Interference over Heeman

[phoenix214]

Starting to play Heeman, we had a small misunderstanding in a tournament which led to a -800.

The problem was:

1NT-2♣(Puppet to 2♦)-(X)-p(we agreed that, p=no stop, 2♦=club stop, and XX, good clubs)-(p)-XX?

The question is what should redouble be here?

The 2 club bid can have the following hands: SO in 2♦, Game going hands with 5M, GI with 5M-4m+, ST with 5M-4m+, weak with both minors, ST in a minor. He thought that XX was please bid 2♦, i thought it would be strong. The idea is that you can bid like normal, with any hand that has other meanings that is not SO in 2♦, so that means, that either XX should be: i have SO in ♦, or i have good clubs and want to play 2♣XX.

Any recomandidations?:)

[DJNeill]

Maybe says ok for partner to compete to 3D if they bid 3C, if partner has the 5 card diamond signoff, so 3-4 diamonds.

[kgr]

We have in our system:

1NT-(P)-2C-(DBL)

?:

- RDBL: to play

- 2D: 3+cD

- Pass: no 3cD

 

1NT-(P)-2C-(DBL)

P-(P)-?

- RDBL: retransfer D

- 2D: to play

- Rest: system on.

[Zelandakh]

I have a standard recommendation to play in spots like this:

 

(if partner showed a suit (eg transfer) then:

 

P = denies a fit, then XX = re-transfer

XX = penalty

complete = fit

other = super-fit

 

(if partner was asking (eg Stayman) then:

 

P = something in the suit (stop showing), then XX = re-ask

XX = penalty (a good suit)

complete = lack of something in the suit (no stop)

 

(if partner's bid was a puppet then:

 

P = something in the suit (stop showing), then XX = penalty

XX = penalty (a good suit)

complete = lack of something in the suit (no stop)

 

I cannot say I know Heeman very well (and kgr's diamond-based approach might be more suitable) but it sounds from your post that case 3 applies here. That gives something similar to what you are already playing but with P and 2♦ reversed. The point of doing it this way round is that partner can convert the pass more esaily knowing you have something there if this seems like a good idea. The reason why I sugegst penalty here is that Responder was not looking for any information from Opener and no space has been taken away in terms of making the normal call. This is different if for example the 2♣ call is Puppet Stayman, which is not a real puppet. It is true that this method can lead to 2♦ being wrong-sided. I just do not think that gaining this offsets the potential to have them absolutely banged to rights in 2♣XX without anywhere to run to.

[phoenix214]

Thanks Zel, we bascially had a misunderstanding between your case 2 and 3 about pass =>Redouble and i just wanted to know what meta rules are good for this kind of a bid, because it is still something new. We do play some relays(Used to play Full Stayman over 1NT, which is basically the reverse thing of what you should be doing), so XX as just bid as normal might have seemed normal.

I like the idea of reversing the bids of i have something, and i do not have anything in puppet variations, should suggest this to partner. In the actual match the bidding went:

1NT-2♣-(X),

p-(p)-XX-2♥,

X-(p)-3♦-(p),

3NT?-(p)-p-X-AP

I had a weak NT, i had upgraded facing a 5 count.

[Free]

Since responder hasn't shown a suit, has no ♦ on many occasions, and didn't transfer to 3♦ either (so he's not really willing to compete anyway), I prefer to focus on stoppers and penalizing opps.

 

RDbl = ♣ with interest to play 2♣xx

...2♦ = signoff

...other = system on

Pass = ♣ stopper but no interest to play 2♣xx

...RDbl = to play 2♣xx anyway

...2♦ = signoff

...other = system on

2♦ = no ♣ stopper

...System on