[helene_t]

I just invented another convention:

In a competitive auction where 2NT over opps' 2♠ would be scrambling, we should play:
2NT=one place to play
3♣,♦ = two places to play

The reason for this is the same as why people play rdbl= one place to play as notrump escape. (And why some people play DONT).

Is this a good idea?

[gwnn]

I see no upside to it. Doubler would more rather compete opposite a one suited partner than one suit from an unknown two-suited hand (in the case of 3♣).

[helene_t]

Thanks, that's a good point.

The upside I was thinking about was that if p bids 2NT scrambling and you preferences are
♥>♦>♣
you will end up in 3♦ when p has diamonds and hearts.

I suppose the situation in which you have three different levels of preferences is rare. Maybe it makes more sense for a scrambling 4NT.

[gwnn]

I think a 4-4 fit is good

[mike777]

In competition...I have gotten to the point when is 2nt natural?

[joker_gib]

Well I don't think it is a good idea !

Suppose you bid 3♣ : 2 places (with ♦ and ♥)

what is your partner supposed to do with ♣ and ♥ ????

[helene_t]

Oh no, with ♦ and ♥ you bid ♦ to show two places to play of which diamonds is the lower one.

If clubs is the lower one, i.e. ♣+♦ or ♣+♥ you bid ♣.

[Codo]

Hi Helene,

your idea is great when you have diamonds and hearts, because partner knows exactly what to do now.

Your idea works when you have a real long suit, because normally you can bid this suit later if there is further competetion.

It works, when you have clubs and another because sometimes partner is better placed as after 2 Nt but never worse.

The downsides I see are:
1. This is not similar to what you play in other similar situations, so maybe you need a lot more of brain power to remember the situations and follow ups.
2. When you come into a situation where both partners are on different wavelength whether 3 Diamond shows diamonds or both red suits, it can be a horrible and expensive experience.
3. IF there is further competetion after a 2 NT bid, things may get muddy.

I see nothing in this threat so far that makes me think that this idea is not worth trying. But I am not a professional, so I guess I won't because it would take too much time for a too small problem to be solved. But whenever we meet at BBO we can give it a try.

[jdonn]

I am not sure if it's good or not, but I don't think it's bad. To me it just seems not worth the trouble of remembering that when I bid a suit, it's not simply that suit. But it's definitely an idea with some logic behind it.

Since of course with just hearts you would still bid 3♥, it simply goes from
2NT: 3 options
3♣: 1 option
to
2NT: 2 options
3♣: 2 options

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Nov 27 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

I am not sure if it's good or not, but I don't think it's bad. To me it just seems not worth the trouble of remembering that when I bid a suit, it's not simply that suit. But it's definitely an idea with some logic behind it.

Since of course with just hearts you would still bid 3♥, it simply goes from
2NT: 3 options
3♣: 1 option
to
2NT: 2 options
3♣: 2 options

The 3-way suit preference thing is quite important. That's why we bother to have all these complicated arrangements to sort out our suit lengths when our scramble bid is doubled.

The problem is the huge memory risk, as jdonn says.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 27 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

The 3-way suit preference thing is quite important. That's why we bother to have all these complicated arrangements to sort out our suit lengths when our scramble bid is doubled.

I didn't think of that. If opps double our standard 2NT scramble, we can use pass and redouble to fine-tune. Less so when 2NT shows a 1-suiter since then it will be usually be clear where we want to play.

[Free]

I think one huge advantage is that there won't be any mistakes in case it's not 100% clear if 2NT is scrambling or lebensohl. On the other hand, it won't be clear if 3m is single or two suited as well...

All things considered I don't think it's worth the change.