[kenberg]

A vugraph deal prompted this, but I am going to, for the moment, change the setting a bit.


1NT-(2D)-?


The 2D bid is alerted as showing one (unspecified) major. Let's suppose that you are playing a strong NT and suppose you hold a five card spade suit. Presumably rho has hearts and you now have two ways to bid your spades, immediately or later. Perhaps an immediate 2S indicates a hand where you have invitational values, and the slow 2S means that you do not? Would you take this to be the default meaning? I impose the condition that you are not playing "stolen" so a 2H bid would show hearts.


On the vugraph, they were playing a weak nt. At any rate the opener had a thirteen count so I suppose that they were. I suppose this may change things but since I play strong no trumps my interest is in that case.


Of course waiting could also mean you just don't want to play 2S in a 5-2 fit with a 6-0 split. but that seems far fetched.

[jdonn]

I would take waiting to mean I had four spades and a longer minor, but a hand not suited for a takeout double. With five spades I don't want to ever wait. But it's true that I'll regret it in the rare cases RHO has spades.

[kenrexford]

Agree with Josh as to default.

That said, I think a better approach over an either-or 2♦ is:

X = transfer hearts
2♥ = transfer spades
2♠ = MSS-ish, invitational+ (could be the tweener/punt invitational call)
2NT = Relay to minor (weak) or strong 2344/3244
3♣ = Puppet
3♦ = Minors, GF
3♥/3♠ = stiff, frag other major, minors, GF
3NT = natural

[jdonn]

Sorry I refuse to give up doubling to say let's try to get them...

[kenberg]

As to doubling 2D, I have been thinking it might be best as showing at least invitational values with at least one four card major. If the double is passed, opener could bid a major if he has one. If not, knowing of the invitational values might prompt a pass if he is willing to defend diamonds (the pass of the double may well show diamonds) or he may wish to bid some number of no trump. If fourth hand bids over the double, presumably pass/correct, opener can double holding that major and pass(forcing) if he does not. This appears to me to strike a reasonable balance between keeping our offensive options in play and allowing us to penalize them when it's right.

This is homegrown and unvetted so don't sue me if it is disastrous.

Btw. Suppose the auction begins 1N-2D-2S. Is a fourth hand double pass/correct? Seems reasonable.

The online acbl game insists on general chart, which I believe Woolsey (USA desig.) is not, so I have not much been using it. But it seems to me to be superior to Capp and so it's time for me to get with it, both on offense and defense.

Btw: If a bid of 2S over 2D shows five spades but no particular strength, I suppose it may well be followed by three passes. This would seem to set an upper limit on strength.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

Sorry I refuse to give up doubling to say let's try to get them...

You can double later.

[y66]

fyi -- Washington Standard has a pretty good 2 page discussion of this sequence.

Excerpt:

Quote

If responder wants to penalize overcaller or bid Stayman for the other major, responder starts by doubling 2D. Responder's double is forcing to 3N or 4m. Doubling 2D followed by doubling overcaller's major is a penalty double.  Doubling 2D followed by passing overcaller's major is forcing, shows at least 2 cards in overcaller's major and allows opener to make a 4-card penalty double. All subsequent bids by responder after doubling 2D carry the same meaning as if the major was directly overcalled. Lebensohl and Stayman with or without stoppers apply.

In Washington Standard, passing 2D and doubling later shows a 3-card cooperative double.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 22 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

Sorry I refuse to give up doubling to say let's try to get them...

You can double later.

And if partner was the one who could double if he only knew I had values?

[kenberg]

y66, on Feb 22 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

fyi -- Washington Standard has a pretty good 2 page discussion of this sequence.

Excerpt:

Quote

If responder wants to penalize overcaller or bid Stayman for the other major, responder starts by doubling 2D. Responder's double is forcing to 3N or 4m. Doubling 2D followed by doubling overcaller's major is a penalty double.  Doubling 2D followed by passing overcaller's major is forcing, shows at least 2 cards in overcaller's major and allows opener to make a 4-card penalty double. All subsequent bids by responder after doubling 2D carry the same meaning as if the major was directly overcalled. Lebensohl and Stayman with or without stoppers apply.

In Washington Standard, passing 2D and doubling later shows a 3-card cooperative double.

I looked it up, as I might have done earlier.

The main thing I like about it is that is the detail. The general approach is natural enough to not overburden the memory, but it defines some otherwise ambiguous situations.


It's been my view for quite a while that there are two largely neglected places players could look to greatly improve their game:

1. Take every convention that they play and go over it in some detail to make certain that they agree on when it is on and when it is off.

2. Take commonly used conventions, such as the Woolsey 2D over 1NT, and discuss clearly what their own bids mean when these conventions are used against them. Quite a few conventions, in my opinion, succeed far more often than they should simply because the opponents get mixed up about what their own bids mean.

A simple example: With one partner I have the agreement that over a multi 2D bid we use the first defense listed in the ACBL site. People have told me that there are better defenses and I don't doubt that this is true. But at least we know what our own bids mean after an opponent opens a multi.

Anyway, I can see advantages to playing, over 1N-(2D), that X =hearts and I can see advantages to playing (my preference) that X=values. The biggest advantage comes from knowing which you are doing. Yes I know this is obvious but you see occasional mix-ups even at high levels and frequent mix-ups generally when bids are made over the opponent's conventional calls. In the vugraph show I was watching there was some question as to why third hand did ot bid 2S over 2D since he held five spades. I imagine that he had his reasons, based on their agreements, but sometimes partners have different expectations of what such a bid would mean.

[MFA]

2M competitive
X starts pen doubles
P -> X take-out
P -> 2♠ four spades with some minor alternative(s). 2NT from partner scrambles.
2NT+ lebensohl principles.

[Fluffy]

I play what MFA (michael, is it?) says, maybe it is not optimal, but can't have specific defences for all the invented defences against 1NT.

Having clear agreements of what is forcing and what is not after a power double of 2 diamonds is also important.

[MFA]

Fluffy, on Feb 23 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

I play what MFA (michael, is it?) says, maybe it is not optimal, but can't have specific defences for all the invented defences against 1NT.

Yes, Michael
Right, people are launching all kind of strange things against our 1NT, so we'll just keep it simple and play the same Lebensohl/powerX defense regardsless.