1D-(1H)-2H?

[Kungsgeten]

I've been thinking about using transfers if the opponents double or overcall 1H over our natural unbalanced diamond opening. I've thought about some structures and was wondering what you guys are playing (or have thought of playing). In particular the sequence 1D-(1H)-2H is interesting, since we can make a direct raise or a transfer raise to diamonds and use 1S as balanced.

 

1D--(1H)---

Dbl = 4+ spades

1S = 0-3 spades, usually balanced

1N = Transfer to clubs. We play this as weak or GF uncontested, perhaps it should be here too?

2C = Transfer raise. We play his as weak or GF uncontested.

2D = Direct raise. We play this as INV uncontested.

2H = ???

2S = Weak

2N = Natural INV?

3C = We play this as natural INV uncontested.

3D = Preemptive raise

3H = Splinter, or perhaps a transfer to 3NT?

3S = Fit show

4C = Fit show

 

Over our Swedish club (11--13 bal or 17+) we play 1C--(1H)--2H as a GF stopper ask. Does this make sense here too?

[Finch]

I like 2H to show 6 or more spades and some agreed range. That takes some of the strain off the double. After, say, 1D 1H dbl 4H P P you are guessing a bit when you have a game force with long spades, after 1D 1H 2H 4H P P you can double happily.

[paulg]

We play the Garozzo method where the cue bid shows 5-5 in the unbid suits, with invitational or better values. I doubt it has the frequency of Frances' method, but it is useful when it does come up.

[Zelandakh]

X = 4+ spades

1♠ = clubs or balanced without stop

1NT = nat

2♣ = raise

2♦ = raise

2♥ = 6+ spades, weak or GF

2♠ = fit jump

 

I looked up Ben's Equality and he plays:

 

X = spades

1♠ = Clubs, or balanced misfit

1NT = Natural, non-forcing

2♣ = 4+ spades, relatively balanced

2♦ = 5+ spades, forcing

2♥ = Diamond fit, invite (not GF, see 2NT)

2♠ = Fit jump, NF

2NT = Weak or game forcing raise

3♣♠ = Fit jump, NF

3♦ = Weak (but not desperately weak)

3♥ = Looks for 3NT with stopper

 

 

Using the 2♣ response to take additional load off the double looks an interesting idea. I think a compromise between the 2 schemes where one of 2♣/2♦ shows a raise and the other shows spades might be better than both of these. Perhaps 2♣ as a diamond raise (of all strengths) and 2♦ to show 5+ spades, INV+? That is:

 

X = 4+ spades

1♠ = clubs or balanced without stop

1NT = nat

2♣ = raise

2♦ = 5 spades, GF; or 5+ spades, invite

2♥ = 6+ spades, weak or GF

2♠ = fit jump

[phoenix214]

Well you can try the Canadian version which was in Nightmare:

X-4 or 5 ♠

1♠- 0-3 spades

1NT-NAT

2♣, NF

2♦, NF

2♥, 6+♠ - 8+HCP(wants to be in game opposite good hand with support)

2♠, 6+ 0-7

2NT+ Up to you

I tried playing this over the precision diamond. Although now we might find a better structure playing precision with an unbalanced diamond, where 1♦ is similar to yours, and at the moment we play X=4, and 1♠=5+, but i suppose i could try to market my partner one of these methods(Muhahaha)

Today showed him Equality.

About 2♥ overall, i think it should be used a forcing hand with a spade-onesuiter, as mentioned above

[gnasher]

I like

2♥ = 6 spades any strength, or 5 spades game-forcing

2♠ = exactly 5 spades with a reasonable suit, exactly invitational

 

This means that in a sequence like

1

♣

1

♥

dbl 5

♥

pass pass dbl

responder will usually have only four spades.

[Free]

I use it as 6+♠ weak or GF (and 2♠ shows the intermediate hand). This relieves some tension of the Dbl (now showing 4-5♠).

 

Remark: this is in a precision framework, where ♦s aren't natural and opener is limited.

[kgr]

1D-(1H)-?

DBL=4+cS

1S=0-3cS

1NT=Natural, stop

2C=Nat, 1RF

2D=6cS, weak or GF

2H=D-fit, inv+

2S=5cS, 4cD, weak

2NT=4+cD, very weak

3C=6cC, invite

3D=4cD, 6-9

3H=splinter

3S=6cS, invite