[1eyedjack]

I am toying with thinking up a scheme along the lines of (uncontested)

1D-1H = Spades or neither major, or both majors but strong
1D-1S = Hearts but not Spades
1D-1N = both majors, non-forcing

Over 1D-1H, opener rebids 1S with a minimum balanced hand, probably without 4 Spades.

It's early days, but I suspect that this or something like it is a wheel that has already been invented and/or rejected. Before I think any more about it I was wondering if the peanut gallery have already been down this road.

I realise that you are exposing yourself to some lead-directing doubles. And I might leave out the "both majors but strong" option in the 1H response (can use some 2-level responses for that). I have left out the 2-level responses deliberately (as I have too many options up in the air on that score at present) but am interested in those as well if you have any thoughts.

The definition of the 1D opener is clearly relevant to the continuations. The strength of the 1NT opener is critical, and whether you might open 1C with a balanced hand containing diamonds without clubs.

Anyone tried something like this in anger?

[mikeh]

I think the 1♠ response is vulnerable to competition.... especially, say, 3♣ by 4th seat.

I am sure you have a reason for wanting to implement this scheme, but what issues are you trying to solve? I don't see that this scheme improves on standard based methods.

[jdonn]

There are two major problems I see.

One is the 1♥ bid, it's just too difficult to sort out. Auctions as simple as fourth hand overcalling 2♥ or 2♣ leave you hopelessly placed, you may have a 4-4 spade fit or not and have no safe way to find out if you are minimum hands. In standard bidding the auction 1♦ p 1♥ 2♣ already leaves you vulnerable to losing a spade fit, so you would just be multiplying the frequency of that problem by a large amount.

The other major problem I see is that you create rebid problems for opener over 1♠. If he has four spades he will want to bid them even if he knows partner doesn't have them, otherwise it's impossible to investigate the best contract.

Like Mike, I'm curious what the goals of this rearrangement are.

[1eyedjack]

Come to think of it, my suggestion of 1D-1H-1S being a balanced minimum without 4 Spades is a no-no. I was comparing it with 1C-1D-1H and 1C-1H-1S, but in those comparisons responder is promising a suit. Had the 1H response to 1D promised spades then it might have had some merit. But where the 1H response does nothing more than deny Hearts, and is non-committal about Spades, a 1S rebid would have to show Spades I think.

Of course there will be hands where it loses out against standard methods. I may follow up with a post of some of the benefits presently but have to get some shuteye.

[1eyedjack]

OK, I have re-awoken, and I thought I would follow up my post. My deliberations are in their infancy so I will not have thought of all of the benefits nor indeed pitfalls.

I go into the exercise in the expectation that it will not prove beneficial, simply based on empirical evidence: As far as I can tell it is not a method in popular use, which should say something. Still, I would rather satisfy myself as to the reasons rather than just rely on that. Also, I don't tend to play in rarefied atmospheres, so my perception of its popularity may be unreliable. I do not encounter TWalsh responses to 1C that frequently and yet I am persuaded of their benefits and I know (albeit not from personal experience) that TWalsh is popular among good players. It may be that licensing restrictions have a part to play in lack of popularity. It may also be that there is not much to gain or lose in the method, in which case the simplicity of natural responses would take precedence.

I am (currently) unpersuaded by the specific criticisms levied so far, as I see "mirrored" problems using natural methods. That is of course not a ringing endorsement for change, but I shall examine them first.

mikeh, on May 14 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

I think the 1♠ response is vulnerable to competition.... especially, say, 3♣ by 4th seat.

I think a natural 1♥ or 1♠ response is as vulnerable to competition.... especially, say, 3♣ by 4th seat.

I suspect that it is vulnerability to competitive action that is the most significant downside to this method, but that said I think that this vulnerability is manifest in the 1♥ response rather than 1♠. In a natural context, 1♠ shows one suit (spades) and tends to imply lack of Hearts. In my method a 1♠ shows hearts and tends to imply lack of Spades. The amount and quality of information is the same, but with the majors swapped, so you are effectively in the same boat when they interfere. A double of 1♠ being an exception to that, of course.

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

There are two major problems I see.
One is the 1♥ bid, it's just too difficult to sort out. Auctions as simple as fourth hand overcalling 2♥ or 2♣ leave you hopelessly placed, you may have a 4-4 spade fit or not and have no safe way to find out if you are minimum hands. In standard bidding the auction 1♦ p 1♥ 2♣ already leaves you vulnerable to losing a spade fit, so you would just be multiplying the frequency of that problem by a large amount.

I do believe that "hopeless" is a bit of a hyperbole. Take-out and balancing take-out doubles can cope with much of this. You are certainly worse off after 1D-(P)-1H-(2H) than after a natural 1D-(P)-1S-(2H) because there is scope for distinguishing between responder's 4 and 5 card Spade suit. I just want to ensure that the disadvantages are not blown out of proportion.

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

The other major problem I see is that you create rebid problems for opener over 1♠. If he has four spades he will want to bid them even if he knows partner doesn't have them, otherwise it's impossible to investigate the best contract.

You have the same problem in a natural context if opener has 4 Hearts and responder comes up with a natural 1♠ response. Generally, responder is showing exactly the same hand type as a natural 1♠ response but with the majors reversed, and any problems in one method are mirrored in the other (expressed in terms of the other major). It is not an exact mirror because in a natural method responder will bid 1♥ with 4-4 in the majors, which has no corresponding mirror, and he will also bid 1♠ with the much less frequent 5-5 in the majors.

I shall follow this up with a separate post explaining the background to why I started looking at this, but it may be in a little while as my boss is hovering around my terminal and the hotkey doesn't seem to be working.

[Mbodell]

One thing that may influence this is what your 1♦ promises. I know you originally said natural, but if it is natural but promised a 4 card major that might give you a bit more inference to help work out the next bids.

[whereagles]

As mike said, that 1♥ reply is extremely vulnerable to actions by 4th player.

[rbforster]

Not to discourage creativity, but I'm not sure what problems this solves relative to "natural". If you don't want to lose the "both majors" hands below 1N (assuming you mean 4-4), you can always start with hearts and have opener's rebid (1♦-1♥-1♠) show any (often balanced) hand with 4 spades.

If I were going to change what I played over a normal 1♦ opener, I would play Viking's style - 1♥ as natural or GF relay, others mostly natural. In those methods I can see the advantage of making the cheapest forcing bid do some extra work. In competition it's not too bad since opener knows to raise/show hearts with a minimum and can rely on responder taking some other call with a GF hand.

[1eyedjack]

I haven't yet got around to discussing the possible up-sides, (may have to wait a few hours until I get home. Only it is pub night tonight so maybe another day or so).

But I thought that I would take a brief moment to reflect on the irony that the suggested 1♥ response, which denies hearts and leaves spades in doubt, is allegedly highly vulnerable to opposition intervention, while a natural 1♥ response, which shows hearts and still leaves spades in doubt, is apparently safe. If anything I would have thought that the natural 1♥ is more susceptible, because opener may be interested in the possibility of responder having undisclosed extra heart length after a natural 1♥ response, whereas he will not generally be interested in the distinction between (say) a doubleton and tripleton heart (seldom having more than 4 of them himself having opened 1♦), while his other concerns (ie whether or not there is a Spade fit) are similar in either scenario.

[jdonn]

I agree that both my criticisms exist in natural bidding, but you have increased their frequency probably tenfold. That is my point, you have taken rare problems and made them common problems. Instead of

1♦ p 1♥ 2♣

being the only such auction where you can lose a spade fit bidding naturally, you have

1♦ p 1♥ 2♣

and

1♦ p 1♥ 2♥

And since only 4-4 and maybe 4-5 in the majors are a problem on the natural auctions, but anything with 0-5 spades and 0-3 hearts is a problem on your auctions, you have increased the frequency by a whole lot more than double. You underestimate what a problem this will be, if opener is a minimum balanced hand he automatically has to pass the overcall, and if responder is less than invitational values (by more than a tiny bit anyway) he has to pass it out lest you compete with no fit and are unable to sort out values later.

Your post makes me think you missed the point where you said "You are certainly worse off after 1D-(P)-1H-(2H) than after a natural 1D-(P)-1S-(2H) because there is scope for distinguishing between responder's 4 and 5 card Spade suit." Forget distinguishing 4 from 5 although that is a problem. You can't distinguish responder having spades from responder not having spades!

[Free]

1eyedjack, on May 13 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

Anyone tried something like this in anger?

Yes I have. 1♥ showed ♠, 1♠ showed ♥ and denied ♠ (like you proposed). However our continuations were different:
1♦-1♥-1♠ shows 4♥

After 1♦-1♥-1NT you might consider 2♦ and 2♥ showing weak with both Majors, 5-4 or 4-5. If you play something like reverse flannery you don't need this, so you can still keep 2-way checkback.

Playing like this doesn't give you much advantages or disadvantages.

[1eyedjack]

OK, there is a significant difference between Free's method and my OP, which is that in Free's method 1♥ shows Spades but in mine it is not guaranteed. That lack of guarantee is central to Jdonn's criticism, and I certainly see now that I underestimated the problems of competition over 1♥.

I may yet put up a post of up-sides rather than leaving that hanging in the air, but there may be a delay.