[straube]

Kit Woolsey uses dbl as a relay or weak Lebensohl bid when the opponents interfere at the 3-level. Here's a link http://bridgewinners...w/relay-double/

So 1S (3D) dbl asks partner to bid 3H...which can be passed. Or responder can remove to show a raise in spades or a negative double (4 hearts) with a GF. Maybe other meanings. I guess aside from the
double that 3H would force in hearts and 3S would be a limit raise in spades.

1S (3H) dbl is either competing in spades or...I'm not sure...a negative double again?

We've been playing thrump doubles and while they seem very necessary on occasion, they are just very rare. I've wondered if in the case of 1S (3H) the meaning of double and 3S could be switched....

dbl-limit raise or other GF hands
3S-competitive raise
3N-to play with stopper

Let's say I double and partner retreats to 3S...rejecting a limit raise. Then my rebids...

3N-to play without a stopper
etc-maybe 4H?

But if partner would accept a LR, he describes his hand along the way...in case I don't have a fit

3N-stopper
4C-clubs
4D-4H?
4H-5H
4S-6S

He can also pass.

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

It appears that Woolsey plays (bad) relay doubles (where bad means similarly to bad in Good/Bad 2NT).

Two partners and me struggled for a while with variable Good/Bad 2NT, defining (in our view) the optimal situations to play each. The memory strain and occasional ambiguity made the risk/reward ledger unfavourable, so now we have settled on permanently Good 2NT. Note however, this is actually of the form, in context

• Bad in ♣, or
  
• Good not ♣

and otherwise with Lebensohl like continuations (the "direct shows" variant). This is pretty functional, much less error prone, and, on the odd forget, less likely to be a problem (when partner bids 3NT, he's supposed to have a stopper, etc).

My instinct, on reading of relay doubles, is were I to play them (and it doesn't seem a bad idea) to do the same, i.e. in context, Bad in the next suit, else Good.

In think the rest would follow along the lines you suggest, i.e. delayed 3NT shows the values without a stopper, and in the event partner is too strong to risk a Pass of completion of the marionette, that he bids naturally.

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

It seems like partner has to be able to super-accept.

1S (3D) dbl P ?

3H-minimum
3S-minimum, would raise hearts
3N-stopper, would raise hearts and take a simple spade raise to game
etc

[Phil]

Theres a cousin of this treatment. I'm not positive how it works but here's a possible sequence.

1♥-(4♣)-?

4♦ = either a drop in 4♥ or 4♠ or a slam force in hearts (only?).

4M = mild slam try

There may be a better way.

[Kungsgeten]

 newroad, on 2016-January-31, 13:37, said:

My instinct, on reading of relay doubles, is were I to play them (and it doesn't seem a bad idea) to do the same, i.e. in context, Bad in the next suit, else Good.

Wouldn't this be a problem if they compete over the double? Let's say the bidding goes like this:

1S-(3C)-Dbl-(4C); P-(P)-?

Now opener doesn't know if you have a good hand or a bad hand with diamonds, and he also doesn't know if you have support for spades or not. It will be hard for opener to do something that isn't passing. The same is true if you play "bad relay doubles", but over a competitive raise or sign-off opener is less likely wanting to act than over a "good bid". The "bad relay double" also includes game forcing negative doubles, but with such a hand you can simply double again in the situation above.

[newroad]

 Kungsgeten, on 2016-February-01, 08:50, said:

Wouldn't this be a problem if they compete over the double? Let's say the bidding goes like this:

1S-(3C)-Dbl-(4C); P-(P)-?

Now opener doesn't know if you have a good hand or a bad hand with diamonds, and he also doesn't know if you have support for spades or not. It will be hard for opener to do something that isn't passing. The same is true if you play "bad relay doubles", but over a competitive raise or sign-off opener is less likely wanting to act than over a "good bid". The "bad relay double" also includes game forcing negative doubles, but with such a hand you can simply double again in the situation above.

Hi Kungsgeten.

If you mean a bad hand, in context, with (primary) diamonds or a good hand without primary diamonds, then yes, that's what I was musing. With a minimum, opener would typically need a diamond fit to act. The spade support issue is not paramount - if you have them, he can wait for you to bid 4S (and, like the advantage Woolsey cites, it becomes a much stronger action).

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

Partner likes 1S (3H) dbl as promising a limit raise or better. I guess the continuations are

3S-rejects LR
.....3N-to play, needs stopper
.....4m-forcing
.....4H-both minors?
.....4S-?
3N-accepts game, has a heart stopper
4C-natural, probably no stopper or 5/5
4D-natural, probably no stopper or 5/5
4H-slamming unless partner has a LR
4S-likes spades a lot

Then after 1S (3H)

3S-simple raise
3N-to play with stopper
4m-to play
4H-slam try for spades

Is this better than dbl as weak? The only real conflict I can see is when responder wants to force with clubs and opener bids diamonds or 4S before he can show the clubs.

Whether double shows mostly weak hands (such as a simple raise) or strong hands (such as LR or GF) the opponents may raise hearts.

1S (3H) dbl (4H)?

In which case dbl by opener probably shows the desire to bid 4S opposite a fitting hand while a bid of 4S shows extra spade length.

So again, should dbl be possibly a weak raise or should it possibly a limit raise? I'm leaning toward the former but it seems mostly a wash.

[foobar]

 straube, on 2016-February-01, 23:29, said:

Partner likes 1S (3H) dbl as promising a limit raise or better. I guess the continuations are

Then after 1S (3H)


3S-simple raise
3N-to play with stopper
4m-to play
4H-slam try for spades

I don't know if the ability to stop on a dime in 4m is a good target for either the immediate bid or the relay X. It's true that playing the weak version might allow such a scenario, but how likely are we have a 7+ card minor? Note that the original suggestion was speculating on what if Woolsey's method were to be inverted at the 3-level, i.e., 3-level bids in response to the original X are like NFBs and X shows a strong flexible hand. Specifically, from the example in the article, after (2♥) - X - (3♥), 3♠ by responder would be competitive, and X would show the strong flexible hand. Maybe this treatment isn't that different from standard methods, but knowing that responder is strong with a flexible hand might open up other possibilities.

None of this has been thought out particularly well, but it's food for thought...

[straube]

The thing I especially don't like about 1S (3H) dbl as possibly a simple raise is that partner can often raise a simple raise. So let's say we're playing that and opener guesses that we have the simple raise and wants to raise. But he's not sure so he has to hedge his bets. He doesn't have a heart stopper but he has five diamonds to go along with his five spades. So he bids 4D. Only thing is that partner has 7 clubs and meant to compete in 4C. Now we're too high.

It's different against 1S (3D) because we have paradoxical advances available that make sense. Plus often opener just rebids 3H and can learn about a simple raise of spades....and then bid 4S.

[foobar]

 straube, on 2016-February-02, 00:44, said:

The thing I especially don't like about 1S (3H) dbl as possibly a simple raise is that partner can often raise a simple raise. So let's say we're playing that and opener guesses that we have the simple raise and wants to raise. But he's not sure so he has to hedge his bets. He doesn't have a heart stopper but he has five diamonds to go along with his five spades. So he bids 4D. Only thing is that partner has 7 clubs and meant to compete in 4C. Now we're too high.

It's different against 1S (3D) because we have paradoxical advances available that make sense. Plus often opener just rebids 3H and can learn about a simple raise of spades....and then bid 4S.

As I see it, in the 1♠ - (3♥) case, the possibilities are:

X: Either strong ♠ with slam interest / strong flexible hand
3♠: Simple ♠ raise
3N: TP
4♠: TP

IMO, 7-card suits that want to stop at the 4-level shouldn't be an prominent consideration in deciding between the weak and the strong form of the X. My feeling is that 4m should just be natural and forcing.

Perhaps, one option afforded by the weak version is that over the forced 3♠ responder can bid 3N to express doubt of strain.

[nullve]

Kit Woolsey said:

The idea started with overcalls, on an auction such as (1♦)-1♥-(3♦)-? We have always played good-bad 2NT to distinguish between a competitive raise and a constructive raise. Since the 3-level call took that 2NT bid away from us, we decided to use double instead. We gradually extended it to after we open and overcall. [In http://bridgewinners.../relay-double/]

 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. [In http://www.bridgebas...partners-suit/]

[straube]

I'd like for double to carry the weak option. 1H (3D) dbl could be a competitive raise. I think either way double would rarely be passed because it's so often a fit bid. Partner wants to play 3H, so why pass 3D doubled? Also, if double is always weak then partner will seldom do anything but accept the marionette. Fewer paradox advances means simpler auctions.

One thing to clear up is after 1H (3D) dbl P 3H, my understanding is that....

3S-is competitive
3N-is natural and negative (i.e. 4S)
4C-is competitive
4D-is negative and bigger...maybe like a Mansfield Choice of Games
4H-?

I had been thinking that dbl and then 3N would be an offer to play but denying a stopper. But it can't mean both this and be negative at the same time. Sure, both things could be true sometimes.

I think they use it as negative. With the traditional thrump hand Kxx x xxx AKQJTx they probably just bid 4C.

[Kungsgeten]

 straube, on 2016-February-06, 01:37, said:

4D-is negative and bigger...maybe like a Mansfield Choice of Games

What's a Mansfield Choice of Games? Woolsey writes that dbl followed by 3NT or cue bid are both negative doubles, the difference being that the cue bid (4D) isn't suitable for 3NT (so no diamond stopper).

[straube]

In many situations, Mansfield recommended that a cue bid at higher levels (particularly the 4 level) show uncertainty of strain as opposed to a slam try. For example (3C) 3S P 4C would be a choice of game cue and it would threaten to pass partner in the first game that made sense. For instance if overcaller rebid 4H here that would be not forcing; if over 4H the cue bidder bid 4S he would imply diamonds and spade tolerance. I think I have that example right but I'm not sure. Mansfield wrote an article about it for Bridgeworld and I liked it a lot.

Thanks for clarifying the difference between dbl and 3N.

[Zelandakh]

In the 1♠ - (3♦) auction, Ben's system seems like it ought to work for you, with X showing hearts, 3♥ showing a spade raise and 3♠ would be either a 3NT call without a stopper or clubs. If you regarded the stop ask as unimportant you could of course decide to play the 3♠ response as a limit raise instead. I think what is best for you here depends on what you regard as the relative priorities of different hand types. There is not much space so getting everything is just not possible.

[straube]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-07, 07:40, said:

In the 1♠ - (3♦) auction, Ben's system seems like it ought to work for you, with X showing hearts, 3♥ showing a spade raise and 3♠ would be either a 3NT call without a stopper or clubs. If you regarded the stop ask as unimportant you could of course decide to play the 3♠ response as a limit raise instead. I think what is best for you here depends on what you regard as the relative priorities of different hand types. There is not much space so getting everything is just not possible.

I think that dbl should handle more than hearts. The main attraction of relay doubles is having competitive and invitational raises of a major. If you play responsive doubles and the auction goes 1D dbl 3D you're in a good position with 4/4 in the majors but if you play relay doubles you can invite or compete in one of the majors. I think the latter would be more useful.

[Zelandakh]

 straube, on 2016-February-07, 08:29, said:

I think that dbl should handle more than hearts. The main attraction of relay doubles is having competitive and invitational raises of a major. If you play responsive doubles and the auction goes 1D dbl 3D you're in a good position with 4/4 in the majors but if you play relay doubles you can invite or compete in one of the majors. I think the latter would be more useful.

As I am following it your suggested structure is:-

1♠ - (3♦)
=========
X = LR in spades, or 4 hearts, GF
3♥ = 5+ hearts, GF
3♠ = competitive raise
3NT = nat with stopper
4♣ = nat
4♦ = 4 hearts without diamond stopper

Compare that with the modified Equality structure:-

X = 4+ hearts, GF or competitive/invitational with hearts
3♥ = GF or competitive spade raise
3♠ = LR
3NT = nat with stopper
4♣ = nat

Looks like a wash, no? But the latter base also allows for Ben's structure:-
X = 4+ hearts, GF or competitive/invitational with hearts
3♥ = GF spade raise or (choice of) LR/competitive raise
3♠ = nat without stopper or GF with clubs
3NT = nat with stopper

Is the ability to cover the stopper-ask hands more useful than a third raise type? I don't know but I think it is worth considering questions of priority such as this. Where it gets interesting is combining the ideas:-

X = 4+ hearts, GF or competitive/invitational with hearts or LR in spades
3♥ = GF spade raise or competitive raise
3♠ = nat without stopper or GF with clubs
3NT = nat with stopper

or

X = 4+ hearts, GF or competitive/invitational with hearts or competitive raise in spades
3♥ = LR+
3♠ = nat without stopper or GF with clubs
3NT = nat with stopper

I think weighing the pros and cons of such structures is more about personal preference than any technical merits. But I do think you should look at various transfer schemes here because there is potentially the ability to maximise the limited space that way, even if you eventually decide against the concept.

[straube]

What I'm looking at is...

dbl-various
.....3H-no raise of hearts
..........P-competitive hearts
..........3S-competitive spades
..........3N-negative double (4H), ostensibly with stopper
..........4C-competitive clubs
..........4D-negative double (4H), no stopper, COGish
..........4M-?
.....3S-I'd raise your hearts but not my spades
.....3N-I'd raise either major and I have a stopper
.....4C-lots of spades and clubs
.....4D-what do you have?
.....4H-lots of spades and hearts
.....4S-lots of spades
3H-GF 5+H
3S-limit raise
3N-to play
4C-clubs, forcing
4D-full raise to 4S
4H-to play
4S-various

The Equality structure looks similar in that it has two spade raises, but Ben's doesn't. Anyway, I looked at a number of hands and those looking for 3N without a stopper are infrequent and those wanting to raise spades are very frequent. I've actually been a big fan of Thrump doubles although I can't really recall benefitting from one. I think for me....

After

strong club.........dbl-just GF, likely no 5M
nebulous 1D.......dbl-thrump
1N......................dbl-negative
2m (6m 10-15)....dbl-thrump
1M......................dbl-relay
takeout dbl.........dbl-relay

Basically if partner has shown or implied a major, I'd like to be able to raise two ways.