# BBO Discussion Forums: Idea when opponents bid the step under partner's suit - BBO Discussion Forums

Page 1 of 1

## Idea when opponents bid the step under partner's suit

### #1Kungsgeten

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 943
• Joined: 2012-April-15
• Gender:Male

Posted 2015-August-04, 06:54

I just had this idea, and haven't developed it very much. I was wondering if anyone has heard of it before, and what you think of it.

Our partner opens a natural 1X, and the opponents interfere with 2X-1 or 3X-1. For instance:

1D--(2C)
1D--(3C)
1S--(3H)
etc.. (would not apply when partner opens clubs and opponents bid NT).

What if we sort of switched the meaning of double and X here, but then perhaps gaining some more sequences? My main thought was to only use it after 1X--(3X-1) since the space is more needed here. As an example:

1D--(3C)---
Pass = Normal. Natural or penalty pass.
Double = Usually a competitive hand with diamond support.
3D = Both majors, INV+
3M = Natural, forcing
3NT = Natural

1D--(3C)--Dbl--(P); 3D--(P)---
Pass = No extras
3M = INV, good suit

There are a lot of sequences and it may be better to treat them differently, for instance:

1D--(3C)---
Dbl = Usually diamond support, but may be both majors
3D = INV+ with 5+ hearts
3H = INV+ with 5+ spades
3S = Asking for club stopper
3NT = To play
4C = Diamond slam try
0

### #2straube

• Posts: 4,077
• Joined: 2009-January-18
• Gender:Male
• Location:Vancouver WA USA

Posted 2015-August-04, 08:44

If double can be a competitive raise then opener will seldom be able to pass. I like double to promise the other (major) suits and more values.
0

### #3Kungsgeten

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 943
• Joined: 2012-April-15
• Gender:Male

Posted 2015-August-04, 14:01

Yes, this is obviously a big downside straube, and because of that it may very well be a poor method.
0

### #4kenrexford

• Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
• Posts: 9,586
• Joined: 2005-September-21
• Gender:Male
• Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA

Posted 2015-August-04, 20:31

A semi-related thought is to just decide that a 2C overcall of a 1D opening is forcing. That would allow a forcing pass and a lot of opportunities. I have heard, I believe, that this concept of a force in this sequence is emerging.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

### #5helene_t

• The Abbess
• Posts: 17,181
• Joined: 2004-April-22
• Gender:Female
• Location:UK

Posted 2015-August-05, 01:20

Han once posted a nice defense to 1-(2). Now I can't find it but I think it involved

2=red suits

It may sound strange not to have a 2-level raise of diamonds, but usually you will either have a major or you will have enough diamonds to have 3-level safety.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

### #6phoenix214

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 347
• Joined: 2011-December-23
• Gender:Male
• Location:Riga
• Interests:Bridge; Chess; Boardgames; Physics; Math; Problem solving; and anything that makes my brain thinking.

Posted 2015-August-05, 02:57

I have been toying around with this idea over 1M openings -
1-(2):
X - normal raise(this can have other hand types as well, like a force with 4 spades for example)
2 - about 9-11 with 3 or 7-9 with 4
Similar over 1. The idea is that we are not forced to bid to level 3 with the limit raise hands and can play in 2M, because pd can open on some lousy hands. The 2M is basically like Drury.
0

### #7nullve

• Posts: 2,271
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-August-05, 06:38

helene_t, on 2015-August-05, 01:20, said:

It may sound strange not to have a 2-level raise of diamonds, but usually you will either have a major or you will have enough diamonds to have 3-level safety.

I know a lot of pairs play

1D-(2C)-?:

X = negative
2M-1 = 5+ M
2S = inv+ D raise

phoenix214, on 2015-August-05, 02:57, said:

I have been toying around with this idea over 1M openings -
1-(2):
X - normal raise(this can have other hand types as well, like a force with 4 spades for example)
2 - about 9-11 with 3 or 7-9 with 4
Similar over 1. The idea is that we are not forced to bid to level 3 with the limit raise hands and can play in 2M, because pd can open on some lousy hands. The 2M is basically like Drury.

That's a very interesting idea. It seems like I won't be sacrificing much by playing the double your way, because over 1M-(2x) I tend not to make negative doubles on hands with < GF values unless I have 2M2-x, anyway. I think I still have to do something on those hands, so, using your method, maybe I should often just X or raise to 2M, temporarily pretending to have 3-card support? (Ok, maybe a bit off-topic.)
0

### #8gwnn

• Csaba the Hutt
• Posts: 13,027
• Joined: 2006-June-16
• Gender:Male
• Interests:bye

Posted 2015-August-05, 18:52

helene_t, on 2015-August-05, 01:20, said:

Han once posted a nice defense to 1-(2). Now I can't find it but I think it involved

2=red suits

It may sound strange not to have a 2-level raise of diamonds, but usually you will either have a major or you will have enough diamonds to have 3-level safety.

In fact it just had x as 4+ , 2 as 4+, less than 4 spades, both of them nonforcing.