[Cyberyeti]

We had a bidding accident yesterday. Basic system is Acol 12-14.

The auction starts (P)-1♣(4+)-(P)-1♥-(X)-

You do NOT play support redoubles so redouble is a big hand but otherwise undiscussed. You have a GF unbal 2N available here.

Are 1♠/2♦ natural ? and does 2♦ show full reversing values if so ?

Please say what you think is best, and what you'd assume undiscussed if that's different.

[wank]

yes the double doesn't affect matters at all.

you don't redouble there if you're shapely.

[Zelandakh]

Given that you play your 2NT convention, logical would be for XX to show either 15-17 balanced without a heart stopper or the 18-19 balanced hand that presumably has to do something else without interference. I would expect 1♠ and 2♦ to retain the same meanings as without the double.

It would probably be more sensible for XX to show 15-17 with or without a stopper and then 1NT is the 18-19 hand but I think support redoubles are more valuable and would suggest that as the better way to go. The other option when looking at "best" methods would be transfers but it would be difficult to suggest that unless part of a wider transfer system in competition.

[WesleyC]

Given your methods I think the 2D bid should still notionally promises reversing values and that redouble should specifically suggest a misfit. With a partial fit, bid 1NT/2H/2NT* etc.

Regarding what I think is best, transfer responses to 1C show a huge profit in this sequence. The extra step gives you enough room for a strong misfit redouble and a 3-card support 1H bid.

[Zelandakh]

WesleyC, on 2016-March-07, 05:57, said:

Regarding what I think is best, transfer responses to 1C show a huge profit in this sequence. The extra step gives you enough room for a strong misfit redouble and a 3-card support 1H bid.

Think of the equivalent sequence after a 1♦(♥) response with 4th hand bidding 1♥ for takeout. You now have exactly the same amount of space as the natural auction but with X instead of XX available. While transfer responses are definitely a good idea, they are not really the answer to this specific issue.

[WesleyC]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 06:12, said:

Think of the equivalent sequence after a 1♦(♥) response with 4th hand bidding 1♥ for takeout. You now have exactly the same amount of space as the natural auction but with X instead of XX available. While transfer responses are definitely a good idea, they are not really the answer to this specific issue.

Fair point. Except that in that sequence I think playing double as 3-card support is absolutely clear...

[Cyberyeti]

OK so with a 3145 hand and 16- say 19 points, you redouble or bid 2♦ ? (Or bid 1N if you have stops in the pointies)

And with a 3145 20-21 you redouble or bid the GF 2N ?

Btw with stops you have a 15-poor 19 1N rebid available, so the 18-19 bal is not a particular problem. Good 19 opens 2N.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 06:33, said:

OK so with a 3145 hand and 16- say 19 points, you redouble or bid 2♦ ? (Or bid 1N if you have stops in the pointies)

And with a 3145 20-21 you redouble or bid the GF 2N ?

You would rebid 2♦ with either hand without interference, right? Seems easy enough to do the same after X too.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 06:33, said:

Btw with stops you have a 15-poor 19 1N rebid available, so the 18-19 bal is not a particular problem. Good 19 opens 2N.

Which makes it even clearer to use a support redouble here, especially given your logic in the 1♦ transfer + 1♥ overcall case. Seriously, the main benefit of not playing support redoubles for you would be to avoid having to use the wide-ranging 1NT rebid, so if you are going to stick with that anyway I think you are getting almost nothing from XX showing general values.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 07:31, said:

You would rebid 2♦ with either hand without interference, right? Seems easy enough to do the same after X too.

We would rebid 2♦/1N depending on texture unopposed.

Quote

Which makes it even clearer to use a support redouble here, especially given your logic in the 1♦ transfer + 1♥ overcall case. Seriously, the main benefit of not playing support redoubles for you would be to avoid having to use the wide-ranging 1NT rebid, so if you are going to stick with that anyway I think you are getting almost nothing from XX showing general values.

We actually don't feel the wide range NT is a disadvantage.

Redouble should be an opportunity to get more definition, but it's not clear how to best use it. 90%+ of the time we find out whether partner has 3 hearts later.

I feel XX should deny a heart fit and show values, a kind of reverse support redouble so I would do it on the 16-19 with a stiff heart, particularly if unsuitable for 1N.

With the bigger hand I think I'd establish that I had a complete whale and bid 2N.

[WesleyC]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 08:03, said:

We would rebid 2♦/1N depending on texture unopposed.

We actually don't feel the wide range NT is a disadvantage.

Redouble should be an opportunity to get more definition, but it's not clear how to best use it. 90%+ of the time we find out whether partner has 3 hearts later.

I feel XX should deny a heart fit and show values, a kind of reverse support redouble so I would do it on the 16-19 with a stiff heart, particularly if unsuitable for 1N.

With the bigger hand I think I'd establish that I had a complete whale and bid 2N.

Using redouble as specifically a good hand and a misfit isn't unreasonable. With this agreement it feels obvious to redouble on ALL the good hands with 3145 (or similar) shape to suggest defending.

However, gearing your system to penalize the opponents in this sequence just doesn't feel right to me. In an auction that is about to become competitive, your heart length is the most critical information that partner needs to know. Conveying that with a support redouble (or a pass) is a huge benefit.

[Cyberyeti]

The actual hand was a right mess:

---

When partner bid 2♦ rather than 2N limiting his hand we subsided in game, the disagreement however meant we then subsided in 4♥. This in itself wasn't a problem, as opps played 3N. They led a spade, I cashed Q♥ played a club to hand which got ruffed and they cashed a spade so we lost 2 IMPS. 7N is pretty good and we should certainly have been in at least 6N.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 09:06, said:

The actual hand was a right mess:

Bidding after a reverse without agreements is difficult so you will need to help us out with yours. I think most South's would continue with a 2♥ rebid here unless that is non-forcing. Regardless, you need an agreement as to which of 2NT and 3NT on Opener's third call shows the extras. Presumably North thought 3NT did, in which case it looks clear for South to continue 4♣ after which you would surely have landed in a club or NT slam of some kind. This strikes me as less to do with the agreements on the XX and more about continuations after a reverse.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 09:45, said:

Bidding after a reverse without agreements is difficult so you will need to help us out with yours. I think most South's would continue with a 2♥ rebid here unless that is non-forcing. Regardless, you need an agreement as to which of 2NT and 3NT on Opener's third call shows the extras. Presumably North thought 3NT did, in which case it looks clear for South to continue 4♣ after which you would surely have landed in a club or NT slam of some kind. This strikes me as less to do with the agreements on the XX and more about continuations after a reverse.

This is not the point, he couldn't show enough extras because 2♦ was limited by the failure to bid 2N-3♣(semi forced)-3♦ to an indifferent 19.

The club slam can be made but it's quite easy to go off, 7N is cold with the hearts 4-3, as it happens the diamond finesse works also.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 09:59, said:

This is not the point, he couldn't show enough extras because 2♦ was limited by the failure to bid 2N-3♣(semi forced)-3♦ to an indifferent 19.

This seems to be a chicken and egg thing. If 2♦ is limited by not rebidding 2NT then clearly it was the wrong choice. However, there is a lot of space in 1♣ - 1M; 2♦ auctions so it makes sense not to take hands away - indeed some pairs add an additional hand type in here artificially. My comment was under the assumption that 2♦ is unlimited (except for not having opened 2♣) in which case you need to be able to show extras subsequently. Your previous answer, saying that you would rebid 1NT or 2♦ with a 3145 20-21, suggests to me that 2♦ is not limited by the failure to rebid 2NT. This is why it seems like the issue lies with the reversing structure.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 10:10, said:

This seems to be a chicken and egg thing. If 2♦ is limited by not rebidding 2NT then clearly it was the wrong choice. However, there is a lot of space in 1♣ - 1M; 2♦ auctions so it makes sense not to take hands away - indeed some pairs add an additional hand type in here artificially. My comment was under the assumption that 2♦ is unlimited (except for not having opened 2♣) in which case you need to be able to show extras subsequently. Your previous answer, saying that you would rebid 1NT or 2♦ with a 3145 20-21, suggests to me that 2♦ is not limited by the failure to rebid 2NT. This is why it seems like the issue lies with the reversing structure.

No I said 1N was only in the picture for 16-19, I thought I was clear about that.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-07, 10:14, said:

No I said 1N was only in the picture for 16-19, I thought I was clear about that.

OK, then the confusion was when I wrote: "You would rebid 2♦ with either hand without interference, right?" By that I meant both the 16-19 hand as well as the 20-21 point hand. If 2♦ is limited then it was clearly the wrong rebid and you reach the same point via ... - 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♥; 3NT, after which it again seems clear for South to continue 4♣. Indeed they might show club support earlier than this if the system allows it. I remain unconvinced that this is an optimal set-up but it is your system so you ought to know! Again though, this does not seem to me to be directly related to the XX inferences.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 11:13, said:

OK, then the confusion was when I wrote: "You would rebid 2♦ with either hand without interference, right?" By that I meant both the 16-19 hand as well as the 20-21 point hand. If 2♦ is limited then it was clearly the wrong rebid and you reach the same point via ... - 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♥; 3NT, after which it again seems clear for South to continue 4♣. Indeed they might show club support earlier than this if the system allows it. I remain unconvinced that this is an optimal set-up but it is your system so you ought to know! Again though, this does not seem to me to be directly related to the XX inferences.

The problem was caused by the feeling at the table that the sort of hand that would bid 2♦ unopposed would actually redouble or bid 1N, so 2♦ wasn't natural.

I'd have expected it to go 1♣-1♥-(X)-2N-3♣-3♦-3♥-3N-4♣-4♦(Keycard)-4♠(1/4)-4N(Q?)-5♥(yes +K♥)-5N(anything else)-6♣(no K♠/Q♦/Q♥)

And now decision time, either sign off in 6N or bid 6♥ which would show a singleton or less likely doubleton Q♥ and is looking for the J to run the suit leading to 7N.

[WesleyC]

On the actual hand, North made life tough for south by not starting with a redouble.

If you swap South's clubs and spades, there's a decent chance that N/S will be able to make 12 tricks in every strain!

I don't think i've ever scored +2000 before...

[Cyberyeti]

WesleyC, on 2016-March-07, 18:52, said:

On the actual hand, North made life tough for south by not starting with a redouble.

If you swap South's clubs and spades, there's a decent chance that N/S will be able to make 12 tricks in every strain!

I don't think i've ever scored +2000 before...

I have, 1Nx -7 vul

[zillahandp]

So a passed opp competes with a take out dble showing other two suits.yes?
It all depends on the hand so 2d is obvious, and maybe best for p to declare 3nt
With no agreement xx suggests penalty hunting, nts show normal strength eg 15/16, 17/18 etc. New suit would be forcing as in normal sequence for one round or GF depending on the bid. Seems simple unless there is sme complicated understanding. S in this case 2d forcing for one round. Then over a 2h rebid, 3nt over 3c same, over 2s 3nt. Seems simple acol copes.
More intersting over a 4c or 4d response. Slam? Worth considering.!