How do you play these sequences?

[Finch]

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.

 

There are usually two common hand types in the transfer: a 'weak 2' in clubs, and a constructive hand, often with a good doubleton (or sometimes 3-card support) for partner. It's also possible that partner simply has a natural game force with his suit and doesn't want to redouble because he's short in one of the other suits and wants to start bidding his long suit.

 

I play that opener completes with any minimum mis-fitting hand, rebids his own suit with a good suit and a misfit (non-forcing), or can bid a new suit at the 2-level F1, or at the 3-level FG. 2NT is natural and strong.

On your specimen hand I would bid 3H splinter if I was confident partner would understand this, or failing that either 4C or 5C. I'm waiting for LHO to show his double-then-bid hand with 4H, so I might just bid 5C now, and hope partner hasn't got too much soft stuff in the red suits. That might depend on the vulnerability.

[lamford]

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?

Hands which are game-forcing can surely be bid through the one-round force; 3S by the 1NT bidder would then be non-forcing, as far as I see the only drawback. And if the doubler has about 13 and the NT bidder about 9, then it does not seem right to wait for the occasional 18 and 5-4 or 5-5 in order to game force, the minimum suggested by jallerton. It must be far more efficient to play 3C as a good hand, forcing for one round. Similarly in the auction after redouble. I shall ask one or two people with whom I play 1NT as natural for their view. After 1S-(Pass)-1NT the ratio of hands in the 18-20 (or even higher if unsuitable for a FG 2C) range for opener is much higher, so I think that 3C should still be played as game forcing.

[aguahombre]

Frances: in an earlier thread, you rightly pointed out my typo calling you "Francis". Now, Steph is calling you "Andy". What's up with this?

[lamford]

Frances: in an earlier thread, you rightly pointed out my typo calling you "Francis". Now, Steph is calling you "Andy". What's up with this?

It is Stef; and Frances kindly responded to the question to Andy, I believe.

[aguahombre]

I think I knew that.

[jallerton]

Hands which are game-forcing can surely be bid through the one-round force; 3S by the 1NT bidder would then be non-forcing, as far as I see the only drawback. And if the doubler has about 13 and the NT bidder about 9, then it does not seem right to wait for the occasional 18 and 5-4 or 5-5 in order to game force, the minimum suggested by jallerton. It must be far more efficient to play 3C as a good hand, forcing for one round. Similarly in the auction after redouble. I shall ask one or two people with whom I play 1NT as natural for their view. After 1S-(Pass)-1NT the ratio of hands in the 18-20 (or even higher if unsuitable for a FG 2C) range for opener is much higher, so I think that 3C should still be played as game forcing.

 

As redouble is available for stronger hands, a 9-count would be a maximum, not a minimum for 1NT. Since when has a take-out double implied 13HCP?

 

In my view, it makes little sense to play 3♣ as a 1-round force. What's partner supposed to do on a 2443 minimum? Bid 3NT which is game anyway, or choose to play in a 7-card fit at the 3-level? Surely you should either play 3♣ as game forcing or as invitational, non-forcing, though in the latter case you need another way to deal with the game forcing hands.

[lamford]

As redouble is available for stronger hands, a 9-count would be a maximum, not a minimum for 1NT. Since when has a take-out double implied 13HCP?

 

In my view, it makes little sense to play 3♣ as a 1-round force. What's partner supposed to do on a 2443 minimum? Bid 3NT which is game anyway, or choose to play in a 7-card fit at the 3-level? Surely you should either play 3♣ as game forcing or as invitational, non-forcing, though in the latter case you need another way to deal with the game forcing hands.

I think the general view of 1NT seems to be 8-10, so 9 would be an average. But even having 8 for the responder, and 12 for the doubler, the opener is still unlikely to have a game force. Less than 5% of opening bids will be 18-20 when 20 points are accounted for. I can live with 3C being invitational after a redouble, but after a natural 1NT reply there are too many hands where we want to force. The 2443 minimum will indeed bid 3NT. The game-forcing hands will still bid again over partner's reply, so there seems to be no downside.

 

And artificial game forces will be a strain on memory, mine for sure. And the main objection to playing 3C as game-forcing is that all 11-16 hands with 4 or 5 clubs presumably rebid 2C. Too wide a range.

[benlessard]

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.

Agree, I would play transfers as competitive. 1Nt transfers to clubs with KQxxxx and nothing else is totally normal for me and im pretty sure its EV- to pass with these hands. A raise to 3C should show 3 trumps and 14-16 or 16-17 with 2 trumps. Some like to play that a 3C raise can be any minimum with a fit and 2C denies a fit, their point is if you got a clubs fit you wont be able to buy the hand at 2C anyway so might as well raise the bar right now to put presssure on LHO who probably has a good hand, they need to bid 2NT with a good club raise however wich is a very small loss.

[gnasher]

I think the general view of 1NT seems to be 8-10

Did you derive that "general view" from the posts in this thread? If so, I don't see how. So far as I can see, only four people have expressed opinions about the strength of a natural 1NT response:

 

JAllerton: "about the same strength as an uncontested Acol 1NT response (though the lower limit is a smidgen stronger"

Benlessard: "8-10"

Lamford: "g7-10"

Gnasher: Implied (or intended to imply) that it was the same strength as uncontested.

[lamford]

Did you derive that "general view" from the posts in this thread? If so, I don't see how. So far as I can see, only four people have expressed opinions about the strength of a natural 1NT response:

 

JAllerton: "about the same strength as an uncontested Acol 1NT response (though the lower limit is a smidgen stronger"

Benlessard: "8-10"

Lamford: "g7-10"

Gnasher: Implied (or intended to imply) that it was the same strength as uncontested.

No, I derived the view from polling strong players on a hand after 1M - double. Some of them would have passed a bad 8 count. This accords with what I have always thought, for better or for worse, that 1NT is quite a bit better after a takeout double. Perhaps there is some theory on the net, but I have no time to look, sorry.

[lamford]

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.

Sorry I missed this post earlier. I don't think the sequences are particularly similar. If I wrote "I think the government should give more money to opera and ballet", I would not necessarily think that they were that similar. I think that 3m should just be forcing one round in the sequences 1M - (Dble) - 1NT - (Pass) - 3m and 1M - (Dble) - Rdble - (Pass) for different reasons, which I think I have stated. Interestingly gnasher and jallerton seemed to disagree on whether the second should be forcing, so I hope that I have at least provided a point of discussion to help your Gold Cup team to repeat its triumph.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Thanks. Sorry to be so demanding, but can you suggest what modifications would be best when a weak notrump would have been opened 1NT?

 

EDIT: Posted this before seeing Frances and Jeffrey's helpful replies. I realise the topic is more complicated than I had first thought.

 

Another question is, is it more useful to play XX as a transfer to 1NT, or as "normal"?

[lamford]

Thanks. Sorry to be so demanding, but can you suggest what modifications would be best when a weak notrump would have been opened 1NT?

I presume gnasher would open 1S with five spades and a weak NT. Certainly if he was 5-2-2-4 he would.

[gnasher]

Thanks. Sorry to be so demanding, but can you suggest what modifications would be best when a weak notrump would have been opened 1NT?

I think it would depend on the minimum strength for a transfer. Would you be expecting opener to complete it with 15-17 balanced and no fit?

 

Another question is, is it more useful to play XX as a transfer to 1NT, or as "normal"?

I know some very good players who think that the transfers should start from 1NT, but I prefer to play transfers from redouble upwards. Getting everything played by opener seems especially important here.

1H dbl rdbl = spades

1S dbl rbdl = notrumps

1H dbl 1S = notrumps

The transfer to notrumps can be used on a hand of any strength. With a very defensive hand that would normally redouble, I'm happy to pass and then double for penalties. Sometimes they'll be a level higher than they would have been if I'd started with a redouble.

[Finch]

Interestingly gnasher and jallerton seemed to disagree on whether the second should be forcing, so I hope that I have at least provided a point of discussion to help your Gold Cup team to repeat its triumph.

 

gnasher and jallerton don't (as yet) play together, so there is no requirement for them to agree on this sequence. There are many, many sequences they disagree on, but I haven't yet seen a requirement for all players in a Gold Cup team to play the same system.

[Zelandakh]

Another question is, is it more useful to play XX as a transfer to 1NT, or as "normal"?

As Ben has mentioned, another strong candidate is to play XX as "clubs or a compromised NT hand" with 1NT natural.

[lamford]

gnasher and jallerton don't (as yet) play together, so there is no requirement for them to agree on this sequence. There are many, many sequences they disagree on, but I haven't yet seen a requirement for all players in a Gold Cup team to play the same system.

I was aware that gnasher and jallerton were not a regular partnership. As with the Marc Smith articles, "Have you discussed this?", I thought that the actual regular partnerships would benefit from establishing their agreements in the auction after redouble. If they have already done so, then my apologies for raising it.

[gnasher]

I was aware that gnasher and jallerton were not a regular partnership. As with the Marc Smith articles, "Have you discussed this?", I thought that the actual regular partnerships would benefit from establishing their agreements in the auction after redouble. If they have already done so, then my apologies for raising it.

Catch22 and I have sidestepped the question by playing redouble as a transfer.

 

According to my copy of Frances and Jeffrey's notes on competitive sequences, "After 1M X XX P ... 2new suit = weak with 5/5 ... 3 lower 6-5+ minimum hand." So they have discussed it, and are presumably playing it as "passable with a complete misfit" rather than forcing.

[jallerton]

Interestingly gnasher and jallerton seemed to disagree on whether the second should be forcing, so I hope that I have at least provided a point of discussion to help your Gold Cup team to repeat its triumph.

 

In what sense did we disagree?

 

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.

 

a) 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.

 

Even if you couldn't be bothered to read all of the details (somewhat disappointing given that you were person who asked the original question!), the "I agree with Gnasher" phrase at the beginning should have been a clue.

[lamford]

I agree that "non-forcing" is identical to "I suspect this should be forcing". Silly me!

[Finch]

I agree that "non-forcing" is identical to "I suspect this should be forcing". Silly me!

 

Perhaps you cannot distinguish between answering the question "how do you play these sequences?" and subsequently offering an additional thoughts on how the sequence might be played, as introduced by the phrasing "should be" rather than "is"

[lamford]

Perhaps you cannot distinguish between answering the question "how do you play these sequences?" and subsequently offering an additional thoughts on how the sequence might be played, as introduced by the phrasing "should be" rather than "is"

Are you suggesting that jallerton is therefore currently playing inferior methods? The tone of his reply suggested that he would now be changing his methods to make the bid forcing, with any partners with whom Redouble is not artificial, while there was no such suggestion in the post by gnasher. And as I said, the only reason I raised the matter was because I thought it would be beneficial to your actual partnerships to discuss it. I fail to see why you need make such a big issue of it. It was just "an additional thoughts".