1M (X) XX

[jillybean]

1M (X) XX

 

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

[Fluffy]

I don't know what standard is, I play that this bid focuses on making the opponents pay for entering the bidding with inferior strenght.

 

To me it shows: 10+ HCP, at least 2 suits with 4+ card and of course no support for partner's major.

[pooltuna]

1M (X) XX

 

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

It probably varies but for me it tells partner "This is our hand"

[jillybean]

1M (X) XX

 

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

It probably varies but for me it tells partner "This is our hand"

And what does it say if anything, about your suits?

[pooltuna]

1M (X) XX

 

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

It probably varies but for me it tells partner "This is our hand"

And what does it say if anything, about your suits?

nothing I don't play "tends to show no fit" altho I do use Jordan so it is sort of implied

[Free]

For me it's transfer NT, we threw away the penalty XX for more constructive possibilities our way.

[jjbrr]

10+HCP implies no fit. It doesn't say anything about other suits.

 

I personally like the first double by our side following a XX to be takeout, but YMMV.

[paulg]

10+HCP implies no fit. It doesn't say anything about other suits.

 

I personally like the first double by our side following a XX to be takeout, but YMMV.

This is regarded as 'expert standard' in these parts.

 

The standard mantra for follow ups is "first (re)double shows values, second double is takeout, third double is penalty". It may not be optimal in all situations, but it is simple and applied in auctions where you have the balance of power.

[jjbrr]

I know some (many?) experts who play that here also, but also many who play subsequent doubles are always penalty. I also like first dbl t/o after 1x (1NT) dbl (scramble), but I know fewer who do that.

[bluecalm]

I personally like the first double by our side following a XX to be takeout, but YMMV.

 

Yeah, I like (and often play) it too. In fact we play t/o double in most fp situations to avoid confusion. I also think it's quite important to be able to make t/o double in situations like:

 

1♠ dbl - rdbl - 2♥

pass - pass - ????

[peachy]

I am not qualified to say what the "standard expert treatment" is. The treatment that I see as common among good players - which I also play - is that the Rdbl is 10+ unlimited, tends to deny good support, sets up a force at least through two of opener's suit, and seeks to penalize the opponents. In context with the Rdbl, new suit on 1-level would have been forcing and new suit on the 2-level would have been non-forcing.

[jillybean]

Ok, thats good. 10+ implies no fit was my understanding.

 

With support you bid some number of M, and with support and a GF hand you redouble, then show support?

[jjbrr]

Ok, thats good. 10+ no fit was my understanding.

 

With support you bid some number of M, and with support and a GF hand you redouble, then show support?

Many play 2NT as the inv+ hands with support since the balanced invites start with xx

[bluecalm]

We play:

 

1♠ - dbl - ????

1NT = ♣

2♦ = ♥

2♥ = spade raise weak or almost GF+

2♠ = intermediate (8-10(11))

rdbl = 10+, no fit penalty oriented

 

Same after 1♥ but 1♠ is natural (it makes sense to play 1♠ as minors here but we prefer natural).

[awm]

Redouble is ten-plus points and denies a four-card fit, which would bid 2NT (limit-plus).

 

I think it is normal to redouble with a three-card limit raise, planning to bid 2M at next turn. Of course, if you play transfers or something here you can show the three-card limit raise directly, but standard agreements are 2-level bids natural NF and seem to imply a redouble would be normal on three-card support.

 

Of course, more frequently redouble will be some non-fitting good hand where you might want to penalize the opponents.

[Jlall]

Yeah agree with awm, 3 card limit raise or better starts with XX.

[hanp]

Agree with awm.

[jillybean]

Why not play systems on over double ? 2N Jacoby, 3m bergen or what ever, redouble 10+ no fit and use 2N to show 4card limit+ for when opps bid a suit over 1M?

[aguahombre]

The double of 1M gives a lot of tools to show all kinds of hands. To waste two of them with 3c Bergen or 3D Bergen seems a shame. These bids can show limit raise values with shortness the the suit bid....the shortness being included in the dummy-point evaluation. Thus, 2NT can be a balanced LR+. Not sure how much actual value there is in distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support with LR + after the double.

[cherdanno]

Why not play systems on over double ? 2N Jacoby, 3m bergen or what ever, redouble 10+ no fit and use 2N to show 4card limit+ for when opps bid a suit over 1M?

There is nothing wrong with that but you still need a bid for the 3-card limit raise. You would really prefer to show this at the 2-level rather than the 3-level (a bigger chance that partner is minimum after the takeout double), and the double actuallly gives you the room to do that without losing anything; that's why it's typically shown by XX followed by a raise.

[mike777]

1M (X) XX

 

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

xx=3 piece, LMT or better in support (xx does not promise support, you have to raise later)

[mohitz]

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

 

What is the strength of 2M-1?

[655321]

Not sure how much actual value there is in distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support with LR + after the double.

Wot? Not commenting on any exact methods, obviously there are many valid agreements after a XX, but this statement seems backwards.

 

When I have opened the bidding and partner has raised, if LHO has doubled (making it more likely he has shortage in my suit) then the first thing I want to know is whether partner has 4 trumps or only 3 (when a 4-1 trump break might be a concern). i.e. the double makes it more important, not less important, to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support.

[Jlall]

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

 

What is the strength of 2M-1?

Constructive raise, less than a LR (7-10ish, not all 7s not all 10s).

[helene_t]

For most, I think, 1♥-(x)-xx denies five spades since 1♠ would be forcing. It does not deny a long minor suit since 2m would not be forcing.

 

Some very old text books say that xx is the only strength-showing bid so it just shows 10+ points and say nothing else. But that is impractical since if opps preempt it can be difficult to show our hand if we have said nothing about shape in the first round. So nowadays most people play a 1-level shift as forcing. Playing transfers also allows you to bid strong 2-suiters without having to go through the rdbl, and to show a hand with 3-card support and a side suit.