[Echognome]

The title is my wording, not anyone else's.

So in the current Acbl mag, there is a bidding problem similar to below.

1♦ - (3♣) - ?

---

The two expert pairs that bid the hand passed (selling out to 3♣) and game-forced with 3♠ (getting to a no play game). The target on the hand was actually to get to 3♠. But how?

So the bridge magazine suggested one doubles, then corrects a 3♥ bid to 3♠. I don't think it mentioned what to do over a 3♦ bid, but i'm agnostic to that question at the moment.

It certainly mentioned that there were risks associated with this strategy. (e.g. partner jumping to 4♥)

So many questions:

1) Do you use this type of meaning for double and correct? Or does that show a different hand type for you?

2) What if our majors were reversed? Would the strategy be too risky for this hand?

3) Suppose we felt that pass was the winning call on this type of hand. If partner reopens with a double, aren't we worth a jump to 4M anyway? (this might depend on your opening and reopening style by the way) What type of hand would you expect for pass then jump, vs. double then correct?

4) Any other relevant thoughts on this?

[han]

I think it is a problem hand and I don't have a good solution. Double followed by 3S would be NF for me but it can be very ugly if they bid more as partner will expect a better hand.

[Echognome]

Not to make things even more confusing, but...

5) Contrast how we would bid the original hand to how we would bid AKxx Axx Qxx xxx on the auction 1♦ - (3♣) - Dbl - (P); 3♥ - (P) - ?

Han already gave me his answer to this (thanks!), but other opinions are also appreciated.

[Cascade]

I bid a simple Non Forcing 3♠.

[Echognome]

Cascade, on Apr 3 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

I bid a simple Non Forcing 3♠.

So for Wayne, I need yet another hand type.

6) How do you bid then with AKxxx Qxx Axx xx? Contrasting with say the same hand with a spade less and a club more.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Apr 4 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

Cascade, on Apr 3 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

I bid a simple Non Forcing 3♠.

So for Wayne, I need yet another hand type.

6) How do you bid then with AKxxx Qxx Axx xx? Contrasting with say the same hand with a spade less and a club more.

Double ...

over

3♦/♥ bid 3♠ forcing

3♠ raise to 4♠

3NT pass

4♦ bid 4♠ showing five spades GF and a flexible hand - partner will expect some diamond support

[awm]

echognome said:

1)Do you use this type of meaning for double and correct? Or does that show a different hand type for you?

Yes, I think this is the standard meaning. Obviously some people (Cascade) play negative free bids but I have never gotten very good results from that approach.

echognome said:

2) What if our majors were reversed? Would the strategy be too risky for this hand?

Probably too risky.

echognome said:

3) Suppose we felt that pass was the winning call on this type of hand. If partner reopens with a double, aren't we worth a jump to 4M anyway? (this might depend on your opening and reopening style by the way) What type of hand would you expect for pass then jump, vs. double then correct?

Yes, we are worth a jump to 4M. I would expect basically the same hand with one fewer spade for pass then jump. Or the same hand with hearts, since double with hearts is risky.

echognome said:

4) Any other relevant thoughts on this?

Especially if 1♦ is precision-style (i.e. could be short, often weak NT) it makes sense to play transfers here. So 3♥=spades and you can play 3♠. You lose the natural diamond raise, but if 1♦ was "2+ diamonds" then you don't want to raise all that frequently anyway.

[gnasher]

1) Yes, double then 3♠ shows this hand-type. I wouldn't worry much about partner bidding 4♥ - I'd just convert to 4♠, which would be fine opposite, for example, xx AKxx AKxxx xx (though ♠10 in dummy would be nice).

2) With the majors reversed it would be too risky.

3) Yes, you could pass planning to bid 4♠ if partner doubles. There are, however, two problems with this approach:
- You can't get to 3♠ when it's right, which it will be opposite most weak notrumps.
- Partner may not reopen on a hand where 4♠ is good.

4) Other relevant thoughts:
- It's a difficult to bid accurately over a preempt. Remember that next time you're wondering what to do over their opening.
- Four-card majors would reduce this problem, whilst creating a number of others.

5) With AKxx Axx Qxx xxx I would double and then bid 4♣, showing doubt about the best strain. If partner is 2443 with a club stop, we end up in 4♥ rather than 3NT, which is undesirable but may be survivable.

[maxentius]

I use after 1♦-(2♣) or after 1♦-(3♣) with transfers. I'll loose 2/3♦ natural but I'll winn many other things

So: 1♦-(3♣)-3♦= at least competitive with ♥ (part will bid 3♥ with a min hand, will bid 4♥ with an ordinary hand, will make a cuebid with a strong one)

also:1♦-(3♣)-3♥= for ♠

1♦-(3♣)-3♠ = GF with ♦ or GF bal 3334 without ♣ stop

JUST AN IDEEA

[Edmunte1]

I also play transfers after 1♦-(3♣), with inv+ hands. I think that this method works better than the natural forcing free bids. Another possibility is to play 3♦ as NF and to revert 3♠ and 3♥ calls (3♥=5+♠ inv+, 3♠=5+♥ GF). The main advantages of this method are rightsiding the contract and the possibility to stop in 3♠.

To Wayne: I realy hate playing NF free-bids here, but maybe the preempt isn't raised too often in your country

Playing natural methods, double and 3♠ shouls show this type of hand.

[Apollo81]

Agree that this is a great situation for transfers.