4♠/5♠ <FG

1♠ <4M F

1N NAT <INV

2♣ 5♣ INV+

2♦ 6♥ 9-11 INV/5+♥ FG

2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG

2♠ 6♠ 6-8 <INV

2N 55M INV

3♣ 5♣ MIXED

3♦ 55M FG

3♥ 6♥ 6-8 <INV

3♠ XFER 3N

 

1♣ (1♥)

X 4♠/5♠ <FG

1♠ <4M F

1N NAT <INV

2♣ 5♦ INV+

2♦ 5♣ INV+

2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG

2♠ 6♠ 6-8 <INV

2N 5♠5♦ INV

3♣ 5♣ MIXED

3♦ 6♦ 8-10 good suit INV

3♥ 5♠5♦ FG

3♠ XFER 3N

 

1♣ (1♠)

X 4♥/5♥ <FG

1N NAT <INV

2♣ 5♦ INV+

2♦ 6♥ 9-11 INV/5+♥ FG

2♥ 6♥ <INV

2♠ 4+♣ INV+

2N INV

3♣ 5♣ MIXED

3♦ 6♦ 8-10 good suit INV

3♥ 5♥5♦ FG

3♠ XFER 3N

 

 

1♦ (1♥)

X 4♠/5♠ <FG

1♠ <4♠ F

1N NAT <INV

2♣ 5♣ INV+

2♦ ♦ RAISE <INV

2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG

2♠ LIMIT ♦ RAISE

2N 5♠5♣ INV

3♣ 6♣ 8-10 good suit INV

3♦ MIXED ♦

3♥ 5♠5♣ FG

3♠ XFER 3N

 

1♦ (1♠)

X 4♥/5♥ <FG

1N NAT <INV

2♣ 4♣ INV+ (since no “other” nebulous call)

2♦ ♦ RAISE <INV

2♥ 5♥ INV+

2♠ LIMIT ♦ RAISE

2N INV

3♣ 6♣ 8-10 good suit INV

3♦ MIXED ♦

3♥ 5♥5♣ FG

3♠ XFER 3N