[Cascade]

1♣ (1♠) X (2♠)
?

We play the double of 1♠ guarantees four or more hearts (100%).

We also play 2NT now as Good-Bad 2NT (or Lebensohl).

If opener wants to raise hearts 3♥ seems to have quite a wide range and it would be good to put some of these raises into 2NT. However doing that creates an awkward ambiguity especially if LHO raises to 3♠ or higher. Another possibility would be to put some heart raises in with the double.

This is our continuation structure on this auction:

Dbl takeout competitive not as distributional as a bid in a minor or Lebensohl or very strong

2NT Lebensohl - weak with clubs (if 1♦ had been opened it could be a weak one or two-suiter in the minors)

3♣ Sound invitational values

3♦ Very good

3♥ Wide range not good enough for 4♥

Is there a good way to split the heart raises that is not too ambiguous?

Does anyone have experience with this sort of structure?

TIA

[flytoox]

Maybe you can reverse the 2N. Direct 3H shows weak hand, 2N then 3H shows better hand. If opp bid 3S after ur 2N, you can dbl to show a good hand. The downside is you may risk to lose H fit sometimes.

If you play limited opening, then this should not be a big problem.


Hongjun

[luke warm]

the trouble is, 2nt as g/b often is a way to play in a lower ranking suit... so in the example, opener might have been preparing to pass partner's 3c bid

i think with support, just bid it.. then play cooperative doubles (or maximal or something) after that.. 1c (1s) x (2s) 3h (3s) now x shows better than you expected, pass shows what you expected, and a bid shows (usually) more hearts than the neg x promised (or a spade stiff, maybe).. if opener x's it shows the same

[inquiry]

I think just playing this as vanilla good/bad 2NT is not terrible, which is what I play. Nor is reversing the meaing of the direct bid and 2NT auction bad either (where strong hands start wtih 2NT, and weak hands bid their suit). However, as. I don't. as a general rule, like messing around with support, I want partner to know about it NOW, so you raise a very interesting question

So here is a concept I was thinking about because of the transfer advances Misho and I play.

1) DBL = transfer to next higher suit (in this case, clubs), intermediate or better, 2NT by responder would be natural, showing a stopper and a little extra

2) 2NT = true lebehnshol, to get out in a lower suit, or if opener cue-bids next, to look for stopper for NT. Note, with a weak hand and clubs, go through 2NT rather than DBL.

3) 3♣ = transfer to ♦ (and if ♣ were opened, shows a good hand

4) 3♦ = good ♥ raise, may or maynot have enough to force to game, but at least game invite. If opener continues over a signoff by responder, it is slam invite. So this is game invite or slam invite stregnth. Keep in mind the hand suitable for a direct jump to 4♥ should be bid by an immediate 4♥, so there is a gap between these two types of hands.

5) 3♥ = competitive raise, a weak opening bid.

The same structure can apply over 1♣-(2♠)-X-(P); ?

Transfer advances are fairly new to me, and misho and I are only playing them when opponents don't preempt, but there could be a use for them here. No doubt there is a better way to do this as this is off the top of my head. Also, bear in mind that opener can transfer into one suit and then raise ♥ to show a really good hand with emphasis on the other suit bid. I have no idea how well this would work, because like I said, I play the vanilla lebenshol/good-bad 2NT myself currently.

Ben

[luke warm]

i guess this is one *more* reason i'll never be an expert ... i just *know* i'd forget something if i tried this, and probably at the worst possible moment...

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 11:42 AM, said:

i guess this is one *more* reason i'll never be an expert ... i just *know* i'd forget something if i tried this, and probably at the worst possible moment...

Lol... well, like I said, I play vanilla good/bad 2NT. The only reason to take on the extra memory work associated with any scheme (one Cascade proposed, or the one I post, or one of your own choosing) is if you decide the current bidding options are too limited.

If you are relatively happy to pass with a minimum hand and four card heart support on auctions like 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-? then you have no problem. The normal structure works (theory is your partner will balance back in when it is right). However, if you like to support with support, and you "stretch" to bid 3♥, you may find yourself much too high if your partner takes another call. So the question becomes, do you feel like you need two ways to make a direct raise -- one invintational, and one competitive? I just use lebehnshol (GB2NT) and separate good from bad hands that way. However, if you want direct raises, you need some other structure, it all depends on what is important to you and your bidding style.

Ben

[luke warm]

i agree, and i should have added 2nt to my original post... in the example bidding, 1d (1s) x (2s) 2nt (p) 3c (p) 3h can be used to differentiate... that way partner won't be at a loss as to what to do

[the hog]

Hi Wayne,
Nice thread as I have just done a lot of work on this with Alex.

What we have decided is similar to what you play but without the extra frills - that may come later when Alex's memory improves

1C (1S) X (2S)
2N is a puppet to 3C unless resp is good enough to ftg
After 3C, 3H is a min hand with H
An immediate 3H would show a better hand

We have also decided to play g/b in certain other sequences eg

1any (jump) P (P)
2N is again a puppet, and direct 3 level bids show a better hand.

I have found with previous partners that this definition has worked very well. You lose practically nothing by giving up the natural 2N bid. - Who wants to play in an 8 trick contract anyway?

Ron

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Jun 25 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

1C (1S) X (2S)
2N is a puppet to 3C unless resp is good enough to ftg
After 3C, 3H is a min hand with H
An immediate 3H would show a better hand

Thx Ron

I am worried about the ambiguity here when LHO raises to 3♠.

1♣ (1♠) Dbl (2♠)
2NT (3♠) ?

I can easily imagine a hand here where partner is willing to compete to the four-level if you have four hearts but not if you have a weak hand with clubs.

I don't mind so much creating the ambiguity if we have a weak potential misfit e.g.

1♦ (1♠) Dbl (2♠)
2NT (3♠) ?

Where 2NT might be weak single-suited in diamonds or weak two-suiter with both minors. But creating an ambiguity when you have support for partner's known suit seems counter-productive to me.

[mikestar]

There is another way of handling the hands with support (bsed on Kit Woolsey's recommendations in his excellent book on matchpoints).

After 1C (1S) X (2S) holding four hearts:

Bid 3H with minimum values thru bare game invitation.
Bid 4H with a moderate game invitation or better.

This puts the last guess on them whether to save when you bid game.
Now your good/bad 2N sequences deny hearts.