[rbforster]

Does anyone here have special bidding agreements over the opponent's auction 1M-1N? I suppose it might matter if the NT was forcing/semi-forcing/non-forcing. A method was recently suggested to me (I didn't retain the name of this convention) that went like this, regardless of the particular flavor of the NT response:

(1M)-(1N)-?

X - shows clubs (like a natural overcall)
2♣ - shows diamonds (like a natural overcall)
2♦ - shows one suited in the other major (OM)
2M - sound takeout of their major
2OM - minimum takeout of their major, non-forcing
2N - unusual for the minors (std)
3♣ - 6+ clubs, 4 in OM, sound hand
3♦ - 6+ diamonds, 4 in OM, sound hand
3M - stopper asking with a running suit
3OM - preemptive

Has anyone used something similar to this, and if so, how do you like it? Do you use other special bids in this sequence instead that you prefer?

[cherdano]

Uhm, I like to have a takeout double that doesn't force partner to go to the 3-level without support for the other major.

[TimG]

It is called Vasilevsky, I believe.

[rbforster]

cherdano, on Apr 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Uhm, I like to have a takeout double that doesn't force partner to go to the 3-level without support for the other major.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion initially, but how often do you really buy the contract for 2 of a minor? Maybe preempting the opponents a little more by bidding 2♠ for light takeout of hearts (for example) causes the opponents enough trouble that it's worth the risk?

TimG, on Apr 6 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

It is called Vasilevsky, I believe.

Yes, that was it.

[TimG]

Rob F, on Apr 6 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Uhm, I like to have a takeout double that doesn't force partner to go to the 3-level without support for the other major.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion initially, but how often do you really buy the contract for 2 of a minor? Maybe preempting the opponents a little more by bidding 2♠ for light takeout of hearts (for example) causes the opponents enough trouble that it's worth the risk?

It's not a matter of being able to buy the contract for 2m, but rather a matter of not being forced to 3m where the opponents may be more willing to double you.

[MFA]

Rob F, on Apr 6 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Uhm, I like to have a takeout double that doesn't force partner to go to the 3-level without support for the other major.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion initially, but how often do you really buy the contract for 2 of a minor? Maybe preempting the opponents a little more by bidding 2♠ for light takeout of hearts (for example) causes the opponents enough trouble that it's worth the risk?

TimG, on Apr 6 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

It is called Vasilevsky, I believe.

Yes, that was it.

It's not so much about buying the contract in 2m, it's about surviving the bad layouts for our action, and also about being able to penalize the opponents from time to time.

Although I love transfer principles, this is not the situation for it IMO. I don't see that we will gain very often here, since we so rarely will hold a 2-bids hand.

[MFA]

1 thing more:
Why play these 3mi bids in this framework? If we hold a 6-4 hand, we would be able to transfer and bid the major conveniently.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Apr 6 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

Uhm, I like to have a takeout double that doesn't force partner to go to the 3-level without support for the other major.

No kidding.

I hate the transfer structure that puts the weak hand on lead too.

[rbforster]

MFA, on Apr 6 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

Why play these 3mi bids in this framework? If we hold a 6-4 hand, we would be able to transfer and bid the major conveniently.

I think in Marshall Miles' write up of this in one of his books, he suggested using transfer to your minor followed by the unbid major as showing a 5/5 hand (in place of the lost Michaels bid). I suppose this leaves you without a convenient way to show 5m-4OM shapes, at least if they aren't takeout-oriented.

Edit: I suppose this is no worse than "standard" where if you're 5m-4OM your options are either to double for takeout or bid 2m naturally (concealing your major).

[gwnn]

what exactly are the gains?

[rbforster]

I haven't ever played this and am just guessing, but...

I think the gains are that you can separate the stronger one suited overcalls from the weaker lead directing ones using the transfer. This means you can transfer and raise on good one suiters or transfer and pass on weak ones. In part this means you can play weaker lead-directing bids than standard, where a single overcall has to cover both types.

Similarly, with a weak and strong takeout bid, you can get in more often with good shape as less values using the weak version and have more safety in knowing partner won't hang you with his 11 count if you used the weak version.

Obviously in this sequence the opponents usually have a decent fraction of the values so being able to cater to weaker shapely hands is potentially more useful if you can still handle the decent hands reasonably when they come up.

[gnasher]

Rob F, on Apr 7 2008, 04:35 AM, said:

I think the gains are that you can separate the stronger one suited overcalls from the weaker lead directing ones using the transfer. This means you can transfer and raise on good one suiters or transfer and pass on weak ones. In part this means you can play weaker lead-directing bids than standard, where a single overcall has to cover both types.

If you really think this is a problem, you can solve it at much less cost by playing strong jump overcalls and playing everything else as standard. A strongish takeout double can surely be taken care of in the traditional way, by doubling and then acting again.

If you also want a way to show a strong hand with four of the other major and a six-card minor, you might use either a a cue bid or 2NT.

[OleBerg]

I play:

2♣ = Sound overcall in the other Major.
2OM = Weaker overcall.
2 Their M = 5-5 in the highest.

Havent had much experience, so cant really recommend or decommend (thats not a real word, is it?) it.

Best Regards

Ole Berg