[straube]

both awm and partner & I use an artificial limited 1D.

awm's 1D (1H) structure....
.....dbl-4+ spades
.....1S-takeout or hearts without spades (presumably minors) or NFB clubs
.....1N-natural
.....2C-NFB+ diamonds
.....2D-GI+ clubs
.....2H-stopper ask
.....2S-wjs

ours....
.....dbl-4 spades
..........1S-clubs
.....1S-4+ diamonds
.....1N-5+ spades
.....2C-clubs, f
.....2D-9-11, 3D and 4-5C
.....2H-GI+ six spades
.....2S-weak, minors

Ours obviously devotes more room to spades. I don't get awm's takeout of hearts/NFB clubs since opener obviously can't then rebid 2D. We're obviously in la la land when we respond 2D. Can anyone improve upon either of these?

How about
.....dbl-4 spades
.....1S-bal, minors, or diamonds (basically 3+ diamonds)
.....1N-5 spades
.....2C-NFB clubs
.....2D-forcing, clubs
.....2H-GI+ 6 spades
.....2S-weak, minors

[awm]

straube, on 2012-February-19, 15:25, said:

both awm and partner & I use an artificial limited 1D.

awm's 1D (1H) structure....
.....dbl-4+ spades
.....1S-takeout or hearts without spades (presumably minors) or NFB clubs
.....1N-natural
.....2C-NFB+ diamonds
.....2D-GI+ clubs
.....2H-stopper ask
.....2S-wjs

ours....
.....dbl-4 spades
..........1S-clubs
.....1S-4+ diamonds
.....1N-5+ spades
.....2C-clubs, f
.....2D-9-11, 3D and 4-5C
.....2H-GI+ six spades
.....2S-weak, minors

Ours obviously devotes more room to spades. I don't get awm's takeout of hearts/NFB clubs since opener obviously can't then rebid 2D. We're obviously in la la land when we respond 2D. Can anyone improve upon either of these?

How about
.....dbl-4 spades
.....1S-bal, minors, or diamonds (basically 3+ diamonds)
.....1N-5 spades
.....2C-NFB clubs
.....2D-forcing, clubs
.....2H-GI+ 6 spades
.....2S-weak, minors

We do actually play 2♥ = 6+♠ weak or GF.

We also play 3♣ as less-than-invitational with long clubs.

It is true that the 1♠ bid can be problematic, but if you consider the hand patterns without 4♠ and without 6+♣ and unsuitable for 1NT (which we play natural) you will find that 1♠ is normally either 4+/4+ minors or 3♦ with 5♣. So opener can bid diamonds on five.

[straube]

I see. So 1S is similar in promising 3+ diamonds.

If you had to play that 1N was 5+ spades, how would you arrange the rest? I'm thinking that double (in leaving the most room) should probably show 3+ diamonds and that 1S should show 4 (only) spades.

dbl-3+ diamonds
.....1S-stuck (hence some clubs)
.....1N-stopper, fairly balanced
.....2C-good diamond raise
.....2D-bad diamond raise
1S-4 only spades
.....1N-no fit
.....2C-minors
.....2D-diamonds/hearts
.....2H-good raise
.....2S-bad raise
1N-5+ spades
.....2C-minors
.....2D-diamonds/hearts
.....2H-good raise
.....2S-bad raise
2C-NFB?
2D-clubs, forcing?
2H-6+ spades, GI+
2S-weak, minors

I kind of feel like 2C (showing clubs) should be forcing, though. If not, it makes it harder to show 4D/5C GI. Also, I'm concerned about putting overloading the double showing diamonds. I mean, it's fine if it handles 5D/4C GI+ but...

So maybe

2C-natural, forcing
2D-natural, forcing, tends to deny clubs
2H-6+ spades, GI+
2S-weak, minors?

[shevek]

Can't see merit in reserving 1NT for 5♠s.

Part of the reason for swapping 1♠ & double is to allow opener to bid 1♠ with 3, 1NT with fewer, 2♠ with more.
Further, hate exposing partner's ♥Kxx when some number of NTs is our go.
Also, don't like putting a small number of hands in the 2-step.

Perhaps system constraints up the line forced this. Confess I didn't read further.

[Zelandakh]

A simple transfer system might be:

1♦ - (1♥)
=======
X = 4-5 spades
1♠ = clubs INV+, or take-out
1NT = natural
2♣ = diamonds, weak or GF
2♦ = diamonds, INV
2♥ = 6+ spades, weak or GF
2♠ = 6+ spades, INV
2NT = both minors, weak or GF
3♣ = clubs, weak

That's probably too simple though and I do not have the experience with the system that you and Adam do.

[straube]

I'm guesstimating that after 1D (1H) that responder will have 4+ spades about half of the time. I'm also guesstimating that responder will have a natural 1N response maybe 1/4 of the time.

Our 1D is vulnerable to preemption because it doesn't promise any suit. I think 1N natural has less upside for us than in standard because

1) it doesn't convey much suit information. Responder has hearts, doesn't have spades, and probably has at least 2+ of each minor.
2) having a stopper doesn't do a lot for us unless we have game values...which 1N denies. We could almost as well bid 1N without a stopper, let them run hearts, and then run our suit. 1N showing a stopper is much more useful opposite an unlimited hand as in standard

Even though a hand qualifying for 1N occurs about 1/4 the time, a sizable percentage can be handled by 1D (1H) P P dbl P 1N. Responding 1N with QJx AJx Jxxx xxx is useful if partner is expecting a hand like this, but responding 1N with QJx AJxxx xx xxx is less useful for us. Opener may want to correct to a minor, for example. For us now 1D (1H) P P 1N shows both minors (it can hardly be 18-19 balanced) so with this latter hand we just pass 1H and pass a balancing NT. We shouldn't be in a hurry to take the bid in a misfit. Advancer is not going to raise hearts and this hand has no preference for any other suit being trump.

If my preliminary estimates are right in that responder has 4+ spades half the time, it seems very worthwhile to me to split between 4 and 5 spades. After all, that's what most folks are doing already and they are further along in fit-finding than we are in knowing that opener has real diamonds. So standard methods assign dbl and 1S to showing 4 and 5 spades respectively. That's assigning our 2 most important bids to spades.

So....

standard....
dbl-4 spades
1S-5+ spades

awm
dbl-4+ spades
2H-6 spades, weak or strong

SCREAM
dbl-4 spades
1N-5+ spades
2H-6 spades, GI+

So you get a sense of how much space we're devoting to spades. I'm thinking that...

dbl-3+ diamonds (or possibly 3+ clubs)
1S-4 spades
1N-5+ spades
2H-GI, 6+ spades

might actually be better. We don't really need the cue bid of 2H as a stopper ask. Why ask for a stopper before we have any idea of fit?

The one thing I don't like about the last structure is that it wrongsides spade contracts. As far as space use, however, it seems pretty good.

1D (1H) dbl P

1S-heart takeout?
1N-naturalish or short diamonds
2C-good diamond raise
2D-bad diamond raise

Curious what awm and Zelandakh would recommend for a structure if they had to play 1N showed 5+ spades

[wclass___]

I don't see a better meaning for 1N as natural+constructive.

weakish 5♠ hands can easily go through double = showing 4♠+; 1♦-[1♥]-X-[P]-1♠=3(4)♠

If 1N is unnatural and weakish (like some clubs) then i wouldn't like to see 1♦-[1♥]-1N-[X].
...but if it is strong, how can one know that some NT declared by your partner isn't optimal contract..?

This is one of those occasions where it is somewhat hard to find a good meaning for a bid (1NT) as every meaning has clear disadvantages (mainly contract rightsiding).

Natural is probably least of the evils.

[bluecalm]

I like to play:
dbl = exactly 4 spades
1S = 5+spades
1N = nat
2C = NFB
2D = nat, weak
2H = inv+ with diamonds support
2S = weak, 6cards
2N = nat
3C = GF, nat
3D = pre
3H = please bid 3NT

But that's probably too simple for all of you transfer addicts

[straube]

deleted

[straube]

wclass___, on 2012-February-22, 15:43, said:

I don't see a better meaning for 1N as natural+constructive.

weakish 5♠ hands can easily go through double = showing 4♠+; 1♦-[1♥]-X-[P]-1♠=3(4)♠

If 1N is unnatural and weakish (like some clubs) then i wouldn't like to see 1♦-[1♥]-1N-[X].
...but if it is strong, how can one know that some NT declared by your partner isn't optimal contract..?

This is one of those occasions where it is somewhat hard to find a good meaning for a bid (1NT) as every meaning has clear disadvantages (mainly contract rightsiding).

Natural is probably least of the evils.

What I'm concerned about is what happens after 1D (1H) dbl (3H). I expect this raise to be fairly frequent, and we will lose 5/3 spade fits.

If I'm right about responder having 4+ spades about half the time, it seems like we can do better than use a method that requires us to double that same half the time.

[awm]

I am curious as to what sort of hands you would bid over 1♦-1♥-1♠-3♥ if 1♠ showed five. Keeping in mind that you're playing a limited opening system, it seems like:

(1) Weak notrump probably should pass.
(2) 4♠ and singleton obviously is bidding, but probably would bid if 1♠ was 4+ too.
(3) Are you bidding with 3♠ and singleton? Maybe with a max, but your singleton is usually hearts, and a double would seem to nicely describe the hand.

So basically opener will know if you have three card support (double) or four (bid) when you are strong enough to act over 3♥. When you have a weak notrump partner doesn't know if/whether you have a fit, but if he's strong enough he will double back in. You can then bid 3♠ (with three spades) or 4♠ (with four spades) (with fewer spades you bid 3NT or pass or 4m if neither of the other options fits).

It just doesn't feel like I lost much here. The true problem case is when opener has a big hand with three spades, but those open 1♣ in my system.

[straube]

awm, on 2012-February-22, 22:54, said:

I am curious as to what sort of hands you would bid over 1♦-1♥-1♠-3♥ if 1♠ showed five. Keeping in mind that you're playing a limited opening system, it seems like:

(1) Weak notrump probably should pass.
(2) 4♠ and singleton obviously is bidding, but probably would bid if 1♠ was 4+ too.
(3) Are you bidding with 3♠ and singleton? Maybe with a max, but your singleton is usually hearts, and a double would seem to nicely describe the hand.

So basically opener will know if you have three card support (double) or four (bid) when you are strong enough to act over 3♥. When you have a weak notrump partner doesn't know if/whether you have a fit, but if he's strong enough he will double back in. You can then bid 3♠ (with three spades) or 4♠ (with four spades) (with fewer spades you bid 3NT or pass or 4m if neither of the other options fits).

It just doesn't feel like I lost much here. The true problem case is when opener has a big hand with three spades, but those open 1♣ in my system.

I agree (to paraphrase) that many hands with 3 spades will pass...but some will bid, depending on heart shortness, strength and vulnerability. But also, responder can bring opener back into the auction by doubling...and knowing whether responder has four or five spades will help opener decide what to do.

Even if I'm wrong, I'd like to know how you would order the bids were 1N to show 5+ spades. I think the most sensible is dbl=3+ diamonds, 1S=4 spades but there will be less wrongsiding if dbl=4 spades and 1S=4+ diamonds

My best guess so far is...

dbl-3+ diamonds
.....1S-takeout of hearts
.....1N-natural or short diamonds
.....2C-good diamond raise
.....2D-weak diamond raise, possibly only 4
1S-4 spades
1N-5 spades
2C-NFB
2D-GI+ clubs
2H-GI+ six spades
2S-5/4+ minors

[awm]

It depends on what your 1♦ shows. I don't really understand your use of double as "3+ diamonds" -- this seems like an extremely non-helpful call especially if opponents compete higher in hearts. If I had to play 1NT = 5+♠ (which I actually think is quite bad, because it wrong-sides notrump), maybe:

X = 4♠ (right-siding spade contracts)
1♠ = 5+♣
1N = 5+♠ I guess
2♣ = 5+♦
2♦ = 3244 or 31(45), less than invitational
2♥ = 6+♠ weak or GF
2♠ = transfer to 2NT; invitational or better balanced hand wanting opener to declare
2NT = natural invite, wanting to declare notrump
3♣ = 5+/5+ minors, less than invitational

[straube]

thanks. I'll do some simulations and see how often I regret wrongsiding NT.

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, I have been a bit pre-occupied lately and not had a chance to play with this. First of all, if you are right that Responder has 4+ spades 50% of the time then it sounds like X = 4-5 spades ought to be about right for frequencies. What are your estimates for exactly 4 spades and exactly 5 spades? Ideally we would like X to have a frequency somewhere around 40%, no?

My view of the 1NT bid is that it should either be non-forcing or very strong. If 1NT showed 5 spades then I would also want it to be limited to allow Opener to pass with a weak hand and no spade fit. In that case we need to put the stronger hands with 5 spades somewhere. Perhaps we can get away with the previous idea but just take a few hands out of X and re-arrange a couple of things...

X = 4 spades or 5 spades and INV+
1♠ = clubs, INV+, or natural 1NT
1NT = 5 spades, nf
2♣ = diamonds, weak or GF
2♦ = take-out
2♥ = 6+ spades, weak or GF
2♠ = 6+ spades, INV
2NT = both minors, weak or GF
3♣ = clubs, weak
3♦ = diamonds, INV

Not sure about this really but it seems to just about hang together.

[straube]

Thanks Zelandakh

I looked at 50 hands and found that responder has

52% 3 or fewer spades
26% 4 spades
22% 5 or more spades

So something like 48% with 4 or more spades

You're thinking of Fibonacci, I assume, when saying that you want to be doubling about 40% of the time. I think, however, that we need to eat up a lot more room here because there's a good chance that LHO will raise to 2H or higher. So I definitely don't want to be doubling 48% of the time. I want to spend room.

The other issue is rightsiding NT when responder has 5+ spades. So I've only looked at 50 deals, but it only wrong-sided 3 of those deals. That's because...

1) we often belong in spades
2) responder may have the only stopper
3) the stopper(s) that we have may not be positional
4) neither hand may have a stopper

1N as natural (to me) seems more useful for information about the minor suit holdings than a stopper. We're not getting to 3N after a natural 1N response, but we may have to compete over a 2H advance.

That's why I was considering dbl to be 3+ diamonds. In effect, it would partially take the place of 1N (at least for diamonds) and leave room for opener to show uncertainty (1S rebid) or a hand comfortable playing 1N.

Most of my concern is about preparing for a 2H advance. I think knowing about a stopper is useless after this advance. However, if we know about a fifth spade, we can make a support double with two spades. If we know partner has only 4 spades, we can double 2H as responsive (showing minors).

[awm]

straube, on 2012-February-23, 10:56, said:

Most of my concern is about preparing for a 2H advance. I think knowing about a stopper is useless after this advance. However, if we know about a fifth spade, we can make a support double with two spades. If we know partner has only 4 spades, we can double 2H as responsive (showing minors).

Support double with two spades is not really that useful. If responder has six spades he can always rebid them anyway (and might've bid 2♥=6+♠ to begin with); 6-1 fits play okay and the odds of finding a void opposite are tiny. Responsive double "showing minors" is maybe not that useful either; if opener has short hearts he probably has three spades too and can make a "takeout double / optional support double;" if opener has length in hearts he may want to defend or let partner balance anyway. And 2NT is always available for minors if opener has a 5/5 or something.

The wrong-siding issue is not frequent, but it is potentially expensive.

[wclass___]

straube, on 2012-February-22, 20:31, said:

What I'm concerned about is what happens after 1D (1H) dbl (3H). I expect this raise to be fairly frequent, and we will lose 5/3 spade fits.

That is not a big problem. It is very often OK to defend 3♥ rather than play 3♠ on 5-3 fit (i'm thinking about IMPs), especially if 5♠ hands tend to be ''weakish''

Also i would tweak my system so that at least 2 bids in 2nd level would deal with 5♠+ hands, but i just don't think that 1N shouln't be reserved for this purpose.

[akhare]

straube, on 2012-February-23, 10:56, said:

Thanks Zelandakh


1N as natural (to me) seems more useful for information about the minor suit holdings than a stopper. We're not getting to 3N after a natural 1N response, but we may have to compete over a 2H advance.

That's why I was considering dbl to be 3+ diamonds. In effect, it would partially take the place of 1N (at least for diamonds) and leave room for opener to show uncertainty (1S rebid) or a hand comfortable playing 1N.

I too share the skepticism about making a support X with 3+ ♦s, especially given that opener may have as few as 0 ♦s. Also, a support X with only 2♠ seems a little out there as well.

All things considered, I think that that it's better to repurpose the bid showing 5♠ (to possibly show some minor suit oriented hands, with a naturalish 1NT).

To that end, you can play some variation of Zelandakh's structure and gain a lot more in return:

X = 4 spades or 5 spades and INV+
1S = clubs, INV+, or natural 1NT
1NT = Takeout, emphasizing minors
2C = diamonds, weak or GF
2D = diamonds, INV (or awm's suggestion)
2H = 6+ spades, weak or GF
2S = 6+ spades, INV
2NT = both minors, weak or GF
3C = clubs, weak
3D = diamonds, weak

[Zelandakh]

akhare, on 2012-February-23, 21:19, said:

To that end, you can play some variation of Zelandakh's structure and gain a lot more in return:

X = 4 spades or 5 spades and INV+
1S = clubs, INV+, or natural 1NT
1NT = Takeout, emphasizing minors
2C = diamonds, weak or GF
2D = diamonds, INV (or awm's suggestion)
2H = 6+ spades, weak or GF
2S = 6+ spades, INV
2NT = both minors, weak or GF
3C = clubs, weak
3D = diamonds, weak

This is actually identical with my first suggestion except that take-out and natural 1NT have been reversed and there is no bid for weak hands with 5 spades. I think straube is right about having bids to take up space here but they should be the hands with some real shape. So hands with 6 spades or both minors want to bounce. But if we have a semi-balanced hand with 4 spades I do not think bouncing is useful or sound, especially if we have a good hand.

That suggests a method where we stay low with such hands where possible so long as the resulting bids have good homogeneity to allow Opener to make good decisions should the opponents bounce it. To this end I think 1♠ = "clubs (INV+) or takeout" is easier to handle than "clubs (INV+) or natural 1NT". Of course I would also love to be able to separate out 4 spades from 5 spades but I think achieving this comes at too great a price.

I would still like to know what proportion of Responder's hands have 6+ spades to know the frequency of X = 4-5 spades. Maybe we can also find a cleverer way to remove hands from this group than using 1NT? I would certainly want to test whether Opener can make sensible decisions after a 3♥ bounce following such a double. In this way we can perhaps identify the problem hands and remove just those.