[mikeh]

fromageGB, on 2014-November-20, 09:56, said:

While I play transfer responses after our major open has been overcalled with a suit, I see no reason to disrupt and abandon our perfectly good major responses if they double. I just ignore it.

I think you are truly making a mistake here. You are ignoring a basic premise of bidding, which, to be fair, seems to get little mention in books about bidding or in the lessons taught to (usually) less than experienced players.

One of the constraints in bidding theory is that there are only so many choices available at any one turn to make a call, yet there are an almost infinite variety of hands to be shown. The problem is sometimes referred to as bidding space, and is one reason pre-empts are so effective...they deprive the other side (and our side as well) of bidding space.

Well, when RHO doubles my partner's 1♠ opening, the opposite has happened: the opponents have actually increased our bidding space! They have given us a low-level call that was otherwise unavailable to us: the redouble. In addition, they have expanded the usages to which we can put other calls, in part because pass is now more flexible (we can almost always say pass and expect to get another chance to bid, which wasn't the case absent the double).

In addition, particularly in methods in which a 2/1 response is strong, the frequency of holding a 2/1 response has declined significantly once we allocate opening values to the first two bidders....give them each 13 (of course both could have less but both could have more, so 13 can be a useful guide for this assessment) and the chances are that we have fewer than 12.

This means that once they double, reserving a 2/1 new suit for a strong natural use becomes an unattractive use of bidding space.

Finally, assume we hold something like Qxx xx Jxxx Jxxx and partner opens 1♠ and RHO doubles. We can't pre-empt (not enough trump for the methods used by most), and a simple raise is an overbid, since (if we don't change methods over the double) we might have Qxx xx KQxx Jxxx and partner may have the values to try for game.

Yet passing is giving up, and even if you played a forcing 1N, it lacks preemptive value and is close to giving up.

There are lots of good methods out there.

My preference, and experience suggests it works well, is to play transfers starting with redouble, which shows (over 1♠) a balanced notrump type of hand with 2 spades and 8+ hcp, unlimited upwards. 1N shows clubs...anywhere from a sort of weak 2 hand to gf or beyond, to be clarified later. And so on, with the transfer into our major as a 'real' raise...and a direct raise as a warning that 'I have crap...bid on at your own risk'.

You can extend this sort of stuff to the 3-level as well if you like (I used to play transfer fit-showing bids with 2 ways to raise to the 3-level, one mixed and the other preemptive).

Whatever method you adopt, and as I say there seem to be number of good ones available, should be designed to take advantage of the bidding space, and the information, provided to you by the double. It is simply bad bridge to claim that it is ok to ignore the double.

[mikeh]

fromageGB, on 2014-November-20, 09:59, said:

It would be nice to see a global summary from admin - who has the most people ignoring them, and where do I rank in this list? Perhaps I should ask for replies from those ignoring me ...

But.....what if I have admin on ignore?

[mycroft]

The problem, as with all such systems, is that people I *don't* ignore will respond to the ignored post-that-quotes-me, and so I get the worst of both worlds (especially here where only the last level of quoting survives unless you go to serious trouble to not, so I don't know *that* the ignored person is replying to something I've said, never mind to *what*).

I will leave the rest of my opinions here, and the science, and my history (which is not unique by any means), unsaid, and just summarize with " 'just ignore them' doesn't work."

To the OP, I play what seems to be "standard from ancient times", where 1-bids are forcing, 2-bids are not, 2NT is LR+, and XX shows strength and a desire to defend. I find that much more comfortable going forward than the system in the OP, so my answer to that is "no idea. don't play that".

[biggerclub]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-November-17, 08:30, said:

1D - ( DBL ) - ??

If a RDBL shows 10+ hcp ( and says nothing about Opener's suit ) ,
then is a freebid of say, 1H or 1S show fewer hcp and hence , would be non-forcing ?

I learnt most of my bridge from books. In this case Mike Lawrence . . . somewhere. I am not sure which book. A new suit is forcing at the 1 level. XX shows 10+ with, presumptively,a desire to defend; therefore, shortness in opener's suit is very likely. XX followed by pulling partner's double shows a hand that is both (very) strong and shapely. But still likely to be short in Opener's suit.

As someone mentioned before, a 2 level bid is not forcing but is constructive. Its main purpose is lead direction. But AQxxx and out is not good enough . . .

Finally, all of this discussion needs to be modified if you are doing something interesting like limited openings (strong club) or 4 card majors.

[BillPatch]

biggerclub, on 2014-November-20, 23:57, said:

....
As someone mentioned before, a 2 level bid is not forcing but is constructive. Its main purpose is lead direction. But AQxxx and out is not good enough . . . .

I disagree with most of the above quote. A 2 level bid is not forcing and non-constructive. Its main purpose is to suggest a final contract. AQxxx and out is probably too good for other contracts, but might be acceptable as a tactical bid for its lead direction.

[the hog]

BillPatch, on 2014-November-21, 16:55, said:

I disagree with most of the above quote. A 2 level bid is not forcing and non-constructive. Its main purpose is to suggest a final contract. AQxxx and out is probably too good for other contracts, but might be acceptable as a tactical bid for its lead direction.

Well I disagree with you. I play transfer responses and these can even be game forcing. The old fashioned idea of xx with any 10 count, which you seem to play, died many moons ago.

[MrAce]

the hog, on 2014-November-21, 19:47, said:

Well I disagree with you. I play transfer responses and these can even be game forcing. The old fashioned idea of xx with any 10 count, which you seem to play, died many moons ago.

Ron, once you told me something about English is not being my native language. Which is correct.

Now..can you please tell me, which part of the OP asks us about which method being superior? And which part of Bill's comment do you disagree? I thought, OP asked a question and set the method he is interested in. Bill replied accordingly in this context. Bill and biggerclub disagreed in the detail of same context. I did not see any comment by Bill saying that xfer responses are bad or old method is superior. So obviously I am missing something. Can you(who speaks and writes and reads English better than me) or your upvoter (who is I am sure raised with speaking English) or anyone in this forum who speaks English natively show me where I went wrong? Which part did I miss and get confused about your objection to Bill and the upvote?

Or I am about to believe that the English language is a b***h sometimes, even for native speakers.

[the hog]

Firstly Timo, English is not my native language either - just so you know, it is my second language though my English is of native speaker standard.
Secondly, Bill said he disagreed with the fact that 2 level bids are constructive. To this I replied that I play transfer responses. For me a tf response into a 2 level bid can even be a gf, so I disagree that 2 level responses are non constructive. You would also be aware of course, that some, though few granted, layers play 2 level responses as forcing after a x.

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2014-November-22, 19:17, said:

You would also be aware of course, that some, though few granted, layers play 2 level responses as forcing after a x.

This is actually fairly common in England.

[biggerclub]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-22, 19:50, said:

This is actually fairly common in England.

It is obviously a matter worth discussing as . . . within the space of 7 posts, we have four different treatments. (Although mine was merely an effort to suggest what I think is common practice. As was Bill's if I interpret it correctly.)