New suit at 2-lv. vs. t/o X: Weak or Forcing?

[zanku148]

Generally, over opponents' takeout double, a response in new suit at the 2-level is weak(as in SAYC).

However, I've seen that some agreements(as in Modern Standard American) treat those biddings as forcing.

 

Are there any differences regarding of these two options, in learning & in performance?

[Stephen Tu]

Generally, over opponents' takeout double, a response in new suit at the 2-level is weak(as in SAYC).

However, I've seen that some agreements(as in Modern Standard American) treat those biddings as forcing.

What reference claims this? Book? Web article? It's most likely an error IMO. The standard is still for *2-level* new suit to be non-forcing in America. *1-level* changed to forcing many decades ago.

 

The real "modern" advanced treatment is not to change 2/1 after double to be forcing, but rather to implement some sort of *transfer* scheme after 1H-dbl or 1S-dbl; there is some variance in exactly which call is the first transfer bid available, and which natural bids are given up. With a transfer scheme you can show both weaker and strong hands.

[pescetom]

The real "modern" advanced treatment is not to change 2/1 after double to be forcing, but rather to implement some sort of *transfer* scheme after 1H-dbl or 1S-dbl; there is some variance in exactly which call is the first transfer bid available, and which natural bids are given up. .

 

My understanding is that some play transfers after 1m-dbl too, giving up redbl as root (but giving up 1NT as root after 1M-dbl).

[mikeh]

In my partnerships, we play transfers over takeout doubles after we start with 1x, where x is any suit.

 

1C x xx is diamonds, 1D is hearts etc.

 

My two regular partners have differing preferences over 1M (x)

 

One likes transfers to start with xx, but leave 1N as natural (so 1S shows clubs) while the other likes xx to show values and no fit (or gf with a fit) and 1N to be clubs, etc.

 

My own preference is that all transfers start with xx and that 1S (if available) shows a hand that outdoor have bid 1N if permitted.

 

Pass then double shows approximately 10+ hcp and 4441, stiff in opener’s suit, but I stress the approximately.

 

Our view, in both partnerships, is that while 1 level penalties can exist, and be profitable, on the whole designing one’s methods to maximize collecting such penalties is inefficient. We do tend to open fairly light, in that we very rarely pass balanced 11 counts or shapely 10 counts, which does affect the odds of a successful low level penalty.

[AL78]

With my partners I play new suits as one round forcing, as if there were no double.

[helene_t]

In learning it may be easiest just to ignore the double. You can make the small adjustment that a jump raise is weak and that 2NT includes the limit raise.

 

Wrt performance, if you play English Acol so a 2-level response could be a 9-count anyway, it may not be so bad to ignore the double, but in modern strong-notrump systems where a 2-level response shows 11+ or even GF strength, it is not practical to ignore the double as you will not have the strength for a forcing 2-level response.

 

Also, if you ignore the double you will have to bid 1NT quite often, but it is better to get doubler on lead, especially against a notrump contract. Also, if you have an 8-count with a long suit, it is better to bid the suit as the next hand will often bid and then you want opener to be better placed to decide whether to compete to the 3-level.

[Gilithin]

One likes transfers to start with xx, but leave 1N as natural (so 1S shows clubs) while the other likes xx to show values and no fit (or gf with a fit) and 1N to be clubs, etc.

There is also the solution where 1NT is natural and 1♠ is either clubs or a NT hand without an adequate stopper. This sort of highlights one reason why transfers have rapidly become the modern standard - you essentially have more bidding space and therefore more freedom to arrange hands in just the way you want them.

[apollo1201]

his sort of highlights one reason why transfers have rapidly become the modern standard - you essentially have more bidding space and therefore more freedom to arrange hands in just the way you want them.

It also puts the doubler presumably strong hand on lead, toward partner’s strong hand, a better situation to having partner’s honors tabled as dummy and shot through on the opening lead.

But it is a slightly more complex approach than just plain natural.