Wrong shape

[Finch]

If it's good enough for the TeamEngland it's good enough for me :P

 

I may be spoiling gnasher's thread, but the call chosen by the English player at the table in the Europeans was pass.

 

(I admit they were playing in the women's event, however, which you would have identified already if you'd seen the monster that was considered only enough for a 3D opening)

[Zelandakh]

Does the auction after double not seem to be a perfect spot to be using a black suit inversion? So after (3♦) - X - 3♥, 3♠ would show 4 spades and longer clubs while 4♣ would show a flexible hand with 5+ spades. This way we are keeping 3NT as an option on the hands most likely to want it. It is hard for me to imagine that Ken does not have some system to cover situations like this one. Perhaps inverting any time they preempt in a minor and the advance to our takeout double is 3♥ would work as a general rule.

 

As an aside, the first method I came up with (as a kid) for double then bid after a preempt was for the first step advance to show a minimum with the other 2 suits regardless of length. That was a long time before I heard phrases like "flexible hand" and indeed the only thing I had learned about double then bid at that time was that it showed a strong hand. Sort of an in-between step from what the books seemed to be saying to what better players were doing.

[jallerton]

Does the auction after double not seem to be a perfect spot to be using a black suit inversion? So after (3♦) - X - 3♥, 3♠ would show 4 spades and longer clubs while 4♣ would show a flexible hand with 5+ spades. This way we are keeping 3NT as an option on the hands most likely to want it. It is hard for me to imagine that Ken does not have some system to cover situations like this one. Perhaps inverting any time they preempt in a minor and the advance to our takeout double is 3♥ would work as a general rule.

 

Theoretical answer: I'm not sure. Whilst your point about 3NT may have something going for it, you are more likely to want to stop in 3♠ if you have 5+ spades than if you have precisely 4.

 

Practical answer: you must be joking. This sort of 'brilliant' agreement is liable to be forgotten.

[lamford]

Just relax, take a deep breath, and come over to the unequal level conversion club.

or diamond

[whereagles]

It is true that dbl + pull x♥ to spades (showing the blacks) is a way out of this.

 

I seem to remember Robson/Segal bidding like this in one of their examples. They advocate that after preempts dbl + new suit should NOT be 1-suited with extras but a flexible hand. If the "correction" is unequal, it should contain some extra strength.

[phil_20686]

Theoretical answer: I'm not sure. Whilst your point about 3NT may have something going for it, you are more likely to want to stop in 3♠ if you have 5+ spades than if you have precisely 4.

 

Practical answer: you must be joking. This sort of 'brilliant' agreement is liable to be forgotten.

 

This type of agreement shouldnt really exist outside of pro pairs, and even then....

 

I mean fantoni-nunes forgot whether they were playing transfers after 1h (3c) ? in the final game against ENgland. And that is a much easier thing to remember, and few pairs put as much work into their system as Fantoni-Nunes do.

[phil_20686]

I would have doubled btw. Not sure if I would pull 3H. Defo sit 4h.