[Kungsgeten]

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

[straube]

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.

[Kungsgeten]

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

[kenrexford]

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.

[helene_t]

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.

[phoenix214]

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.

[nullve]

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.)

[gwnn]

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

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?