[awm]

Suppose the auction starts 1m-3♥. The usual way to play is that double shows four spades. If responder doubles though, opener will often wind up bidding 3nt, so it seems that double promises more or less game values. But then shouldn't 3♠ by opener over double be forcing? After all responder was willing to be in game opposite a non-fit...

But if double is GF it seems like you could do some interesting things. For example, what if double is 4+♠ instead of just four? Then openers 3♠ shows three; if opponents raise hearts opener can double to show three (and we are in a force so pass is risk free). Then 3♠ by responder could be something else (natural NF or stopper ask seem the obvious options).

Is this crazy? It seems you could apply similar ideas in the auctions 1M-(3m) too.

[lalldonn]

It's not crazy. Many experts play 1NT (3♥) X is 4+ spades with followups like you suggest, and 3♠ is an artificial GF without spades or a heart stopper.

[straube]

awm, on 2012-December-21, 01:28, said:

Suppose the auction starts 1m-3♥. The usual way to play is that double shows four spades. If responder doubles though, opener will often wind up bidding 3nt, so it seems that double promises more or less game values. But then shouldn't 3♠ by opener over double be forcing? After all responder was willing to be in game opposite a non-fit...

But if double is GF it seems like you could do some interesting things. For example, what if double is 4+♠ instead of just four? Then openers 3♠ shows three; if opponents raise hearts opener can double to show three (and we are in a force so pass is risk free). Then 3♠ by responder could be something else (natural NF or stopper ask seem the obvious options).

Is this crazy? It seems you could apply similar ideas in the auctions 1M-(3m) too.

I remember you don't like thrump doubles, but what you're talking about reminds me of them. After 1m (3H) I don't see how you can avoid having a bid that initiates a GF (trying to be able to play 3S on the nose is cutting things way too fine and giving up on a forcing bid) and the search for 3N has to be a major priority. After all, if either partner has a guarded stopper, then 3N is a likely game, but responder may have a running minor or a balanced hand without spades or a stopper and needs a bid to show GF values and request help finding the best game or penalty pass.

I say guarded stopper because I think most people play that thrump merely asks for a stopper, but I think you want the hand with the stopper to be able to hold up and cut off communication. The opening side won't always have nine running tricks and hopefully if it has to surrender the lead to establish a suit, it won't be to the preempting hand. We play that if we have a stiff ace or even Ax (Ax is a question mark for me) we're free to search for a suit contract...especially holding spades. In fact, we play that the double itself denies a stopper but partner may actually have one and just thinks that a suit contract is preferable. Usually if responder has a double stopper or a guarded stopper, he'll just bid 3N immediately.

I don't think that dbl showing some spades and opener rebidding 3S to show three is as useful as the stopper question. Let's say I'm responder and hold Axxx xx KQxx Axx and the bidding goes 1C (3H) dbl P 3S P ? Now what?

I like better to use double just to start a GF with an emphasis on 3N but not to the exclusion of all else.

One adjustment to thrump that I emailed Bergen about was that after 1m (3H) dbl P that opener can bid 3S (with four) and NOT deny a stopper as long as it was one that could withstand the lead. That would let responder rebid 3N himself (having denied a stopper, he is not owning up to one now) which really has no meaning for those who play thrump doubles (at least that I'm aware) and opener could pass with something like KQxx Axx Ax xxxx. If opener didn't have that non-positional stopper, well he'd remove 3N of course. Bergen thought this was interesting enough but he was much more concerned with forcing the preempting hand to be on lead...so he was against the idea.

I think the whole idea of using double to create a force is under-used. We play that after 2m is overcalled, that double creates a force until 3m has been bid. This allows opener sometimes to show a natural feature (stopper?) before retiring in 3m. I'm also thinking about how power doubles at the 1-level might be used to create a force. Say the bidding goes 1D dbl in which dbl is a power double...one might want to play that this creates a force until 1N has been reached. This allows exploration for a 4-4 major fit without fear of being passed.