[Kungsgeten]

Some play transfer responses to a "natural or balanced" 1♣ opening. The other day I got an idea: Would it be benefital to play transfer advances after we double their 1♣ opening? Example:

1♣-Dbl-Pass-?
1♦ = 4+ hearts
1♥ = 4+ spades
1♠ = No major
etc

The main upside would be that advancer gets low level forcing calls, compared to standard where you'd have to start with a cue bid to force. Perhaps some awkward hands could be bid better too, since two- and three-level bids become available to show better defined hands. I'd also guess it could lead to some more options for the doubler to show fit/strength.

One downside is that you probably want advancer to declare, since the 1♣ opener tends to be the one which leads from strength. Another downside is the loss of being able to play 1♦. It could also be too complex compared to the low frequency where it would gain.

Have you encountered this idea before? How do you think it compared to standard, or Herbert negatives?

[mw64ahw]

I use X as Power followed by Herbert negative/transfer responses for any 1-suited opening. I'm not sure if I'm reinventing the wheel, but this approach was worked from scratch as part of my T&P system

For example over 1♣-X
Pass 4+♣ Avg+
1♦-HN/4♥
1♥-4♠ Weak
1♠-4+♣ Weak
1NT-4♦ Avg+/GF
2♣-5+♦ Weak+
2♦-5+♥ Weak+/4♥ Avg+
2♥-5+♠ Weak+/4♠ Avg+
2♠-HHx/4+♣ Avg+
2NT-4♥&♠ Inv+
3♣-4441♣ Inv+
3♦-6+♥ Avg+
3♥-6+♠ Avg+
3♠-4333 Inv+
3NT-AKQxxx(x)♦

[PrecisionL]

THE POWER DOUBLE is part of The Overcall Structure. I have been using it for ten years. One of my favorite conventions. It is great for Precision advocates when the opponents open the bidding.

Use the Power Double with a good 15+ hcp hand and use the 1NT overcall for takeout (promises 3-cds or more in the other 3 suits) when 9-14 hcp and short in the opponent's suit.

Cheapest response to the Power Double (opponent passes) is Herbert = 0-5 hcp. Use 1NT to show the negative suit with 6+ hcp.

http://www.dressing....owerDouble.html

http://www.fernside....ucture.html#TPD

[helene_t]

I think standard methods work quite well against 1♣, at least as long as we play "mainstream" doubles. The strong responders are fairly easy to deal with so I don't want to sacrifice the natural 1♦.

But in response to a balancing double it may make more sense as we want opener to be on lead.

I recall KenRexford advocated for Herbert negative against a 3♣ opening, which I suppose makes some sense. But even there I'm not sure if I wouldn't prefer standard. He also plays it against a Precision 2♣, which I don't think makes so much sense.

Sorry for being an old reactionary

[Kungsgeten]

mw64ahw, PrecisionL: I haven't tried power doubles, what I had in mind was over standard take-out doubles. I haven't played the Overcall Structure, but have studied it.

helene_t: Yes perhaps the problem is too small to solve. I think the one- and two-level calls in "standard" are both pretty wide-ranging in terms of strength and shape. I think Ken Rexford actually advocates Herbert negatives over 1♦ too. We play Herbert negatives after we double their nebulous minor (our double shows 12-15 NT or a strong hand). Even though we've played it for a while it hasn't come up a lot, so I'm not really sure where I stand I think Daniel Auby's (RIP) post about the Herbert Negative is interesting: https://groups.googl...osYFzDp0J?pli=1 I've also seen some Swedish pros who play 1NT as "Herbert Negative" (or maybe Lebensohl) after partner doubles a 1M opening.

[mw64ahw]

Kungsgeten, on 2021-May-12, 02:35, said:

mw64ahw, PrecisionL: I haven't tried power doubles, what I had in mind was over standard take-out doubles. I haven't played the Overcall Structure, but have studied it.

helene_t: Yes perhaps the problem is too small to solve. I think the one- and two-level calls in "standard" are both pretty wide-ranging in terms of strength and shape. I think Ken Rexford actually advocates Herbert negatives over 1♦ too. We play Herbert negatives after we double their nebulous minor (our double shows 12-15 NT or a strong hand). Even though we've played it for a while it hasn't come up a lot, so I'm not really sure where I stand I think Daniel Auby's (RIP) post about the Herbert Negative is interesting: https://groups.googl...osYFzDp0J?pli=1 I've also seen some Swedish pros who play 1NT as "Herbert Negative" (or maybe Lebensohl) after partner doubles a 1M opening.

I guess for Takeout Doubles the sequences could be the same, but with response strengths versus say a 13+ NT

[fromageGB]

I have for years played (1♣) X meaning "I would have bid that" with normal twalsh "system on", and find it very effective. Whatever the normal takeout X can do, it can do the same or better.

You need to have good agreements for your normal action after they overcall your 1♣ opening, and this comes into play because of course when you double, responder normally bids. Your methods are the same though, namely bids that show the length of the major if any and the strength of the hand, showing both majors in one bid if responder bids diamonds.

Technically the X is not exactly the same as a 1♣ open, as we allow it to be a little weaker, and advancer - should he have an invitational hand - correspondingly ups his range.

I don't think you need worry about losing a 1♦ contract, because if that is the right suit you can play in 2♦, but the "wrong-siding" nature of resulting contracts I find is more than offset by the better hand description twalsh gives (or can give), and apart from the opening lead, it is better to have the stronger unknown hand playing it, and the known shape weaker hand on table.

Playing the X like this does not preclude other alternative bids for single or double-suited hands,