[kenberg]

I think that it is highly standard to play 1C-(1D)-X as showing at least four in both majors and 1C-(1D)-M as showing at least four in M (and presumably either not four in OM lr else significantly longer and stronger in M than OM). But it seems to me there is less consensus about what happens after 1D-(2C). If you feel this belongs in B/I I won't contest that, but still it seems to me there is a lot of confusion on this among fairly experiences players, myself included.

1D-(2C)-2M shows five cards. I take this as given. And responder will not always be 4-4 in the majors after 1C-(2C). Thus, after 1D-(2C), he might have a problem. A decent hand with four cards in one major but not the other. Requiring that responder be (at least) 4-4 seems restrictive, not doing so invites future problems. For example: 1D-(2C)-X-(Pass). Opener might be 4=4=3=2. He does what? I realize that some open that hand 1C, but most of us open it 1D. And, anyway, we all (standard American) open our 4=4=4=1 hands with 1D. I suppose 3C by opener in respnse to the negative double shows both, but does everyone play it as such? And, anyway, that requires extra strength. With modest values and 4=4=3=2 I suppose opener responds to the negative double in spades, figuring he can bid 3H at is next (hoped for) turn. One way to play is that responder, if he does not hold both majors, will always hold diamond, and the strength to correct to Ds, or else he cannot double. I can see the point. Or, of curse, we can insist that he always holds both else he must wait for the re-opening double.

SAYC (Google SAYC to see the booklet, for some reason when I put in the link it does not work) says that the negative double "shows four cards (at least) in an unbid major". The somewhat extended version at http://nulda.bridgec...ystemy/sayc.pdf, replaces "an unbid major" by "any unbid major" so I gather they are saying 1D-(2C)-X promises both. There are no examples given for problem hands after 1D-(2C).

I agree that this is very basic but basic does not always equate to straightforward. I am interested in what others play.

Afterthought: This also seems to be an argument for stretching a bit to overcall 1D with 2C whenever it is at all reasonable. But then most people these days seem to not need any encouragement to climb into the auction.

[Kaitlyn S]

I see nobody has answered this yet so I'll say what I think. 1D (2C) X shows about 8+ and at least one four card major and a place to play if partner bids the wrong major. Also, I do not think this sequence is straightforward or even basic. I can see some good players having issues if they're in a new partnership.

---

Because my distribution is good for the call, I'll double here with 7 points. On the other hand,

---

Here I have no great call when partner bids 2S (not at all unlikely) so I pass.


The problems come when opener has a decent hand. A jump to 4H or 4S is risky opposite no guarantee of a fit, so opener frequently has to cuebid 3C when holding the values to bid game. (Do some people play that 4H promises spades as well? I play that the jump to 4H shows four hearts and lots of diamonds; thus I'm playing in a red suit.)

There was a thread not too long ago which discusses bidding over this auction.

1D 2C Dbl P ?

[ggwhiz]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-30, 12:19, said:

1D (2C) X shows about 8+ and at least one four card major and a place to play if partner bids the wrong major.

100%

Promising both majors and bidding with 1 may be popular in some places but no more than 50% and imo it sucks. I've had a lot of good results against it.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-30, 12:19, said:

I see nobody has answered this yet so I'll say what I think. 1D (2C) X shows about 8+ and at least one four card major and a place to play if partner bids the wrong major. Also, I do not think this sequence is straightforward or even basic. I can see some good players having issues if they're in a new partnership.

---

Because my distribution is good for the call, I'll double here with 7 points. On the other hand,

---

Here I have no great call when partner bids 2S (not at all unlikely) so I pass.


The problems come when opener has a decent hand. A jump to 4H or 4S is risky opposite no guarantee of a fit, so opener frequently has to cuebid 3C when holding the values to bid game. (Do some people play that 4H promises spades as well? I play that the jump to 4H shows four hearts and lots of diamonds; thus I'm playing in a red suit.)

There was a thread not too long ago which discusses bidding over this auction.

1D 2C Dbl P ?

The thread you link to illustrates the problem very well. I trust it is ok to reproduce the hand here

2/1 IMPS GA. Your call?

---

Assume the X does not promise both majors. I think this is broadly but not universally true. Given my two card heart holding and the fact nobody has yet bid them I would place a heavy bet that partner has hearts. And this means it is probably about even money as to whether he has spades. If he has spades we belong in (at least) 4S. If he does not have spades we probably belong in 5 or maybe 6 diamonds. But it is not impossible that we belong in 3NT, especailly at matchpoints. Maybe we can take three spades, six diamonds and either a club or a heart, while the diamond slam is off two aces.

There was discussion there as to whether a 3S call is forcing. I think it should be forcing in the following sense: If partner has four spades, he is to bid 4S. If partner does not have four spades then he needs to get us out of spades. To put it another way, whenI bid 3S I am forcing us to the four level whenever partner does not have spades. Surely if I have a hand where I can force to the four level when he does not have spades, I want to be at the four level when he does.

But it is a great hand for highlighting the issue I have in mind.

[helene_t]

Kaitlyn explains standard methods well.

But I don't think standard methods are very good. For one thing, whenever you make a natural freebid, you risk wrongsiding the contract. You want overcaller to be on lead. Secondly, if responder has a weak hand with long hearts, he doubles first hoping to be able to bid 2♥ next time but obviously that doesn't always happen. Third, if dbl can be a weak very unbalanced hand opener can't easily convert it with four clubs.

I believe you can sacrifice the simple raise. When you have a diamond fit and no 4-card major, you usually have 3-level safety.

So 2♦ is better played as a transfer to hearts.

Han has an alternative method in which the 2♦ raise promises diamonds plus a specific major (I think it was hearts). Dbl then promises spades but no necesarily hearts.

[kenberg]

I am not surprised to hear that there are modern/advanced methods in use. And yep, maybe I should learn them We dinosaurs are slow to adjust.

[akwoo]

I will note that many partnerships are confused about their methods for finding potential major suit fits after 1D - ( P ) - 2C - ( P ). The issues might not be unrelated.

[Kaitlyn S]

helene_t, on 2017-January-30, 14:33, said:

So 2♦ is better played as a transfer to hearts.

Can you answer some simple questions about this?

(1) I presume that the responder can pass 2H?

(2) If (1) is yes, then opener has to bid something other than 2H when he wants to play something other than 2H opposite something like:
Qx, KJTxxx, xx, xxx (which I am assuming transfers and then passes)?

(3) How few hearts can opener have and still just accept the transfer?

(4) Does the 2D transfer promise at least five hearts?

(5) What does it take for opener to ignore the transfer and bid 2NT? To bid 3H? To bid 2S?

[SteveMoe]

kenberg, on 2017-January-30, 09:01, said:

I think that it is highly standard to play 1C-(1D)-X as showing at least four in both majors and 1C-(1D)-M as showing at least four in M (and presumably either not four in OM lr else significantly longer and stronger in M than OM). But it seems to me there is less consensus about what happens after 1D-(2C).

1D-(2C)-2M shows five cards.

SAYC says that the negative double "shows four cards (at least) in an unbid major".
(Shortened for readability)

1♦-(2♣)-X shows at least one 4-card major. It should also show a tolerance for ♦.

Yes, bidding 2♣ over 1♦ carries a higher nuisance value than many non-preempts. Recommend Marty Bergen's book/pamphlet on Negative doubles. Very useful IMHO

Reviewing the bidding:
1♣ - (1♦) - 1M shows 4+ cards. Double shows 4-4 M's, and is the only instance where double shows both majors.
1♦ - (2♣) - 1M shows 5+ cards. Double shows one 4M, and constructive + values.
1♦ - (3♣) - 3M shows 5+ cards and is GF. Double here shows one 4-card major and denies ability to bid 3N. In teams, opener's rebid of 3M tends to deny a ♣ stop for NT. Responsder needs near opening values for the double.
1 any - (3♠) - free bids are GF, double does not promise 4 ♥ cards but does promise values for game. GF with no clear direction. Opener tends to pass with balanced hands.
So from 3♠ up, negative doubles show values for game and no clear direction. The assumption is doubler cannot bid NT.

[helene_t]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-30, 19:36, said:

Can you answer some simple questions about this?

I suppose there are many ways to play this. My thoughts are:

Responder could have only 5 hearts, but opener initially assumes that responder has 6 hearts and 8+ points, i.e. opener accepts with almost any minimum. It takes about 16 points to bid something else but I think with a stiff hearts and a good 6-card diamonds he can bid 3♦ with about 14 points. Basically, opener accepts the transfer with any hand that would have passed a negative freebid, as well as with slightly stronger hands (since an 11-count could have made an NFB, but an 11-count responder will make a second move after the transfer).

It is not ideal since it can lead to a 5-1 fit. Responder can still decide to double instead of transfering with a weak hand and a heart suit that is not suitable for playing opposite a singleton. So it is not perfect but it does make the double more tightly defined than in standard methods. If responder first doubles and then bids a major he specifically shows a flexible hand since with a one-suiter he would have transferred.

[kenberg]

SteveMoe, on 2017-January-30, 22:11, said:

1♦-(2♣)-X shows at least one 4-card major. It should also show a tolerance for ♦.

Yes, bidding 2♣ over 1♦ carries a higher nuisance value than many non-preempts. Recommend Marty Bergen's book/pamphlet on Negative doubles. Very useful IMHO

Reviewing the bidding:
1♣ - (1♦) - 1M shows 4+ cards. Double shows 4-4 M's, and is the only instance where double shows both majors.
1♦ - (2♣) - 2M shows 5+ cards. Double shows one 4M, and constructive + values.
1♦ - (3♣) - 3M shows 5+ cards and is GF. Double here shows one 4-card major and denies ability to bid 3N. In teams, opener's rebid of 3M tends to deny a ♣ stop for NT. Responsder needs near opening values for the double.
1 any - (3♠) - free bids are GF, double does not promise 4 ♥ cards but does promise values for game. GF with no clear direction. Opener tends to pass with balanced hands.
So from 3♠ up, negative doubles show values for game and no clear direction. The assumption is doubler cannot bid NT.

Let me push this a little farther. I have a number of books, Bergen and others, but I don't think I have the one you cite.

1D (2C) X (Pass)
?

Give opener a 4=4=3=2 shape and a 13 count. So we are playing a strong NT and this shape is (either usually or always) opened 1D. Now what? I am thinking 2S. Responder is supposed to be able to cope with 2S, else he should not have doubled. If partner pulls us from spades, I can later bid 3H.

This sounds fairly reasonable, although with four good hearts and four lousy spades I am not so sure I would do it. A 2H bid is attractive.

I assume that if, instead, opener calls 2H over the double then a call of 2S by doubler shows more than four. Maybe he can do it on a decent five, but not on four. So bidding 2H, assuming partner will correct to spades if he has four spades but lacks four hearts, is unrealistic.

I don't think that I have seen this discussed in any text. Surely good regular partnerships have thought it through.Not that I want to speak ill of my regular partnerships past and present, but I have never worked this through with any on them.

[SteveMoe]

kenberg, on 2017-February-01, 08:45, said:

I assume that if, instead, opener calls 2H over the double then a call of 2S by doubler shows more than four. Maybe he can do it on a decent five, but not on four. So bidding 2H, assuming partner will correct to spades if he has four spades but lacks four hearts, is unrealistic.

I don't think that I have seen this discussed in any text. Surely good regular partnerships have thought it through.Not that I want to speak ill of my regular partnerships past and present, but I have never worked this through with any on them.

With a 4=4=3=2 13 count, bid 2♥ - partner should correct to 2♠ if not ♥ tolerance. Correction does not promise 5 here because partner only promises one 4-card major. 2♠ by opener denies 4 ♥ cards. If responder is some 1-4-(53) with no ♠ tolerance, they will return to 3m or 3om, neither of which is forcing. You land is no worse than a 5-2 ♣ fit worst case.

With 18+, 3♣ is available to opener.

[helene_t]

SteveMoe, on 2017-February-01, 19:58, said:

With a 4=4=3=2 13 count, bid 2♥ - partner should correct to 2♠ if not ♥ tolerance. Correction does not promise 5 here because partner only promises one 4-card major.

I see your point but don't you want to be able to do something as responder with 7-9 points and 5-6 spades? If I am not allowed to play transfers (or NFB) then I think I prefer the double followed by 2♠ to show that. With four spades I will double and then bid either 2NT or 3♦ after opener's 2♥. He doesn't usually have 4-4 in the majors anyway when he opens 1♦.

Now Cyberyeti will point out that Acol players don't have this problem

[kenberg]

SteveMoe, on 2017-February-01, 19:58, said:

With a 4=4=3=2 13 count, bid 2♥ - partner should correct to 2♠ if not ♥ tolerance. Correction does not promise 5 here because partner only promises one 4-card major. 2♠ by opener denies 4 ♥ cards. If responder is some 1-4-(53) with no ♠ tolerance, they will return to 3m or 3om, neither of which is forcing. You land is no worse than a 5-2 ♣ fit worst case.

With 18+, 3♣ is available to opener.

A little checking shows that Steve Robinson, in Washington Standard, agrees with this (I should have looked before). With 4-4 opener chooses hearts, and then a 2S call by responder shows four spades plus diamonds. I realize this is not exactly what you are saying, I don't think you are insisting that responder must hold diamonds for this call, but yes SR is agreeing that 2S is on four. I would be hesitant to try this with a partner unless it had been discussed. I would have thought, and I gather that Helene would have thought, that the 2S is on a hand that has the length but not the strength to bid 2S directly over 2C.

Choices must be made. However we choose, hands will arise where we will wish we had chosen differently.

I am not convinced that 2S on four is a good idea. If I tell you something and Steve Robinson tells you something different of course you should listen to Steve. But a person might also seek a second opinion from another source. You cited the Bergen text before. Is this idea of a four card 2S correction to 2H in there as well? As you can tell, I'm struggling with accepting it.

Added: at http://www.rpbridge.net/5a00.htm rfp gives responder a 4=2=4=3 shape with modest vales, and suggests that after 1D-(2C)-X-(pass)-2H-(Pass) that responder now bid 3D.