1D (2D)

[straube]

So we play 1D as artificial 10-15. Looking for a defense to 2D interference that is the same or nearly the same for...

 

1D (2D)

1N (2D)

and

1D P 1M (2D) P P

 

Thinking...

 

X-takeout, Stayman

2M-natural, nf unless a reverse in the balancing seat

2N-natural

3C-clubs, invitational

3D-hearts, GI+

3H-spades, GI+

3S-stopper ask (with some clubs) or primary clubs planning to bid again

 

Also thinking for 2C interference for

 

1D (2C) as well as 1D P 1M (2C)

 

X-takeout, Stayman

2D-hearts

2H-spades

2S-diamonds, GI+

2N-natural

3C-stopper ask

3X-weak

 

and for 1D (2M) and 1N (2M) and 1D P 1M (2OM)

 

X-takeout

2S-competitive

2N-Transfer Lebensohl

etc-transfers

3S-stopper ask

 

Ideas for improvement?

[awm]

This is a little different than 1NT-(2♦) because opener has a wider range in terms of both strength and shape. This reduces the number of "pure signoffs" while increasing the invite range, and also means that making "to play" major suit bids on a five-card suit is more dubious. Further, since no-one has bid notrump yet you can make an effort to right-side it in some auctions.

 

I'd tend to avoid the "negative free bid" approach here. Then again, I am not a big fan of negative free bids in any case.

[straube]

Thanks.

 

So I'm guessing you would use 1D (2D) 2H as spades and 1D (2D) 2S as hearts? We very much like that for 1C (2D) auctions when (of course) the club is even wider ranging in terms of points and shape. I take your point about 1D being much wider in strength/pattern than 1N. I know wanting to play 2H is a little greedy, but it's also nice that 1D P 1H (2D) P P 2H has the same meaning as 1D (2D) 2H.

 

As far as NFBs, we're trying not to make them totally undisciplined. Our definition is like 9-12 for a typical 5-cd suit in a balanced hand...but we might be outside that range depending on suit quality/length.

 

Let me ask you this. Supposing we went ahead with this scheme. Do you think that we should use 3-level transfers to promise a 6-cd suit and double and then bid for a 5-cd suit?

 

For instance,

 

1D (2S) 3D would show 6 cds GI+

 

while

 

1D (2S) dbl P 3C P 3H would be GF with 5?

 

We obviously shouldn't transfer at the 3-level with GI and a 5-only card suit opposite a hand that may not be balanced.

[straube]

Thinking about whether 1D (2D) 2H should be a transfer...

 

On the plus side, this allows responder more room to describe his hand...especially two-suited hands. It also right-sides the contract.

 

OTOH, after 1D (2D) aren't the opponents as likely to have the balance of strength as we are? Our 1D is 10-15 (and most often 11-13) while their 2D is probably 10 (at a minimum) up to maybe 18.

 

Now consider whether the opponents would be willing to play

 

1D (2D) P 2H as a transfer to spades...giving up the ability to show hearts at the 2-level as a NFB. I don't think many would do this.

 

On top of that, after 1D (2D) our side is in possession of the double...so we have more ways for responder to describe his hand than does advancer.

 

So I'm still liking 1D (2D) 2H as a NFB.

 

I don't like 1D (2D) 3D as GF 5+ hearts. I feel like it should be a 6-cd heart suit. With GF 5, start slow with a takeout double.

[akhare]

Thinking about whether 1D (2D) 2H should be a transfer...

 

On the plus side, this allows responder more room to describe his hand...especially two-suited hands. It also right-sides the contract.

...

I don't like 1D (2D) 3D as GF 5+ hearts. I feel like it should be a 6-cd heart suit. With GF 5, start slow with a takeout double.

Couple of factors to consider:

 

1) 6-cards suits are fairly rare

2) After 1♦ - (2♦) - X (nebulous), we have said *nothing* about any of our suit holdings. A sequence like 1♦ - (2♦) - X - (4♦) isn't the best situation to be in to sort it out.

 

Note that this is different from say 1S - (2D) - X, where it's OK to include a 5-card ♥ suit in the X.

[awm]

The auction 1d-(2d)-??? is pretty different from (1d)-2d-(pass)-??? in several ways. In the first sequence partner usually has a balanced hand while in the second partner usually doesn't. In the first auction, I have double available and even if I pass, partner can bid again. In the second auction, partner may have done something different with a 4M.

 

In any case, I don't play negative free bids in the auction (1y)-2x-(pass)-???, nor would I want to. I think negative free bids a poor method in general, and they are worse when partner is often unbalanced with a wide point range and a sound minimum. For me 2M there is 100% forcing.

[straube]

I've been looking at hands and I just hate to give up on negative free bids. I know that there is so much more communication that can occur if 2M is forcing, but responder has a great deal of invitational/competitive hands. I seldom, too, see hands where responder wants to force with clubs. That 3C bid as competitive/invitational is very frequent.

 

Rather annoying how many 5M/4M hand patterns occur, but these can be a problem for forcing major suit bids as well.

 

I'm thinking dbl should be Stayman, promising a 4+ cd major. If partner hits the right one (he should show spades with both majors) then all good. If partner hits the wrong one, then responder can make a nf 2N or 3C call (this handles the invitational 4M/5C hands). Bidding the other major would show a GF 5-cd major.

 

This solves the problem that NFBs create with GF 5/4 majors. Responder simply doubles and then bids the 5-cd major to GF...or passes 2N otherwise :(

 

Atul, maybe you can look at hands with me.

[benlessard]

I've been looking at hands and I just hate to give up on negative free bids.

Agree 100%

 

IMO 1D-(2D)-2M are premium bidding space. So prefering 11+ rather than 5-11 make no sense to me. I would be willing however to play 2H as spades 5pts+ and 2S as Hearts 11+ I think its a fair compromise.

[straube]

Agree 100%

 

IMO 1D-(2D)-2M are premium bidding space. So prefering 11+ rather than 5-11 make no sense to me. I would be willing however to play 2H as spades 5pts+ and 2S as Hearts 11+ I think its a fair compromise.

 

 

I think that's what awm does.

 

Atul and I looked at hands and we decided on NFBs of 2M and 3C. 3X bids are transfers. I'd be interested in having someone else look at hands and put in their 2 cents. We found the mediocre hands were a lot more common and we have enough tools for the GF hands.