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

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Idea when opponents bid the step under partner's suit

#1 User is offline   Kungsgeten 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 923
  • 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
3NT = Asking for stopper

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

#2 User is offline   straube 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,003
  • 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

#3 User is offline   Kungsgeten 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 923
  • 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

#4 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

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

#5 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,561
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

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

dbl=spades and a red suit
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.
If you don't have an agreement, you don't have an illegal agreement. Except in the ACBL, where apparently you can have an agreement even if you don't have one :) --- Blackshoe
0

#6 User is offline   phoenix214 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 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

#7 User is offline   nullve 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,945
  • Joined: 2014-April-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-August-05, 06:38

View Posthelene_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

View Postphoenix214, 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

#8 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,011
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2015-August-05, 18:52

View Posthelene_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

dbl=spades and a red suit
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.

This thread might be interesting:
http://www.bridgebas...k-poll-1d-2c-x/
where I misquote han's method and he corrects me. I still don't know how you can bid a nonforcing 2 without saying something about diamond length (OK in practice you will have 2-3 diamonds often but sometimes 0 and sometimes 4) but it's still an interesting use of bidding space.

To OP: you might see that jlall says in the above thread that X showing both majors is unplayable so presumably so would 2 showing both majors, let alone 1-(3)-3! I guess you would just show diamond support and let partner explore a major-suit fit? But it still leaves mundane hands like the hand given by me in the thread above, xxx AKxx KQx xxx, unbiddable. Or are you going to make X "problem hand or diamond support" instead?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users