[GaryFisch]

Many players are now using "no-fit" redoubles to show a defensively oriented hand rather than the standard redouble as the only strong bid after an enemy takeout double. The problem arises of how to handle invitational or better hands with support for partner's suit, especially a major. Truscott 2NT is available, but I have come up with an approach that I haven't seen before. The full description is too long to post here, but the essentials are:

Pass, then bid by responder shows 8+ HCP and support for partner's suit. A raise shows 4 card support and the level increases with HCP. A no-trump bid shows exactly 3-card support and the level increases with HCP.

Any 1st round bid by responder other than a raise denies support for partner's suit, bids are as follows:

Non-jump new suit shows 5+ cards and unlimited strength, and is forcing for 1 round.

Jump new suit shows 6+ cards, max 6HCP, non-forcing.

1NT shows 5-5 or longer in both majors or major and unbid minor - weak or strong

2NT shows 5-5+ in the lower unbid suits - weak or strong

Redouble shows 8+ HCP. With a 5 card suit, prefer redouble over new suit if stronger, less support for partner, and more balanced in other 3 suits.

The idea is that if responder has support for partner's suit, the double will almost certainly be taken out. Responder will likely get a chance to describe his/her hand very accurately, especially if there is a weak take out followed by 2 passes. It follows that opener should pass the takeout bid except with a very strong hand, say 18+ HCP. Also, enemy bidding may give a clue as to both bidding and play - eg., responder can cue-bid enemy suit to show control, support, and game force. Combined with splinters, a slam can be reached that might not otherwise.

The likely disadvantage of this approach is that the opponents can sometimes jump the bidding up too high to allow an accurate bidding sequence. This is less likely with a Truscott 2NT.

Also, I have never seen a two-suited bid over partner's opening - only over an opponent's bid. Yet 1NT and 2NT are less useful as natural bids - opener should declare no-trump rather than responder so that the doubler leads.

Any thoughts?

Gary

[luke warm]

it's a new thought to me... i do like using XX as *implying* no fit (but as bergen said, to imply isn't to guarantee)... and i do like your idea of 2 suited responses... i'd be interested in what others say

[han]

Hi GaryFish, and Welcome to the forum.

I enjoyed reading your post, and I do have some thoughts. Unfortunately, all of my thoughts are negative, and I don't want to scare away any new members. Anyway, here is what I think is wrong with your structure:

1) It is essential to be able to raise immediately. Passing first and raising later is a losing strategy, imo.

2) You should be able to bid a four card major over a double. Forcing, just as without the double.

3) You should be able to bid 1NT. Don't let other people talk you in to passing with balanced 7-counts without a fit. 1NT is preemptive and descriptive.

Slightly less important than the above are:

4) The preemptive jump raise (however you play them). You'd have to come up with something really good to make me give up preemptive raises over a double.

5) Though there is nothing wrong with weak jump shifts in competition, I prefer Fit jump shifts, even after a double.

6) Bids that show non-specific 2-suiters and non-specific strength are probably not a good idea after partner has opened.

I hope I never post such a negative reply again, and I apologize. Please come with more ideas, so that I can make it up to you. Here is what I like to play over a double over a 1-level bid:

Rdbl = transfer to the next suit.
all bids below 2X = transfer to the next suit.
2M = weak single raise.
2NT = invitational or better, 4-card support.
3M = preemptive.
All single jump shifts = fit jump shifts. invitational at the 2-level (from a minor into a major), otherwise forcing.
Except for: over a major, the suit below 3M is a mixed raise (4-card support, little less than limit raise).

I like the transfers very much. For instance, 1D-Dbl-1H shows 4+ spades and (generally) 6+ points (opener bids as over 1S). 1S would show a balanced hand without support, and the transfer into partner's suit shows a good single raise (or an even better hand). The transfers solve the forcing-problem, and also may put the doubler on lead (which you liked).

I think similar transfers first appeared in a book by Andrew Robson (and perhaps Forrester?), so I call them Robson-transfers. In the book the transfers start with 1NT I believe.

[GaryFisch]

Hannie,

First off, don't worry about a negative response. Yours is quite thoughtful, and I hoped to get some feedback. Actually, I'd never heard of the notion of using transfers on this sequence, and I think I like the idea.

With regard to your objections:

1. Please explain why you think passing first is a losing strategy. My notion is that the 4th player is unlikely to hold 5 strong trumps if you have 3 (doubler would be void) and thus is forced to bid. Granted, the opponents might tend to penalty pass more often knowing that you will pass with a good hand and support, but that seems like a losing strategy to me. Most of the time, your pass will mean you have a weak hand. They may get a few 1Mx+3's, with your missing game, but there will be a lot more 1Mx+0-2's, and those can be deadly, especially at matchpoints. They may even be missing a game.

There is a problem if they bid past 3 of partner's suit before your next turn, but what do you normally see if you pass? A minimum takeout followed by 2 passes - and that's with a traditional pass with a weak hand. Note - opener is free to bid with a strong hand - say, make the normal 2NT bid with a balanced 18-19.

2. The system could be modified to allow a bid of a 4-card major over a double, but I would rather use a redouble if possible to let partner bid that suit and become declarer. Maybe a 4-card major with 6-7 HCP could be bid. The situation is somewhat analogous to a negative double, which promises 4 spades after 1C or D-(1H) (see Marty Bergen's Introduction to Negative Doubles (Points Schmoints Mini Series)). With 5 spades, you would bid 1S rather than double.

3. The two-suited bids are optional. 1NT and 2NT can be used with their regular meanings if desired. Perhaps the answer is to extend the redouble all the way down to 6 HCP - then the 2-suited bids could be used without having to pass a balanced 7 count, to use your example.

4. The pre-emptive jump raise is still there. It shows up to 7 HCP, and you bid higher the longer your support.

5) It's a matter of preference.

6) The non-specific 2-suiter is only in the case of a major opening, and then partner at least knows you have the other major. Partner can locate your minor by bidding 2 clubs. You can then pass or bid 2 diamonds with the weak version, or make some other bid with the strong flavor. (BTW, that's a good reason for having 1NT be the slightly non-specific bid and 2NT specifying the lower 2 suits.) If the opponents bid, you can still usually get in your minor (unless they bid it). As far as non-specific strength, your next bid will specify that as well. It's a trade-off of course, and like I said, the 2-suited bids are optional if you want to use the pass-and-bid-later approach (which, apparently, you don't.)

Again, I like your transfer approach and think it may be superior to my proposed approach. You are less likely to be shut out of the bidding, and have a way to show strong hands as well. Now, if your proposed name for it gains acceptance, then it will be easy to put on CC's and play it online. Till then I'll probably just use standard redoubles.

Thanks again,

Gary

[EricK]

I like to use Pass followed by support to differentiate between defensive hands and offensive hands.

So 1H (X) 2NT would like something like AJx KQxx xxxx xx
and 1H (X) P .... 3H would look like AJx xxxx Qxxx Kx

In competitive situations it is often important to let partner know if your hand is defensive or not so as to prevent him from bidding on.

I agree that Natural 1NT and 2NT are not so much needed here. I like 1NT = transfer to ♣, 2♣ transfer to ♦ etc, but I keep 2NT as a forcing raise on offensive hands.

The trouble with 2NT on a weak 5-5 is that the hand might be a complete misfit, and you get to play at the 3 level doubled. The trouble with 2NT on a strong 5-5 is that the hand may be a complete misfit and you get to play the hand rather than double the opps (who were in a forcing situation until you kindly took them out of it).

I like Fit jump to the 3 and 4 levels.

Redouble strongly implies no fit (0-1 cards in partner's suit). Either a similar hand to doubler, or strong 1 or 2 suited (subsequent bid hopes to clarify).

Pass followed by a X is for take out, usually with exactly a doubleton in partner's suit.

The whole method is geared towards trying to declare when it is right to, and to defend (possibly doubled) when that is right.

Eric

[helene_t]

I like Hannie's structure, although I see two (possibly minor) drawbacks:
- Transfers make it easier for doubler's partner who can safely pass (knowing he will be on bid once more) and who can make a cue bid as a sort of responsive double.
- You loose the business redbl.

Another isddue: is there a case for reverting pass and redbl in the traditional structure? A pass puts the oponents under more pressure than does a redbl.

[Chamaco]

GaryFisch, on Sep 5 2004, 10:54 PM, said:

Many players are now using "no-fit" redoubles to show a defensively oriented hand rather than the standard redouble as the only strong bid after an enemy takeout double. The problem arises of how to handle invitational or better hands with support for partner's suit, especially a major.

Playing nofit XX after 1M opening, best is IMO to use:
- transfer responses from 1NT lebvel up to 2M (eg 1NT ->C, 2C->D, 2D->H, can be a good raise if pard opened H, etc, 2/3/4M = preemptive)
- Truscott 2NT
- fitshowing raises.

Sceme over 1minor opener
1m-(X)

XX = no fit
1M = forcing 1 round
1NT = xfer to clubs (or good club raise similar to inveted minors if 1C opener)
2C = weak club raise (if 1C opener) or or good diam raise similar to inverted minors if 1D opener
2D = weak diamond raise (if 1D opener) or GF unbalanced raise if 1C opener

Other Jumpshifts may be used either as fitshowing raises or splinters or weak jumps.

[luke warm]

hannie's structure looks good except for the redouble (which means the entire thing probably needs reworking, from my view)... i think using xx to establish a forcing aution, with the ability to penalize the ops, is too important to give up... just my opinion tho

[ochinko]

I find it very odd that virtually no one uses negative redouble (ala SOS) at the first level showing void or singleton in partner's suit but with some minimum of points (7+). This puts the break early, and prevents partner from repeating her 6 card major. In the ideal case I'd be 4-4-4/5 in the remaining suits.

Following the LTT I bid 2M over 1M-(dbl) with 3 cards in our suit or 4 with a flat hand, and no points (0-5, for example); 3M NV unbalanced with 4 cards in the suit (0-4 HCP). This is both descriptive and preemptive.

NT is showing both points and fit, and forces to the next level in our suit. This I learned reading Andrew Robson. Indeed, hardly anyone uses NT after a double. 1NT shows 9 LTC; 2NT - 8, etc.

A new suit from the responder is a stop bid with 6+ cards in the suit and again singleton/void in partner's suit. Partner must pass even with a void in my suit because my hand is much weaker, and there would be at most one entry in it if my hand is not the one with the trumps.

I believe those bids cover all the ground at the lowest possible level.

[han]

GaryFisch, on Sep 5 2004, 11:46 PM, said:

Hannie,

First off, don't worry about a negative response. Yours is quite thoughtful, and I hoped to get some feedback. Actually, I'd never heard of the notion of using transfers on this sequence, and I think I like the idea.

With regard to your objections:

1. Please explain why you think passing first is a losing strategy. My notion is that the 4th player is unlikely to hold 5 strong trumps if you have 3 (doubler would be void) and thus is forced to bid. Granted, the opponents might tend to penalty pass more often knowing that you will pass with a good hand and support, but that seems like a losing strategy to me. Most of the time, your pass will mean you have a weak hand. They may get a few 1Mx+3's, with your missing game, but there will be a lot more 1Mx+0-2's, and those can be deadly, especially at matchpoints. They may even be missing a game.

There is a problem if they bid past 3 of partner's suit before your next turn, but what do you normally see if you pass? A minimum takeout followed by 2 passes - and that's with a traditional pass with a weak hand. Note - opener is free to bid with a strong hand - say, make the normal 2NT bid with a balanced 18-19.

2. The system could be modified to allow a bid of a 4-card major over a double, but I would rather use a redouble if possible to let partner bid that suit and become declarer. Maybe a 4-card major with 6-7 HCP could be bid. The situation is somewhat analogous to a negative double, which promises 4 spades after 1C or D-(1H) (see Marty Bergen's Introduction to Negative Doubles (Points Schmoints Mini Series)). With 5 spades, you would bid 1S rather than double.

3. The two-suited bids are optional. 1NT and 2NT can be used with their regular meanings if desired. Perhaps the answer is to extend the redouble all the way down to 6 HCP - then the 2-suited bids could be used without having to pass a balanced 7 count, to use your example.

4. The pre-emptive jump raise is still there. It shows up to 7 HCP, and you bid higher the longer your support.

5) It's a matter of preference.

6) The non-specific 2-suiter is only in the case of a major opening, and then partner at least knows you have the other major. Partner can locate your minor by bidding 2 clubs. You can then pass or bid 2 diamonds with the weak version, or make some other bid with the strong flavor. (BTW, that's a good reason for having 1NT be the slightly non-specific bid and 2NT specifying the lower 2 suits.) If the opponents bid, you can still usually get in your minor (unless they bid it). As far as non-specific strength, your next bid will specify that as well. It's a trade-off of course, and like I said, the 2-suited bids are optional if you want to use the pass-and-bid-later approach (which, apparently, you don't.)

Again, I like your transfer approach and think it may be superior to my proposed approach. You are less likely to be shut out of the bidding, and have a way to show strong hands as well. Now, if your proposed name for it gains acceptance, then it will be easy to put on CC's and play it online. Till then I'll probably just use standard redoubles.

Thanks again,

Gary

Gary,

I'll answer your questions one by one:

1) The idea of showing support as soon as possible is I think the most important rule in competitive bidding. It is essential to start describing your hand as quickly as possible, and passing with support is a bad start.

It almost never happens that 1M! get's passed out, this is not an important consideration.

2) Showing a four card major immediately is also essential, you may not get the chance later. Your analogy with negative doubles over 1m-1H is not a good one: there you are able to show a four card spade suit immediately. In our situation you cannot show a four card majoor by redoubling. (unrelated: In an appendix of the book you quote, Marty suggests playing that the dbl denies support, and that 1S shows 4+ spades).

3) If the two-suited bids are optional, I wouldn't use the 1NT bid, too much of a loss (if you are an ACBL member: there was a good column about this in last months bulletin, perhaps by Mike Lawrence?). I would like to use 2NT as a invitational or better hand, but any other bid for those hands would be fine too.

4) I misunderstood your initial post. If weak jump shifts are available then disregardr my 4th objection .

5) I agree with you.

6) See answer to 3.

[han]

helene_t, on Sep 6 2004, 01:41 AM, said:

I like Hannie's structure, although I see two (possibly minor) drawbacks:
- Transfers make it easier for doubler's partner who can safely pass (knowing he will be on bid once more) and who can make a cue bid as a sort of responsive double.
- You loose the business redbl.

Another isddue: is there a case for reverting pass and redbl in the traditional structure? A pass puts the oponents under more pressure than does a redbl.

Helene,

I don't think that your first drawback is a big one, but I can imagine hands where it could be.

You are right about losing the redouble, this is a serious drawback. Marty Bergen has suggested the use of 2C as a constructive raise, and Robson starts the transfers with 1NT. You can decide which bid you would be willing to give up on. Perhaps starting the transfers with 2C is best, I want to be able to bid 1NT.

About your question on reversing a pass and a redouble: I have never thought about this, but you'd have to redouble with all really weak hands, are you brave enough?

I really don't think that putting pressure on the opponents over 1m-Dbl is important. Over 1M (and especially over 1S) it would be worth considering it.

In general, I would go for a structure that let's you reach the best spots, instead of trying to penalize them at the 1-level.