[raist]

recently many people are adopting a new approach to this sequence

1m-(1H)

people play that DOUBLE shows 4+ spades, and 1S shows 0-3 spades
the classic method is that double shows exactly 4 spades and 1S shows 5+ spades

the advantage of the new approach is clear when your hand is, for example

xx xxx AQxx Kxxx

you can bid 1S easily and show your 4-4 minors

I have 2 questions:

1. is there any other advantage to this method?

2. what are the possible drawbacks to this method?
the obvious one would be when the bidding goes

1m-(1H)-X-(3/4H)
and now opener is looking at 3 spades with maybe a bit of extras/shape and doesn't know what to do
because responder can have 4 or 5 spades


is there a solution to this problem? or is it just part of the tradeoff?
you can't play support doubles here as support doubles are only valid till 2H normally

[helene_t]

An additional advantage is that you put overcaller on lead against a spade contract (and sometimes a NT contract when responder has a hand that would have bid 1NT without the 1♠ tool).

Obviously the main disadvantage is that responder's spade length is not known.

[Codo]

Every method has its pros and cons.

I played both and cannot see a clear advantage of one of them, I would ask you to play what makes you feal comfortable.

[gnasher]

I've been experimenting with:

Double = 4 spades, 5 spades in a weak hand, or 5 weak spades in an invitational hand.
1S = balanced
1NT = clubs
2C = diamonds *
2C = diamonds *
2H = 6 spades any strength, or 5+ spades game-forcing
2S = exactly invitational with exactly 5 reasonable spades

* If the opening was 1D, we use 2C/D to distinguish strength. If the opening was 1C, we use 2C and 2D in the same way as 2H and 2S: 2C is 6 diamonds any strength or 5 game-forcing, and 2D is 5 diamonds invitational.

[cherdanno]

I think your post captures the tradeoffs well. I have no strong conviction on whether it is superior to standard (especially at IMPs).
I play what many play:
X = 4 or 5 spades
1S = takeout or balanced without stopper
1N = nat
2m = nat, forcing
2H = 6+ spades, any strength
2S = mixed raise of m
3m = preemptive
I think you come out a little on top - it is better for constructive auctions; and on competitive auctions you are sometimes at an advantage because you know responder has 6+ spades (or because responder can compete to 4S with 5-5 shape, having denied 6 spades), sometimes at a disadvantage (because you don't know whether he has 4 or 5). Overall, probably still a disadvantage in competitive auctions, but not such a big deal any more.

[aguahombre]

raist, on Nov 17 2009, 06:56 AM, said:

1m-(1H)

people play that DOUBLE shows 4+ spades, and 1S shows 0-3 spades
the classic method is that double shows exactly 4 spades and 1S shows 5+ spades

the advantage of the new approach is clear when your hand is, for example

xx  xxx  AQxx Kxxx

you can bid 1S easily and show your 4-4 minors

Whether you use 1S to show 4+ or double to show 4+SP seems to be a toss-up, if you are going to vary from the traditional (1S=5+, DBL=4).

But, to us, the advantage of chosing one of those over the standard is that you can show a directionless response without 4S -- a hand which would have probably responded 1NT or 1H, but now cannot. Without the variance, we are shut out early and might have an impossible situation later.

We find that it occurs frequently enough to make it helpful. Others have expressed in earlier threads the importance of showing 4 vs. more spades. Their view is more than valid, just not our choice.

P.S., the decision on what to use would be affected by what a 2m raise should show.

[peachy]

aguahombre, on Nov 17 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

raist, on Nov 17 2009, 06:56 AM, said:

1m-(1H)

people play that DOUBLE shows 4+ spades, and 1S shows 0-3 spades
the classic method is that double shows exactly 4 spades and 1S shows 5+ spades

the advantage of the new approach is clear when your hand is, for example

xx  xxx  AQxx Kxxx

you can bid 1S easily and show your 4-4 minors

Whether you use 1S to show 4+ or double to show 4+SP seems to be a toss-up, if you are going to vary from the traditional (1S=5+, DBL=4).

But, to us, the advantage of chosing one of those over the standard is that you can show a directionless response without 4S -- a hand which would have probably responded 1NT or 1H, but now cannot. Without the variance, we are shut out early and might have an impossible situation later.

We find that it occurs frequently enough to make it helpful. Others have expressed in earlier threads the importance of showing 4 vs. more spades. Their view is more than valid, just not our choice.

P.S., the decision on what to use would be affected by what a 2m raise should show.

Your responses here as well as in other threads talk about "we" and "us".
Who is "we"?

[awm]

The other posts capture the tradeoff pretty well. Another point that may be worth mentioning is that this depends a bit on opener's minor suit length. A lot of the hands that the 1♠ "takeout with 0-3 spade" bid is designed to handle could potentially just raise opener's minor... but this is more comfortable if the minor suit opening promises four (and usually five) than if it's frequently three or fewer.

For example, playing a style where 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand with 4+♦ and 1♣ could be short, it makes sense to use the standard method (double is four spades, 1♠ is 5+) after 1♦ is opened and the alternative method (double is 4+♠, 1♠ is 0-3 spades and "takeout") after 1♣ is opened. The alternative method is also a big winner in a strong club system after the 1♦ opening. On the other hand, in a four-card major style with both minor suit openings being 4+, it seems much better to play the standard method.

[Jlall]

cherdanno, on Nov 17 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

I think your post captures the tradeoffs well. I have no strong conviction on whether it is superior to standard (especially at IMPs).
I play what many play:
X = 4 or 5 spades
1S = takeout or balanced without stopper
1N = nat
2m = nat, forcing
2H = 6+ spades, any strength
2S = mixed raise of m
3m = preemptive
I think you come out a little on top - it is better for constructive auctions; and on competitive auctions you are sometimes at an advantage because you know responder has 6+ spades (or because responder can compete to 4S with 5-5 shape, having denied 6 spades), sometimes at a disadvantage (because you don't know whether he has 4 or 5). Overall, probably still a disadvantage in competitive auctions, but not such a big deal any more.

Meh I think if you don't play strong club you should use 2H and 2S both as spades (2S weak). Otherwise I play this way also.

Another advantage is that you get to rightside 3N frequently, and don't have to invent a 2C bid or cuebid or whatever in order to do so. You also get more room to investigate slam rather than just jumping to 3N.

As Adam mentioned I think this method is not that good over a standard diamond, I prefer to just play it over 1C. Losing 1D-(1H)-2D natural is just too big of a cost, that is a very preemptive auction compared to 1D-(1H)-1S, and you are frequently able to raise the minor over a standard diamond.

Over 1C the preemptive effect of a normal raise is minimal, and you are much less often able to raise comfortably.

[aguahombre]

Peachy: "We" is not the royal plural. It refers to my partner and me.

[blackshoe]

"'We' are the Telephone Company. 'We' are omnipotent." - Ernestine, the telephone operator (aka Lily Tomlin).

Of course, that was before the breakup of AT&T.

[jdonn]

I don't really understand why you can't use it over 1♦ (1♥) as well, but leave 1♦ (1♥) 2♦ as natural and just transfer around it. In fact playing 2♣ showing hearts but allowing you to stop in 2♦(!) if opener bids that would be kind of cool.

Edit: By "hearts" I should have said "a heart bid", in other words a better raise.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

I don't really understand why you can't use it over 1♦ (1♥) as well, but leave 1♦ (1♥) 2♦ as natural and just transfer around it. In fact playing 2♣ showing hearts but allowing you to stop in 2♦(!) if opener bids that would be kind of cool.

Edit: By "hearts" I should have said "a heart bid", in other words a better raise.

How do you show clubs if 2C is limit+ in? If 1N is inv+ in clubs count me out for that! If 1S includes good hands with clubs, count me out for that!

I guess you could just play X as 4+ spades and 2H as limit+ in diamonds and 2C as forcing if you wanted, but that could get a little messy.

[jdonn]

When I played this method I always played 1NT was clubs, 1♠ was essentially a 1NT bid with or without a stopper. It's not perfect to bid notrump when you don't have a notrump hand, but I don't see a huge problem overall? It never caused me a problem, but my sample size is definitely tiny.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2009, 09:13 PM, said:

When I played this method I always played 1NT was clubs, 1♠ was essentially a 1NT bid with or without a stopper. It's not perfect to bid notrump when you don't have a notrump hand, but I don't see a huge problem overall? It never caused me a problem, but my sample size is definitely tiny.

I would view it as a huge problem to bid 1N every time you had clubs, seems like you would wrongside very often and after 1D-(1H)-1N(clubs) you will frequently want to be ending up in 3N anyways so that is a big deal.

When I play strong club and transfers after 1D X I use both 1N and 2C to show clubs, 1N being "I can play it from my side" and 2C being I can't for this reason also. Maybe I am too worried about this though lol.