From Clee

[gwnn]

Han, when does opener pass 1D-(2C)-2D? Don't you have similar (or worse) problems there as after 1D-(2C)-x-p, 2D?

[chasetb]

For those who don't know, han and Zel are having the same conversation as they did 18 months ago. Han's first post is on page 2, see http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/47554-quick-poll-1d-2c-x/

[MickyB]

In a precision context, I have been playing over 1D (2C) that 2D is neg free bid + in hearts, 2H neg free bid + in spades, 2S inv+ in diamonds, and 3C as 5-5 majors +.

 

Yeah I'm not sure you'd want to double any less frequently playing Precision when partner can easily have a penalty pass of clubs. Still, 1D (2C) X (P); 2M is pretty horrific, any kit here? I'm sure it's worth giving up playing in 2D in order to split [balanced with 4cM] from [5+D4M].

[Zelandakh]

For those who don't know, han and Zel are having the same conversation as they did 18 months ago. Han's first post is on page 2, see http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/47554-quick-poll-1d-2c-x/

Not at all. In that thread I was asking han what he played and getting a feel for why things were arranged as they are. In this thread I simply pointed out that han's methods are very good here. Unfortunately I did not yet find time to go through this in detail and look for additional options (it is on my list of specific auctions to look at). I have confidence that han's method is an improvement over Standard though.

[han]

For those who don't know, han and Zel are having the same conversation as they did 18 months ago. Han's first post is on page 2, see http://www.bridgebas...k-poll-1d-2c-x/

 

While the conversation is not identical, my methods are indeed unchanged. And since both gwnn (in the old thread) and phil (here) know of but misremember our methods, there must at least be a third thread in which I explained my methods. Apparently I did so very poorly.

 

Han, when does opener pass 1D-(2C)-2D? Don't you have similar (or worse) problems there as after 1D-(2C)-x-p, 2D?

 

2D is non-forcing and usually shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand. 5 hearts is possible but more often responder will have 4. Opener passes when he thinks that's right. I'd say in practice you pass with a doubleton heart, and bid with 4 hearts. When you have 3 hearts it depends on your diamond suit.

 

The last time I bid 2D I had something like Jxx AQ10x xxx xxx.

 

We tried not to double or bid 2D with a long major. For that reason we played that a jump to 3M shows a decent 6-card suit and is "constructive". We played this in many overcall auctions, for example 1D - (1H) - 2C = 10+, 3C = 6-9 with long clubs.

 

I don't really understand your second question. If I make a standard negative double with a xx AQxxx Qxx xxx, I fear partner responding 2S, not 2D. If I can bid 2D NF then we might not end in the optimal strain, but I'd have shown 4+ hearts, denied 4+ spades, and if partner passes 2D then we probably landed in a playable strain.

 

When I started to play this method my partner told me that the main benefit appeared when the opponents raised to 3C. After a standard negative double this is a difficult situation as responder could have either or both majors, and any strength. For us we either promise or deny spades, and without spades we'll also have indicated our strength. I found this a good enough reason to give the method a try. In the three years our partnership lasted I cannot remember the raise to 3C coming up.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah I'm not sure you'd want to double any less frequently playing Precision when partner can easily have a penalty pass of clubs. Still, 1D (2C) X (P); 2M is pretty horrific, any kit here? I'm sure it's worth giving up playing in 2D in order to split [balanced with 4cM] from [5+D4M].

 

Nope, if you think of one let me know :P

[helene_t]

 

2D is non-forcing and usually shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand. 5 hearts is possible but more often responder will have 4.

But wouldn't you have to bid 2♦ with something like xxx AXxxx - Jxxxx? It looks to me as if you have to chose between pass, 2♦ and 3♥ with any hand that has 4+ hearts, 3- spades and not enough strength for a forcing 2♥ response, hence 2♦ would cover a wide range of hands, including some with a bad 6-card hearts. Or am I missing something?

[han]

But wouldn't you have to bid 2♦ with something like xxx AXxxx - Jxxxx? It looks to me as if you have to chose between pass, 2♦ and 3♥ with any hand that has 4+ hearts, 3- spades and not enough strength for a forcing 2♥ response, hence 2♦ would cover a wide range of hands, including some with a bad 6-card hearts. Or am I missing something?

 

I think that the hand you gave is a bad hand for what I play. I would never bid 2D with this shape though, but choose between pass and 2H.

[JLOGIC]

What's wrong with passing?

[gnasher]

With 3505 you pass, partner doubles, and you bid some number of hearts.

 

I think that the worst hand for Han's methods is an 8-count with 4-4 in the majors. That's not terribly surprising, of course - if you add definition on the hands where you have exactly one major, there's likely to be a cost on the other hands. Still, on a superficial analysis you gain more often than you lose.

[mikeh]

With 3505 you pass, partner doubles, and you bid some number of hearts.

 

I think that the worst hand for Han's methods is an 8-count with 4-4 in the majors. That's not terribly surprising, of course - if you add definition on the hands where you have exactly one major, there's likely to be a cost on the other hands. Still, on a superficial analysis you gain more often than you lose.

I still don't get it.

 

Yes, I see that han's methods probably gain, relative to more standard approaches, when responder holds various major suit holdings. There are costs, but I agree that on balance one seems likely to gain more frequently than one would lose, and that the losses are probably on hands where the cost may be modest.

 

But what about the diamond suit? Doesn't anyone ever have a fit for partner anymore? Or do we always have to bid 3♦ even when we would otherwise want to bid 2♦?

 

Maybe I am just being too old-fashioned, or maybe in the 21st century nobody ever gets a diamond raise hand without a 4 card major, other than me and my partners, but doesn't han's method simply make what used to be a wtp 2♦ bid literally unbiddable?

 

This is particularly an issue, I would have thought, for those who open 1♣ on 4432 or otherwise use 1♦ to promise length in the suit. We may often want to compete, even if it is a partscore hand, and I still just don't understand how anyone can so blithely remove the diamond suit from our competitive arsenal. Ok, it isn't completely gone, but we don't always have either a preempt or a limit plus. Sometimes we just have a raise. What do we do with that?

[gnasher]

Playing a 3+ diamond, with 3352 we bid 3♦ and blame Larry Cohen if it doesn't work; with 3343 we probably have to pass, but I can live with that.

 

Playing a 4+ diamond, bidding 3♦ on these hands is less of a problem, because we were probably going to have to compete to 3♦ anyway. You don't often bid

1

♦

(2

♣

) 2

♦

all pass

[cherdano]

This is particularly an issue, I would have thought, for those who open 1♣ on 4432 or otherwise use 1♦ to promise length in the suit. We may often want to compete, even if it is a partscore hand, and I still just don't understand how anyone can so blithely remove the diamond suit from our competitive arsenal. Ok, it isn't completely gone, but we don't always have either a preempt or a limit plus. Sometimes we just have a raise. What do we do with that?

It seems less of a problem if 1D promises 4+, not more of a problem. Of course, 3♦ won't be preemptive.

 

I am not sure I agree with Andy's point that Han is losing when he doubles with 4=4 in the majors and 8 hcp. Han promises 4 spades, probably with a 4-card red suit on the side. A standard negative double promises - oh well, it doesn't promise anything. Say it goes 1D (2C) X (3C) ? . Would you rather know that partner has 4+ spades, or that partner has one of both majors/one major + diamond support/one long major? Seems like a close call to me.

[gnasher]

I am not sure I agree with Andy's point that Han is losing when he doubles with 4=4 in the majors and 8 hcp. Han promises 4 spades, probably with a 4-card red suit on the side. A standard negative double promises - oh well, it doesn't promise anything. Say it goes 1D (2C) X (3C) ? . Would you rather know that partner has 4+ spades, or that partner has one of both majors/one major + diamond support/one long major? Seems like a close call to me.

I was thinking mainly about the hands where he plays in 2♦ instead of 2♥.

[han]

I am happy to let Arend defend the convention, for it seems like he will easily outpost the skeptics.

 

But for the record, I don't believe I ever claimed that this convention is better than standard negative doubles. I honestly don't know.

[Zelandakh]

I have been wondering if anyone has ever tried playing invitational free bids in this auction in an XYZ-style structure, something like:

 

1♦ - (2♣)

==

X = weak (2♦ raise, 2M NFB) or GF with 5-5 majors

2♦ = art GF

2M = 4+ suit, invitational/constructive strength, NF

2N = nat, NF

3♣ = good raise (UCB)

 

I am not claiming this to be better than a transfer-based scheme, only wondering if this has been tried and, if so, how it compares with the alternatives.