[gwnn]

Sorry for not helping you jillybean, I was trying to answer the question. If you wanted a post on replying 1♦ on 3, you should have asked about that.

[Zelandakh]

 jillybean, on 2011-August-19, 21:06, said:

Would it be better for anyone wanting an advanced response to post their question in the A/E forum to avoid responses that are dumbed down or protected from "advanced concepts"?

Jilly, a good place to look for innovative ideas in less common bidding systems is the Non-Natural Systems forum. You will not find the answers there "dumbed down"; but you may have to filter out the "noise" from possibilities that run against your bidding philosophy unless you frame questions in fairly precise terms.

[jillybean]

 gwnn, on 2011-August-20, 03:35, said:

Sorry for not helping you jillybean, I was trying to answer the question. If you wanted a post on replying 1♦ on 3, you should have asked about that.

Gwnn sorry if you took umbrage at my comment, none intended. I didn't want a response to 1♦ on 3, I hadn't considered the implications of support doubles until it was raised here. My partners play both support and negative, I don't care for either method. BTW, you reponded 'other' what do you play?

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-20, 08:11, said:

Jilly, a good place to look for innovative ideas in less common bidding systems is the Non-Natural Systems forum. You will not find the answers there "dumbed down"; but you may have to filter out the "noise" from possibilities that run against your bidding philosophy unless you frame questions in fairly precise terms.

I don't think I am looking for Non-Natural Systems, but rather ideas other than what your average club player uses.

Elianna, Helene, ggwhiz you all voted 'other' - how do you play it?

[helene_t]

If not playing Walsh I agree with Csaba that it should show hearts. I would probably raise with 3-card support although I admit it could lead to a 3-3 fit. I haven't thought about this. I think the 3-3 fit is rare. But maybe responder should be allowed to correct to 3♣ without showing extras?

Playing Walsh it should probably be a support double.

[Zelandakh]

 jillybean, on 2011-August-20, 09:59, said:

I don't think I am looking for Non-Natural Systems, but rather ideas other than what your average club player uses.

In the context of BBF "Non-Natural Systems" are anything except SAYC and 2/1 which have their own forum. It is only an idea, for purely natural bidding questions there is the above mentioned forum, and for bidding relating to a specific hand "Interesting Bridge Hands" will generally get a good response.

[mgoetze]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-20, 10:33, said:

In the context of BBF "Non-Natural Systems" are anything except SAYC and 2/1 which have their own forum.

Yeah, like ACOL. Most people tend to mistakenly think it is natural and post in "General Bridge Discussion" instead, though.

I do agree that most of the useful system discussion happens in the "Non-Natural Systems" forum, even if it pertains to 2/1. (For instance, Transfer Walsh has been discussed there.)

[gwnn]

 jillybean, on 2011-August-20, 09:59, said:

Gwnn sorry if you took umbrage at my comment, none intended. I didn't want a response to 1♦ on 3, I hadn't considered the implications of support doubles until it was raised here. My partners play both support and negative, I don't care for either method. BTW, you reponded 'other' what do you play?

Depends on my partnership and how we play 1♦ However, usually I don't play up the line (even though I think it is a workable system, I haven't used it in a long time), so for me x should be support. I have only played one weekend of 1♣-1♦ could be 3 (or maybe even 2 if you have a weird hand like QJx Kxx Jx xxxxx that you don't want to jump to 3♣ with), so those considerations don't apply to me.

your comment was simply very surprising to me - surely if you find that a reply doesn't help you at all, the least you can do is to ignore it? to clarify: I did not dumb down my reply to any level, it is simply my opinion about this situation. if your 1♦ includes hands with 4 hearts and 6-9 points, opener's double should show hearts, if not, then you should play it as support.

Anyway, thanks for teaching me a new word (umbrage) - I like words

[jillybean]

For those who play X as support here, how do you bid a 3424 type hand, unsuitable for 1N?

[gwnn]

If I have 12-14, I pass. Presumably by unsuitable for 1NT you meant that I don't have a spade stop. Note that usually 1NT here promises a double spade stop with at least a good 13.
If I have 15-17, I opened 1NT.
If I have 18-19, I bid 2NT or 2♠.

Some people actually say that you 1NT here should promise 18-19. I think they are in a minority and it is slightly dangerous that one of you will forget it, but they are probably right.

[Siegmund]

+1 to everything in gwnn's post right above mine.

Yes, it makes 1NT kind of an idle bid, in this one particular sequence. In other support double sequences like 1D (p or x) 1M (2C), however, no 1NT bid is available and the flat 12-14s have to pass, even if they have 4 cards in the unbid major. You choose whether you want to be able to show the 3-card support, or show the unbid 4-card major. No room to do both. In the posted auction you can either choose to only have the 14s / hands with two spade stoppers / whatevers bid 1NT, or you can choose to split the passing and 1NT-rebidding hands according to major suit lengths. I've never had a partner ask me about that passibility.

Only thing I have to add is that this isn't so much a "conflict between" negative and support doubles, as a question whether to extend negative doubles to opener's double after 4th seat overcalls at all -- I'd never assume that they do without discussion, just because I had agreed negative but not support with a given partner.

[mgoetze]

For those saying opener doesn't need to show hearts playing Walsh, don't you think responder might still like to know of them if he is strong and it goes 1♣-p-1♦-(1♠)-something-(3♠)? Or even 4♠...

[gwnn]

 mgoetze, on 2011-August-21, 14:50, said:

For those saying opener doesn't need to show hearts playing Walsh, don't you think responder might still like to know of them if he is strong and it goes 1♣-p-1♦-(1♠)-something-(3♠)? Or even 4♠...

I definitely didn't say opener doesn't need to show hearts playing Walsh, only that the need isn't as urgent and a support x is probably better. There will be good cases and bad cases. When opps bid to 3♠, we will possibly lose if we have a heart fit, but probably win if we have a diamond fit and no heart fit.

[awm]

Elianna and I play this double as takeout. This means it shows:

0-2♠
3-4♥
2-3♦ (usually three, but Hx is okay)
4-6♣

The prototypical hand is 1435, but it can easily be one card away from that.

[jillybean]

Thanks all, especially gwnn