[helene_t]

Surprised at some of these reactions, I thought everyone played it as forcing.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 03:39, said:

Maybe he's already told us?

He said in the interview that with most 3514 16-counts he'd overcall. I'd be surprised if he treated AKxxx Axx x KQxx any differently, because it's not very different.

He also said that the point of this style is that he wants to be able to pass the overcall with "up to a poor 8". The example Straube gave is an awful 6-count.

and why is playing this in 1S a problem?

I said that I don't know if Rodwell would advance 1N over the double but I suspect not.

[nige1]

Sorry repeat post

[nige1]

IMO (1♦) _X (_P) 1N shows a flat hand with values and usually a stop. So it is best to treat it as a natural notrump bid with system-on: Stayman, transfers, and so on. If partner has a diamond tenace, It will often be better if the opening-bidder is on lead.

MrAce, on 2010-November-20, 01:28, said:

So are you suggesting that when your pd doubles 1♦, you should skip your 4 card major and bid 1NT with flat hands and stopper ? If not what stayman are you talking about ?

Ordinary Stayman
Assuming an agreement that a 1N reply to a double is flattish and constructive (say, 8-11 HCP). e.g.

• ♠ Kxx ♥ Jxx ♦ KJxx ♣ Jxx
• ♠ Kxxx ♥ Jxx ♦ KJx ♣ Jxx
• ♠ Axxx ♥ Jxxx ♦ KJx ♣ Jx
• ♠ KJ ♥ Jxxx ♦ Jxx ♣ KJxx
• ♠ Qxxx ♥ KJx ♦ Txxx ♣ Kx

The last two examples are more controversial since they have no proper diamond stop! Used this way, the 1N response

• Is natural, descriptive, and of reasonable frequency.
• Often right-sides the eventual contract.
• Avoids the necessity of jumping around with four card-suits and flat hands,
• Preserves the cue-bid for hands with extra shape or excellent prospects of game.

[gwnn]

and

• loses a lot of major suit fits

[straube]

I think that an advance of 1N promises less the higher the open. In other words after 1C X P 1N ought to be more reliably constructive than after 1S X P 1N. In the latter case, the dbl likely promises more than a dbl of 1C and advancer will often be faced with the choice of an underpowered 1N or introducing a 3-cd suit at the 2-level.

I agree with the example hand x Kxx KJxxx xxxx offered as choosing a 1N bid. Obviously I don't want 2S forcing over that.

I don't like the idea of bypassing major suits on the way to 1N. I would bypass a poor major when I have a diamond double stop, but I don't think I'd do it frequently enough to justify Stayman. I also don't like the idea of transfers because doubler can't know show lower ranking suits ( I assume this being played after any open).

So now after 1S X P 1N P dbler can't introduce clubs or diamonds naturally.


Surprised that AKxxx Axx x KQxx has been called an awful 16 ct. It has shortness and no jacks. The knr is 18.7. That said, don't know if Rodwell would double or overcall. I would think that his ceiling for a spade overcall would be lower than for a heart overcall since spade hands can correct at equal level. Partner and I have talked about spade overcalls as light as 7 pts so dbl for us with this hand makes more sense.


I think I still want nf but I see it depends quite a bit on partnership standards for dbling first as well as for what 1N shows. Dbling and bidding a major should certainly show a good hand and I disagree with the poster who thinks that it should just be a correction. If the major was too poor to mention at the 1-level, it definitely can't rate to mention at the 2-level.

[gwnn]

no it wasn't called an awful 16 count. read it again.

[straube]

gwnn, on 2010-November-20, 11:45, said:

no it wasn't called an awful 16 count. read it again.

Thanks. I see was referring to the 1N advance.

[ggwhiz]

helene_t, on 2010-November-20, 07:26, said:

Surprised at some of these reactions, I thought everyone played it as forcing.

You are surprised and I'm shocked.

Free bid nt's are constructive in my style (8-10) not some dreck that bids a suit, ANY suit instead.

I thought that was mainstream but now I just feel old.

[gnasher]

I too am surprised that there are as many as three people in the world who play 2♠ as non-forcing, but I still think that the forcing interpretation is mainstream.

[straube]

ok. This is from Mike Lawrence's book on Takeout Doubles

"So how many points do you need to bid one notrump? Would you believe the range is from four to ten points? You might bid one notrump with an eleven count in a pinch. The reason for this range is based on a combination of self preservation and optimism. Note this distinction. When partner opens the bidding, he hopes you will bid but you can pass if you wish.....The range of points you show for a one notrump response varies according to the suit your partner doubled....when partner doubles one club, your one notrump response shows a fair hand of about seven to ten points. The reason you need such a good hand for on notrump after a one club opening is that you have lots of alternatives."

He goes on to give 764 QJ74 764 Q93 as a 1N advance to 1H X.

He doesn't go on to say whether 1H X P 1N P 2S is forcing but if advancer can have a hand this bad...

[gnasher]

straube, on 2010-November-20, 12:24, said:

ok. This is from Mike Lawrence's book on Takeout Doubles

"So how many points do you need to bid one notrump? Would you believe the range is from four to ten points? You might bid one notrump with an eleven count in a pinch. The reason for this range is based on a combination of self preservation and optimism. Note this distinction. When partner opens the bidding, he hopes you will bid but you can pass if you wish.....The range of points you show for a one notrump response varies according to the suit your partner doubled....when partner doubles one club, your one notrump response shows a fair hand of about seven to ten points. The reason you need such a good hand for on notrump after a one club opening is that you have lots of alternatives."

He goes on to give 764 QJ74 764 Q93 as a 1N advance to 1H X.

He doesn't go on to say whether 1H X P 1N P 2S is forcing but if advancer can have a hand this bad...

If you look in Chapter 16 of the same book, under the heading "LHO PASSES AND PARTNER BIDS 1NT" (on page 186 of the 1994 paperback), you will find this:

Mike Lawrence said:

EXPERT TRICK
When your partner bids 1NT, it makes sense to play that bidding two of a minor is just looking for a better contract
...
Do not do this when your suit is a major. If you bid a major after 1NT, it shows a big hand.

[straube]

I think Lawrence plays it forcing. His dbl and bid of a major shows about 18+. He says that if one doubles and bids a higher ranking suit that it shows a stronger hand whereas doubling and bidding a lower ranking suit is running from NT.

Should he have meant to say major vs minor?

1S X P 1N P 2H would be running from NT? Certainly possible as he lists 7 AJT73 AT2 KJT4 as a reasonable TOX of 1S (though 2H also reasonable).

So I'm betting he meant what he wrote.

In any case, he lists 1H X P 1N P 2S as showing the usual big hand and intimates that this bid is forcing for one round.

[MrAce]

straube, on 2010-November-20, 13:14, said:

I think Lawrence plays it forcing. His dbl and bid of a major shows about 18+. He says that if one doubles and bids a higher ranking suit that it shows a stronger hand whereas doubling and bidding a lower ranking suit is running from NT.

Should he have meant to say major vs minor?

1S X P 1N P 2H would be running from NT? Certainly possible as he lists 7 AJT73 AT2 KJT4 as a reasonable TOX of 1S (though 2H also reasonable).

So I'm betting he meant what he wrote.

In any case, he lists 1H X P 1N P 2S as showing the usual big hand and intimates that this bid is forcing for one round.

I still don't think it's forcing after free 1♠ bid though. Yes it is a big hand but not a 2♣ opener. After 1NT its your pdship style, but listening to other replies here i am convinced that it is better to play it forcing, so i stand corrected on that one.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 13:04, said:

If you look in Chapter 16 of the same book, under the heading "LHO PASSES AND PARTNER BIDS 1NT" (on page 186 of the 1994 paperback), you will find this:

Right, but look at pg 32. There he talks about higher ranking and lower ranking vs major and minor and that's not always the same thing. I think he must have been thinking major vs minor.