[gwnn]

dake50 are you a bot? you copy-pasted a post from this same thread

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2011-July-02, 14:16, said:

dake50 are you a bot? you copy-pasted a post from this same thread

I am sure he intended to quote, but fell short.

[1eyedjack]

jillybean, on 2011-March-28, 03:10, said:

After 1♠ 2♠ I doubt that the opps will let you play in 3 of anything very often.

Do we care? If our competitive bidding forces them into a dicey 3♠ contract when they would otherwise have been allowed to play in a safe 2♠, is that not just as effective a job done? But that does at least require that we compete.

[Zelandakh]

OK, I had a chance to work through my thoughts on this and I think I have an optimal solution. If we start from Ken's (good) logic then we have 7 hand types, plus an optional eigth.

A) 3-suited
B) 3 x 2-suited
C) 3 x 1-suited
D) (optional) competitive with hearts

Of these, 4 hand types must be shown at 3C or lower, 2 at 3D or lower, and the remaining 1 (+1) are fine at 3H. This means that to show everything we must include 2 hands in the double, as Ken identified, and use 2NT to sort it out.

In theory we could put any 2 club-based hands into double but there is a distinct advantage to playing it as 3-suited or a specific 2-suiter, because in this case our 3NT response can show the 3rd suit. Since hearts is the most expensive suit here and we are concerned about 4H it makes sense for this 3rd suit to be hearts. Thus it is surely best to play double as "takeout or minors". For the reasons earlier I like to stick with Ken's structure for the higher bids.

After this preamble, here is my proposed structure:-

(1S) - p - (2S) - ?
===================
X = takeout or minors
... 2NT = hearts
... ... 3C = minors
... ... ... 3H = invitational with long hearts
... ... 3D = invitational heart raise
... ... 3H = to play
... 3m = natural
... 3H = weak with long hearts
2NT = 1-suited, either minor or competitive with hearts
... paradox responses as per multi
3m = hearts and the minor
3H = good heart overcall

You can see how many ways we have of differentiating heart fits in this structure making 4H much easier to find than any other scheme I have seen.

Having come this far I am now wondering if this structure is also workable in similar situations at the 4 level. For example, after 2S - 4S from the opps, or even just over a 4S opening. Is including the minor suit hands here now going to inhibit our ability to extract penalties over a regular takeout double? I would be interested in some feedback on this and if one of the simulators is available that would be especially appreciated!

[1eyedjack]

Not saying that I have a better solution, and of course there is no solution that does not have weaknesses, my concern about Zel's structure is its dependence on the opponents' silence following the 2S bid, which silence cannot be guaranteed and indeed may be a minority action. Of course, if opener bumps it up to 3S that is going to put you to some uncomfortable guesses whatever methods you use.

But anticipating further intervention I feel a little uncomfortable about making bids which leave the suits in doubt, even though they may be clarified with a free run at the auction. The double, for example which may or may not have hearts, followed by a 3S raise by opener, seems vulnerable.

Given that something has to give, I generally find it preferable to get my suits across even if the cost of that policy is a more flexible strength definition.