[awm]

(1) 3♦ shows extras. It is a free bid in a contested auction. Regardless of whether 1♣-1♥-X-P-2♦ would be a reverse, there is no one forcing opener to bid in this auction.

(2) North should bid game over such a free bid, with ten points and five-card support for diamonds.

(3) Suppose the auction had been 1♣-2♥-X-Pass, creating more of a force on opener. If your style is that 3♦ does not show extra values, then opener should bid 3♥ on the hand given. It is not unlikely that 3NT is the right contract with 17 hcp opposite a two-level negative double, and you have to force game in any case.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 25 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 24 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

han, on Apr 24 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

It is probably best to try to play her methods, no matter how outdated they are.

But I dont want to play out dated methods, I want to learn the most effective methods

Your aim should be to learn how to bid effective and succesful
with a given partner.

Just because there are new methods out there and everyone
is playing them, does not mean they are better than the old /
outdated ones.

Transfer Overcall were once in vogue, they were trendy,
overcalling your suit direct was thought to be outdated.
Do you know anyone playing Transfer Overcalls?
There are other examples.

With kind regards
Marlowe

han, on Apr 24 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

It is probably best to try to play her methods, no matter how outdated they are.

This is taken out of context. It may be best trying to play these methods with this particular partner who has been playing for years and likely won’t be interested in changing methods. I think this is also what Han said. Partnership agreement is of course paramount here.

I am posting these questions because I want to know what some of today’s top players are using, not what the LOLs have been playing for the past 50 years. Afterall, without new and perhaps better methods this game would be diminished.

[han]

awm, on Apr 25 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

(1) 3♦ shows extras. It is a free bid in a contested auction. Regardless of whether 1♣-1♥-X-P-2♦ would be a reverse, there is no one forcing opener to bid in this auction.

Do you play that 1C-(1H)-Dbl-(2H)-2S shows extras? I don't think so so this argument is false.

[jdeegan]

South 100%. If you need the opinion of an old fashioned bidder, I am you man. Playing SAYC circa 1976, the negative double shows spades (less than five or a biddable 4 card suit), some cards plus either diamonds or a place to play. On that basis, 3♦ would be competitive, not a dead minimum, but not the relative powerhouse South actually held. When you see game, you gotta make sure you get there, or at least make a clearcut try.

[jillybean]

Back in 1976 I didnt know the game even existed

[han]

Back in 1976 I didn't even know anything existed, how about that!

[whereagles]

After North's dbl, South knows a game is on, so he could have cued 3♥.

Just my opinion.......

[TimG]

han, on Apr 25 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 25 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

Just because there are new methods out there and everyone
is playing them, does not mean they are better than the old /
outdated ones.

In this case the old methods are quite inferior I think, for example, the hand Jillybean had becomes pretty much unbiddable.

Wouldn't you compete to 3♦ with something like xx x KQxx AQxxxx when the negative double is really a takeout double rather than a substitute spade bid?

I don't think jilly's hand becomes unbiddable, I think a good/bad 2NT works nicely (my preference would be a direct 3D shows extras, 2NT followed by 3D shows a hand that is merely competing, but many prefer the other way around).

[han]

whereagles, on Apr 30 2008, 04:48 AM, said:

After North's dbl, South knows a game is on, so he could have cued 3♥.

Just my opinion.......

Nuno, do you play that 3D is a forcing reverse or not? If it is forcing, why would you bid 3H instead, isn't 3D more descriptive? If it is non-forcing, do you play 1C-(1H)-1S-(2H)-3D is also non-forcing?

[whereagles]

han: in my usual partnership I play good-bad 2NT, which would make 3♦ pretty much forcing (weaker hands bid 2NT + 3♦) and routine on the given hand.

But here I wasn't assuming that agreement, hence the recommendation to bid 3♥, to make sure we don't (skillfully) manage to stay out of game

[jillybean]

Seriously 3♥? I want to hear what is the best / standard 2008 method to bid these hands rather than after seeing the final pass, how we could have forced game.

[awm]

han, on Apr 25 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

awm, on Apr 25 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

(1) 3♦ shows extras. It is a free bid in a contested auction. Regardless of whether 1♣-1♥-X-P-2♦ would be a reverse, there is no one forcing opener to bid in this auction.

Do you play that 1C-(1H)-Dbl-(2H)-2S shows extras? I don't think so so this argument is false.

It sort of shows extras, in that there are hands where I would bid 1♠ over 1♣-(1♥)-X-(pass) but I would not bid 2♠ over the raise.

However, this auction is different because of the change in level. I certainly play that:

1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-3♥ shows extras. Otherwise how is partner to know what to do with a mildly invitational double? Obviously without the 2♠ bid, 2♥ is not extras.

1♣-(1♥)-X-(2♥)-3♣ also extras. Again, without the 2♥ bid, 2♣ is not extras.

1♦-(1♥)-X-(2♥)-3♣ also extras. Again, without the 2♥ bid 2♣ is not extras.

I'd argue that bidding 2♠ over 2♥ is sort of a special case, because we are not raising the level of the auction. Nonetheless, there do exist many hands with 3♠ where I would bid 1♠ if possible but pass over 2♥, and a few hands with 4♠ (typically 4333) where I might pass 2♥ in this auction.