[wank]

what codo said. people who play it as not showing extras don't understand bidding, irrespective of whether they call themselves experts or not and whether they're in the uk or not.

[awm]

LOL. This is the kind of thread that makes BBF look bad.

Awfully quick to resort to insults lately?

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-11, 20:51, said:

Unfortunately, Codo is not correct ---although I believe he should be ---about the opinions of the majority of experts...at least in this country. Hopefully Germany is more sensible.

A recent "It's your call" touching on the same situation in the ACBL Bulletin showed only one of the umpteen experts believed 2D showed "reverse" strength. I was shocked.

1C (1S) X (P)
2D....should not only show extra playing strength, but should also bring Lebensohl into the mix of continuations by responder.

Obviously this does not apply to heart rebids by opener, since that is a suit he is merely raising as if responder had bid 1H without the interference.

Just goes to show that barring agreements people will assume no extras, not that experts do not play it that way on their partnership.


Barring raising partner for his dobule, the only non reverse sequence I know is when partner forced over 2 of our suit, 1♣-(1♠)-2♦ for example.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2012-May-12, 16:44, said:

Do they? I can't say I've encountered them.

Many many people below expert level, some at expert level. The key is among people that play a 4+ card club and 4 card majors, I agree it makes no sense if you don't. OP did say he played natural, so I assumed 4 card club.

A lot of these mythical hands where you miss 4♥ while not having extras, you're just as happy saccing in 5♣ as 5♥ over opps cold 4♠ as they have the same double fit and similar number of points.

I find that not having to play in 5-0 ♣ fits by rebidding 2♣ with 4-5 in the minors instead of my 4-4/5-4 diamond fit or distort by opening 1♦ more than makes up for hands where I miss the heart fit and wanted to bid it. In fact simply hands where I've not brought the opps double fit to light so they've played 3♠ not 4 have more than covered my losses.

[Zelandakh]

A leading English junior pair had a disagreement about this at a major event which got written up in BM. Standard is to play it as showing extras; the other way is playable if your system is built around it but even then the advantages are somewhat dubious imho.

[bluecalm]

Quote

The key is among people that play a 4+ card club and 4 card majors,

Well, in 4card majors context it makes much more sense. I have no idea about the details but I expressed my somewhat strong opinion on the matter assuming 5card majors context.

[awm]

The problem in this kind of thread is that there are (at least) two reasonable and generally consistent ways to play natural sequences in a five-card major context. However, these approaches involve selecting a set of consistent agreements; it is often the case that modifying one of these agreements (without changing the others) leads you to a silly combination of methods. For example, if you would always open 1♦ on minimum 4♦-5♣ hands, it seems dumb to play that 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass)-2♦ does not show extras. However, this doesn't make the agreement that the latter auction doesn't show extras a bad agreement... it simply means that (presumably) experts who have that agreement are also opening 1♣ on minimum 4-5 hands.

Another example might be the auction 1♣-(Pass)-1♥-(2♦)-Dbl-(Pass)-2♠. Extras or not? If opener's double was a mandatory support double and simply showed three hearts (with other calls including pass denying as many as three hearts) then the 2♠ bid on a minimum hand with no guarantee of fit is ridiculous. Obviously it's a reverse and should show extras, and any other agreement would be "dumb." But again, some of us play opener's double as more takeout-oriented (or an optional support double) in which case it will imply support for spades (typical shape being 4324 or 4315) and it seems very obvious in this case that 2♠ is just responding to partner's takeout and should not show extras (how else do we find our 4-4 spade fit on these hands after interference?)

Anyway, my point is that some of us are too quick to look at a particular agreement in the context of our other agreements and declare that agreement to be bad simply because it's a bad fit. One would think that seeing a substantial majority of experts polled suggest differently might be sufficient to reconsider, but some people are just a bit dogmatic in their opinions.

[Cyberyeti]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-13, 13:32, said:

Well, in 4card majors context it makes much more sense. I have no idea about the details but I expressed my somewhat strong opinion on the matter assuming 5card majors context.

I assumed that the reason the OP said that he was playing "natural" implied 4+ clubs. I may well be wrong.

[helene_t]

If you play 4-card majors you can have the agreement that the double shows both unbid suits and that you accept you can't find the heart fit if responder does not have diamonds since he is not allowed to double. This is not terrible since opener won't have four hearts very often.

Playing 5-card majors, the double has to show hearts only so it seems a little weird to play 2♦ as a minimum hand. OK, the dbl is not exactly the same as a 1♥ response since with something like xxx-A-Axxx-Axxxx opener might have planned to rebid 1nt after a 1♥ response but is less happy about it after the double because of the lack of spade stopper. But it is had to see the advantage of bidding 2♦ instead of 2♣. It might work better but it might work worse. And the agreement that 2♦ shows a minium hand raises the issue what to do with extras. Presumably opener would have to bid 3♦ with 16-17 and cuebid with more than that. Sounds awkward to me. Much more attractive to be able to show your values and shape with a space-preserving 2♦ bid.

So playing 5-card majors, I think 2♦ as 11-15 is almost unplayable. Playing it as 14-17 (i.e. nonforcing but showing some extras) would probably be ok.

[awm]

helene_t, on 2012-May-14, 12:30, said:

Playing 5-card majors, the double has to show hearts only so it seems a little weird to play 2♦ as a minimum hand.

So playing 5-card majors, I think 2♦ as 11-15 is almost unplayable.

Disagree on both counts. My style with regard to such things follows:

(1) In addition to showing four hearts, my double shows either reasonably short spades or invitational-plus values. In other words, I will not double after 1m-(1♠) when holding 4+spades and less than an invite. There are a number of advantages to this approach. First, we will often find our heart fits anyway after I pass and partner reopens with a double, so I lose little to nothing there. Second, if the opponents don't have a real spade fit (i.e. I have four spades and partner has three) and we are not making game, I am generally happy to let them play 1♠ rather than forcing us to compete on a misfit hand. Third, I am not really afraid of the sequence where "opponents raise to an uncomfortable level" here; I have so many spades that a raise is unlikely, and if they do raise and it is right for us to compete, partner will have short spades and mild extras anyway. Finally, this allows me to find diamond fits in this sequence which would be impossible otherwise and can be the key to competing for a partial. For example, if partner has a 3145 and I have a 2452, we have a big diamond fit and would like to at least push them to the three-level, but this could be tough to do if partner is forced to rebid 1NT or 2♣ over my negative double, or if parter is effectively forced to pass after their 2♠ raise.

(2) I will virtually never open 1♦ holding 4/5 in the minors. This helps a lot in finding our better minor fit, even without competition. As a simple example, suppose I hold ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx and the bidding (opponents passing) starts 1♦-1♠-2♣. Obviously I would like to invite (assuming roughly standard point ranges), but if partner could be 4/5 or 5/4 in the minors (either longer) how do I guarantee playing in the eight-card fit when partner is minimum? And this is an invite hand; the problems with simple preference (and false preference) auctions are substantially worse. Of course, the fact that I routinely open 1♣ with 4/5 minors means that we often have a diamond fit to find, and makes it more appealing to be able to rebid 2♦ over the negative double. I would normally open 1♦ with 4/4 minors and would rebid 1NT over a negative double on a flat hand with 4/4 minors in any case.

(3) Notice that there are some implications from the above. The sequence of 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass)-2♦ shows 4/5 (at least) shape for opener. If he was just 4/4 he would open 1♦ or rebid 1NT. Responder's negative double promises either invitational-plus values (so easy to bid on over 2♦) or not many spades. If responder is minimum, at worst he has 3433 and we have an eight-card club fit; more often he has a four-card minor (either diamonds or clubs) and we are happy to play our eight-card diamond fit at the two-level (or our nine-card club fit at the three-level).

In general my style facilitates finding good minor fits, both in competition and out. This swings a lot of partials our way, and even some games (minor suit games do exist, and win a lot of imps). In exchange it becomes possible to "miss" a major suit fit on hands where the opponents decide to play in a six-card fit and we are both too long in their suit to double "for takeout" and too weak to push for game. Seems to me I could easily win on those hands by defending, and certainly it's not a big loss.

[mike777]

jmcilkley, on 2012-May-11, 11:01, said:

Playing natural I open 1C and LHO overcalls 1S, partner doubles and I rebid 2d. How many points am I showing? Obviously if I bid 1H I will definitely be showing up to a poor 15 but is it different if I bid 1D?
Mike C

BWS



F. Competition After Any Suit One-Bid

A simple new-suit response over an overcall is forcing (by an unpassed hand). If at the two level, it is forcing to the next level of opener’s suit.

Negative doubles: A negative double at the one level or when there is exactly one unbid major guarantees at least four cards in any unbid major (opener may rebid in a three-card suit there in a pinch); otherwise, that requirement is only tentative (opener should not rebid in a three-card suit). When responder’s negative double guarantees length in an unbid major, opener’s bids in that suit function as would raises in the corresponding noncompetitive auction. After one club — (one of a major) — double — (pass) — ?, opener’s two-diamond rebid does not show extra values


http://www.bridgewor...=bwsall.html#VE

[aguahombre]

I wonder if anyone has changed their thoughts on the subject in the past 11 years.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-14, 13:56, said:

I wonder if anyone has changed their thoughts on the subject in the past 11 years.

I changed my mind a bit after reading AWM's posts, especially the latest one where he starts by saying that he disagrees with me. I still (think I) prefer to play it as a reverse, but I can see the advantages of AWM's style now.

[Wackojack]

In the context of Acol 12-14 no trump, then all weak hands with a 4 card diamond suit are either:
2245 when you would open 1NT and all other balanced hands with 4 diamonds
1345, 3145 or 6 clubs when you would rebid 2C.
So by elimination 2D must show at least 15+.
In any case with 1345 opps are likely to outbid you in spades.
Since a rebid of 1NT without intervention shows 15-16(17) it makes sense to keep it that way with intervention so with 3145 and 15 with stops in spades 1NT may be better than 2D.

[Cyberyeti]

Wackojack, on 2012-May-15, 07:50, said:

In the context of Acol 12-14 no trump, then all weak hands with a 4 card diamond suit are either:
2245 when you would open 1NT and all other balanced hands with 4 diamonds
1345, 3145 or 6 clubs when you would rebid 2C.
So by elimination 2D must show at least 15+.

You may open 1N (and I do sometimes) when 2245, but surely not with all the points in the long suits in first seat.

In the words of somebody else from another thread, I prefer to bid 9 cards rather than 5, 2♦ whether 3145/1345/2245 is routine.

Why risk playing 2♣ opposite partner's minimum 3550 with your 3145 ?