[hanp]

Here are two methods for dealing with the auction 1D - (2C). Which do you think is better and how do they compare to "standard" agreements or other alternative treatments?

Method I:

Double = negative, not a single suited major.
2D = 5+ hearts, about 7+ points.
2H = 5+ spades, about 7+ pionts.
2S = invitational or better with diamonds.
3C = mixed raise of diamonds.
3D = preemptive.

Method II:

Double = 4+ spades, may have equally long hearts.
2D = 4+ hearts, NF.
2H, 2S = natural, forcing.
3C = forcing, may have 4 hearts but not 4 spades.
3D = natural invitational.

[gwnn]

I like (and played) the first one and don't understand the second one (I assume 2♦ means 4+ diamonds NF but still I don't understand the 3♣ bid, what exactly is it?).

[Apollo81]

First one > standard > second one.

[bluecalm]

+1 for Method I.
If I am not mistaken this is what Meckwell use (of course raises in ♦ promises big fit in their system as 1♦ is 2+).

I am not sure if this is better than negative free bids (I think probably it is)but I think is much better than "standard".
The most important thing is to show your majors. Being able to show both with not much strength as well as GF hands sounds like big advantage to me. The cost is lack of natural 2♦ (NFB's doesn't have this disadvantage but you have to double with 12+, 5 card major hands using them).

Method 2 loses 5-3 fits as well as makes it difficult to bid with 4 card fits at 4 level if they preempt. I don't like it.
Anyway, any system when you have: xx KQJxxx xxx xx and have you don't get to show your hearts after 2♣ overcall is bad in my opinion.

[hanp]

2D is 4+ hearts, it's typically a balanced hand with 4 hearts and not 4 spades that you'd make a takeout double with. The idea of this method is to avoid the ambiguity of the standard negative double. In standard you could have a 4-card major in each suit, here you show it immediately.

[OleBerg]

Slightly sidetracking.

In this sequence:

1♦ - (2♣) - X - (4♣)
-x - Pass - ???

how about simply letting 4♦ deny a 5-card major?

To solve x-5-x-x and some 5-x-x-x

Where opener might pull us out of a 5-3 fit.


To a lesser extent, this also applies to:

1♦ - (2♣) - X - (3♣)
-x - Pass - ???

[gnasher]

II > I > standard. Nice idea.

Do you have any solution for the similar problems after 1♣ (2♦)?

[hanp]

I don't have suggestions there.

I'm playing Method II by partner's suggestion but it hasn't come up yet. Do you have experience with the method?

[gwnn]

OK if 2♦ is 4+ hearts you should define it a little better, in terms of exact HCP and heart and diamond length, otherwise opener will just have a lot of headaches. For example exactly 4 hearts, 2-3 diamonds, 0-3 spades, 6-9 points. I don't know what other hands could do but like this you really can't play it, what does opener do with 2 hearts and 4 diamonds? 2 hearts and 5 diamonds? et cetera

[akhare]

II seems like a good treatment to me -- do you play similar methods over 1M - (2♣) as well?

Edit: As other have noted, the 2♦ = 4+ can probably be better defined, i.e., what's the advantage of this over a regular NFB style?

[hanp]

Gwnn and I just bid a lot of hands using Method II. Gwnn was initially quite sceptical about the method and to be honest, so was I. My main worries were the 2D bid (if this can be anywhere from 6-2 to 4-4 in the reds, how can partner judge whether to pass) and the lack of diamond raises.

After bidding a few hands we made the following additional agreements:

1 A jump to 3M shows a good 6+ suit and about 6-8 HCP. So a hand not good enough to bid 2M but with which we don't want to bid 2D.

2 After a double, opener's 2H bid is NF and typically shows a 3442 distribution.

3 Responder can double with 4-5 in the majors.

4 If responder doubles and opener bids 2S, responder should assume opener has 4 spades, we never bid it with 3 (after having made agreement 2). So responder can compete to the 3-level with a fifth spade and opener doesn't need to bid his hand again.

I must say we didn't miss having more diamond raises. It's quite rare that you don't have a 4-card major, and if you don't, you usually have club length and you can pass. I feel better now, thanks gwnn!

[Phil]

Is 2N special in either of these?

I might have to try this. #1 looks intuitively better, but I'll trust the road test.

[JLOGIC]

I play #1 except 3C=5-5 majors+ and have no mixed raise.

[awm]

I'd agree with Noble that Method I > Standard > Method II. I also think that Method I is clearly better than negative free bids.

Method II seems to be mostly about dealing with hands where responder has one four card major and not the other. While this seems nice especially if opponents always pass the rest of the auction after the 2♣ overcall, in practice I don't think it will be so good. Some of the issues:

(1) Making a preemptive raise in diamonds is very valuable when you have the right hand, especially if 1♦ promise four. This puts a lot of pressure on the opponents, and will often be the right call on a weak hand with long diamonds even if holding a four-card major. Method II removes the preemptive diamond raise as a possible call.

(2) It's easy to underestimate the merits of PASS for advancer. Many of the "problem" hands where you have one four-card major and not many cards in the other major, you also have some club length. This means opponents are usually passing 2♣ and partner is usually balancing, so you get to the right spot anyway playing standard methods (or method I). I know a lot of people absolutely hate passing in this auction on 8-10 hcp or whatever, but it really works out a very high percentage of the time when you are i.e. 2434.

(3) Finding major suit fits is a bit overrated here. Frequently you are just trying to go plus on the board, and making a diamond partial will be a fine result (even at MP). If opener has extras and wants to look for game, he can always introduce a four-card major after a diamond raise, so again you find your major suit fit.

(4) I think it is very nice to be able to show a long major suit in a NF way at the two-level. Jumping to 3M on these hands is often unappealing (i.e. if your suit is not so great or you only have five of them). Method I and NFB get you this; method II and standard really don't.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Sep 9 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

I'm playing Method II by partner's suggestion but it hasn't come up yet. Do you have experience with the method?

No, it's entirely new to me.

I think you should use 2NT as a diamond raise, so that 3♣ can promise hearts.

What's dbl-2♦-2♥? Is that a weakish 4-5, or a better 4-5, or an invitational 4-4, or several of these?

[hanp]

We said double followed by 2H would be less than invitational. I did it on KQ10x QJ10x x xxxx, but I think that I'd usually be 5-4 either way.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I play #1 except 3C=5-5 majors+ and have no mixed raise.

Interesting. I remember thinking about this and wondering what is the best use for 3♣. What strength such 3♣ promises ?

I also want to add that one more advantage is that if you transfer to major and end up playing in it overcaller is on lead which is always a nice bonus. So more + for method 1.