[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-24, 11:14, said:

Another question is, is it more useful to play XX as a transfer to 1NT, or as "normal"?

As Ben has mentioned, another strong candidate is to play XX as "clubs or a compromised NT hand" with 1NT natural.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-24, 18:10, said:

gnasher and jallerton don't (as yet) play together, so there is no requirement for them to agree on this sequence. There are many, many sequences they disagree on, but I haven't yet seen a requirement for all players in a Gold Cup team to play the same system.

I was aware that gnasher and jallerton were not a regular partnership. As with the Marc Smith articles, "Have you discussed this?", I thought that the actual regular partnerships would benefit from establishing their agreements in the auction after redouble. If they have already done so, then my apologies for raising it.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2012-January-25, 12:29, said:

I was aware that gnasher and jallerton were not a regular partnership. As with the Marc Smith articles, "Have you discussed this?", I thought that the actual regular partnerships would benefit from establishing their agreements in the auction after redouble. If they have already done so, then my apologies for raising it.

Catch22 and I have sidestepped the question by playing redouble as a transfer.

According to my copy of Frances and Jeffrey's notes on competitive sequences, "After 1M X XX P ... 2new suit = weak with 5/5 ... 3 lower 6-5+ minimum hand." So they have discussed it, and are presumably playing it as "passable with a complete misfit" rather than forcing.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2012-January-24, 10:52, said:

Interestingly gnasher and jallerton seemed to disagree on whether the second should be forcing, so I hope that I have at least provided a point of discussion to help your Gold Cup team to repeat its triumph.

In what sense did we disagree?

gnasher, on 2012-January-22, 16:11, said:

a) Game-forcing, as in an uncontested auction.

b) 5-5 or 6-5, non-forcing. Crowhurst gave the example of AQ973 J2 KQJ64 5, and implied that adding an ace would make it too strong. I think I'd have better or longer spades than that - eg AQxxxx x KQJxx x.

jallerton, on 2012-January-22, 16:52, said:

a) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a jump in a new suit over 1NT is normally played as natural and game forcing. So the minimum would be about an 18-count if 5-4 in the two suits; a little less in terms of high cards if more distributional. The maximum would be a hand just short of a 2♣ Opener, although if playing Acol Twos, those hand types are obviously also excluded.

b) I agree with Gnasher. In this sequence, Opener can Pass and bid his suit on the next round to show a stronger version, but as even a direct bid of 2♣/♦ would tend to suggest 5/5, a direct 3♣/♦ bid sounds like 6/5. I suspect this should be forcing, or only passable with a complete misfit.

Even if you couldn't be bothered to read all of the details (somewhat disappointing given that you were person who asked the original question!), the "I agree with Gnasher" phrase at the beginning should have been a clue.

[lamford]

I agree that "non-forcing" is identical to "I suspect this should be forcing". Silly me!

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2012-January-26, 07:56, said:

I agree that "non-forcing" is identical to "I suspect this should be forcing". Silly me!

Perhaps you cannot distinguish between answering the question "how do you play these sequences?" and subsequently offering an additional thoughts on how the sequence might be played, as introduced by the phrasing "should be" rather than "is"

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-27, 15:17, said:

Perhaps you cannot distinguish between answering the question "how do you play these sequences?" and subsequently offering an additional thoughts on how the sequence might be played, as introduced by the phrasing "should be" rather than "is"

Are you suggesting that jallerton is therefore currently playing inferior methods? The tone of his reply suggested that he would now be changing his methods to make the bid forcing, with any partners with whom Redouble is not artificial, while there was no such suggestion in the post by gnasher. And as I said, the only reason I raised the matter was because I thought it would be beneficial to your actual partnerships to discuss it. I fail to see why you need make such a big issue of it. It was just "an additional thoughts".