How do you play these sequences?

[lamford]

a)1♥/♠ - (Dble) - 1NT - (Pass) - 3♣/♦

b)1♥/♠ - (Dble) - Redble - (Pass) - 3♣/♦

and a typical minimum and maximum would be most welcome.

[gnasher]

a) Game-forcing, as in an uncontested auction.

 

b) 5-5 or 6-5, non-forcing. Crowhurst gave the example of AQ973 J2 KQJ64 5, and implied that adding an ace would make it too strong. I think I'd have better or longer spades than that - eg AQxxxx x KQJxx x.

[lamford]

So with AQxxxx x KQJxx x you would presumably just rebid 2♦ after 1S - (Dble) - 1NT - (Pass)?

[jallerton]

a) I play 1NT as conventional with some partners, but when 1NT is natural, it shows about the same strength as an uncontested Acol 1NT response (though the lower limit is a smidgen stronger, as partner will be getting another bid now anyway). Ergo, opener's rebids are the same as after 1M-Pass-1NT-Pass. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a jump in a new suit over 1NT is normally played as natural and game forcing. So the minimum would be about an 18-count if 5-4 in the two suits; a little less in terms of high cards if more distributional. The maximum would be a hand just short of a 2♣ Opener, although if playing Acol Twos, those hand types are obviously also excluded.

 

b) I agree with Gnasher. In this sequence, Opener can Pass and bid his suit on the next round to show a stronger version, but as even a direct bid of 2♣/♦ would tend to suggest 5/5, a direct 3♣/♦ bid sounds like 6/5. I suspect this should be forcing, or only passable with a complete misfit.

[gnasher]

So with AQxxxx x KQJxx x you would presumably just rebid 2♦ after 1S - (Dble) - 1NT - (Pass)?

 

Yes.

[benlessard]

AQxxxx x KQJxx x

 

This is an obvious jump shift for me. Parnet free 1Nt is 8-10 not 6-10

[lamford]

AQxxxx x KQJxx x

 

This is an obvious jump shift for me. Parnet free 1Nt is 8-10 not 6-10

I would as well; but I think it is right to play both sequences as forcing for one round, on the grounds of frequency. Otherwise the opener has to choose between a non-forcing 2C and a game-forcing 3C with any 5-5. True, the same problem occurs after 1M-1NT, but the double means that partner is more likely to have a hand between a non-forcing 2C and a game-forcing 3C than without the double.

[benlessard]

I think partner 1Nt is a very precise bid, with a nice 10 he can XX and with a bad 8 he can pass rather than bid 1nt. So I dont think opener need to have a 2.5 clubs or 2.5 diamonds bid. I see the possibility to use 2nt as artifical (since with the super rare 18-19 bal you can bid 3c/3Nt). Anyway I dont remeber last time ive got a tough bidding problems on these sequence so I wouldnt lose too much energy on them.

 

Also much more important is to play transfers over takeout doubles. Its much better IMO

[benlessard]

double post

[gnasher]

I would as well; but I think it is right to play both sequences as forcing for one round, on the grounds of frequency.

Is that because you, like Benlessard, play the 1NT response as 8-10? Or are you saying that you play the 1NT response as in an uncontested auction, but think opener's rebids should be different?

[lamford]

Is that because you, like Benlessard, play the 1NT response as 8-10? Or are you saying that you play the 1NT response as in an uncontested auction, but think opener's rebids should be different?

I would play it as stronger than normal, which I thought was standard, perhaps g7-10. But unconnected with that I think that opener's rebids of 3 minor should only be forcing one round after the double. The majority of opener's hands will be in the 12-17 range, and it seems wrong to have to bid 2C with 5-4 and 5-5 of a very wide range. I would therefore suggest that 3C should be forcing for one round, perhaps 5-5 16+.

[lamford]

Also much more important is to play transfers over takeout doubles. Its much better IMO

I agree. What strength do you regard 1S-(Dble)-1NT*-(Pass)-3C when 1NT is a transfer to clubs?

[gnasher]

I agree. What strength do you regard 1S-(Dble)-1NT*-(Pass)-3C when 1NT is a transfer to clubs?

It's a matter of agreement, and it depends on the definition of the 1NT bid and on what other raises are available. It's not sufficient simply to agree "transfers".

[Vampyr]

It's a matter of agreement, and it depends on the definition of the 1NT bid and on what other raises are available. It's not sufficient simply to agree "transfers".

 

Do you have any suggestions, though, Andy? Recently I had AKxxx x xx Axxxx and bid 3♣. I don't think I can just accept the transfer with this hand, but I also feel there have to be limits to how wide-ranging this bid can be.

[cherdano]

Do you have any suggestions, though, Andy? Recently I had AKxxx x xx Axxxx and bid 3♣. I don't think I can just accept the transfer with this hand, but I also feel there have to be limits to how wide-ranging this bid can be.

Without discussion, I would just bid 2♣ when I would have passed a free 2♣ bid, and make whichever bid I would have made otherwise.

Your example hand is way too powerful for 3♣ IMO. Having this hand, I would first think of making a splinter with 3♥, then realize that this is natural. So I would bid 4♣ instead.

[gnasher]

It depends upon how strong you play the transfer, but it helps if you can use 2NT as a raise.

 

Playing the transfer as constructive, I play

- Completion shows a weak notrump or similar

- 3♣ shows a weak notrump with four-card support

- 2NT shows an unbalanced raise, or 18-19 balanced with support

- Others are as after an Acol-style two-over-one response, ie new suits are forcing but not promising extras, jumps are splinters, etc

 

If the transfer includes competitive hands, the meanings should be more like what you would do after a one-level response: 2NT is natural and invitational; 3♣ is invitational; new suits are probably best played as non-forcing.

[lamford]

Without discussion, I would just bid 2♣ when I would have passed a free 2♣ bid, and make whichever bid I would have made otherwise.

Your example hand is way too powerful for 3♣ IMO. Having this hand, I would first think of making a splinter with 3♥, then realize that this is natural. So I would bid 4♣ instead.

I don't think 3H is natural. In less avant garde methods, 1S-(Dble)-2C-(Pass)-2H is surely a one-round force, which makes 3H a splinter. The same logic applies to 2D and 3D.

[aguahombre]

This thread is cluttered already with different situations; sometime in a different one I would like to see discussion of opener's continuations after transfers over 1MX. Gnasher started it here, but there are surely some more complete theories to explore.

 

Why don't I start a thread then? For the moment, I have having difficulty establishing conditions for an OP which others can live with, where challenge of the premise doesn't become the focus.

[lamford]

This thread is cluttered already with different situations; sometime in a different one I would like to see discussion of opener's continuations after transfers over 1MX. Gnasher started it here, but there are surely some more complete theories to explore.

 

Why don't I start a thread then? For the moment, I have having difficulty establishing conditions for an OP which others can live with, where challenge of the premise doesn't become the focus.

Yes that would be good. I would suggest something like:

 

1H-Double-1S = natural, F1R

1H-Double-Redble = g9+, 2 or fewer spades

1M-Double-1NT = clubs, constructive

1M-Double-2C = diamonds, constructive

1M-Double-2D = hearts, constructive

1M-Double-2H = good raise to 2S

1M-Double-2S = weak raise to 2S

 

Somewhat selfishly, these are our methods, so I would welcome opinions on continuations.

[lamford]

duplicate sorry

[aguahombre]

Am thinking along the lines of defining what the xfer responses might show (somewhat as you have above), and dealing only with the ones which do not establish a fit in opener's major.

 

But, still at the drawing board; since the methods for 1HX vs 1SX involve different uses of the redouble and the availability of 1♠ as part of the transfer structure. We know how we use those tools as responder, but are not satisfied with some of opener's rebids after the response.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

duplicate sorry

FYP ( "your post needs fixing" )

 

3rd from bottom should be:

 

1M-Double-2D! = hearts, constructive

[aguahombre]

Yes, there should have been a comma between "duplicate" and "sorry" :rolleyes:

[Finch]

I would as well; but I think it is right to play both sequences as forcing for one round, on the grounds of frequency. Otherwise the opener has to choose between a non-forcing 2C and a game-forcing 3C with any 5-5. True, the same problem occurs after 1M-1NT, but the double means that partner is more likely to have a hand between a non-forcing 2C and a game-forcing 3C than without the double.

 

I don't understand why you think the two sequences are in the least bit similar. They are completely different: responder's call has a totally different meaning, and opener has many more options on the second auction than the first.

[Finch]

I would play it as stronger than normal, which I thought was standard, perhaps g7-10. But unconnected with that I think that opener's rebids of 3 minor should only be forcing one round after the double. The majority of opener's hands will be in the 12-17 range, and it seems wrong to have to bid 2C with 5-4 and 5-5 of a very wide range. I would therefore suggest that 3C should be forcing for one round, perhaps 5-5 16+.

 

So you have no call to show a game force as opener? Interesting method.

The majority of opener's hands after the auction 1S P 1NT P will also be in the 12-17 range, so I assume you also play 3m as forcing for one round only then?