[mrdct]

I can't remember which pair it was (I think they were French) but I saw on vugraph from Lille an interesting treatment of inverting the meaning of pass and double after low level intervention within what is increasing becoming a standard expert treatment of playing transfers after one-level intervention.

I started playing this method with my regular partner, applying it only where the opponents double or overcall at or below the level of 1♥, e.g:

1♣:(dbl): pass=4+♦, 1♦=4+♥, 1♥=4+♠, 1♠=8-10bal or 11+ no clear bid, 1NT=good ♣ raise, 2♣=bad ♣ raise.

This leaves double as waiting bid of sorts which is either a hand too weak to show its suit (<6hcp or so) or a hand that would traditionally have made a trap-pass.

We've been playing it for a few weeks now and it all seems to work OK within our general structure. We pre-alert it along the lines of, "after intervention below the level of 1♠, including double, we use pass to show the next suit up and double as a waiting bid, generally a hand that traditionally would've passed".

I'm interested in people's thoughts on the merits or otherwise of this treatment.

[Zelandakh]

So the bidding starts 1♣ - (X) - XX - P. What does Opener do now? Does it depend on what the last pass meant? And what if pass is described as two-way (eg either weak with no suit or strong looking to penalise)? Incidentally, I would not expect this inversion given your pre-alert since you do not mention redoubles. Before anyone gives an assessment, it would probably be a good idea to hear what you find to be the main advantages of this method from your experiences with it.

[mrdct]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-September-13, 01:58, said:

So the bidding starts 1♣ - (X) - XX - P. What does Opener do now? Does it depend on what the last pass meant? And what if pass is described as two-way (eg either weak with no suit or strong looking to penalise)? Incidentally, I would not expect this inversion given your pre-alert since you do not mention redoubles. Before anyone gives an assessment, it would probably be a good idea to hear what you find to be the main advantages of this method from your experiences with it.

In our pre-alert we do say any intervention below 1♠ including double, but I agree it would be better disclosure to cover-off on the redouble situation. The 1♣:(dbl):redbl auction hasn't come up yet, but I think the most likely hand will be 0-5hcp as hands interested in playing in 2♣xx would bid 1NT (good ♣ raise and F1), but the redoubler could just be waiting to see how the auction develops with a wide variety of hands. It could be an awkward position for opener though, but we would play 1♦ by opener now as 11-14 balanced. Bear in mind our 1♣ opening is 2+♣ being either natural with ♣ or balanced 11-14 or 18-19.

As for our experience with it, it's only come up a few times and not against any particularly strong opponents. My sense is the advantage is unfamiliarity (which is only a legit strategy if you properly pre-alert) and taking away 4th seat's ability to double when you've shown a suit with pass.

[paulg]

This method seems to give up the traditional penalty available as the sequence 1♣ (1♥) Dbl shows a weak hand or a penalty double. Is opener supposed to guess?

[Zelandakh]

 mrdct, on 2012-September-13, 04:43, said:

As for our experience with it, it's only come up a few times and not against any particularly strong opponents. My sense is the advantage is unfamiliarity (which is only a legit strategy if you properly pre-alert) and taking away 4th seat's ability to double when you've shown a suit with pass.

Not sure I get the part about taking away opponents' double. 1♣ - (X) - P versus 1♣ - (X) - XX (both showing diamonds) seems like something of a wash on that front. In both cases a 1♦ bid is available along with a delayed double. On the other hand 1♣ - (X) - XX versus 1♣ - (X) - P (weak or trap) seems to be a win for the traditional transfer approach. Bidding 1♣ - (1♦) - P rather than 1♣ - (1♦) - X (showing hearts) does remove an immediate redouble from 4th seat's options. Is that enough to make up for the negative from 1♣ - (1♦) - X being weak or trap? My immediate instinct is "probably not", since taking the XX away does not seem too important while (effectively) being forced to bid again opposite a partner who is either very weak or a big misfit or both does not seem too appealing.

[benlessard]

Inverting pass and redouble(after a takeout X) seems barely playable. I dont see how inverting pass and double (after an overcall) can work.

Is it possible they bid a suit even if they dont have pts ? So when they XX they either have points or at least some support for opener ?

if so it mean that...
1C--(X)--1H--(P)
??

here Im assuming that 1S can be 3 cards and is up to 19 and 2S is 20-22. There is still some guessing for the 1NT rebid however. I also think its possible they play that 1C show a real suit or 15-17 bal, so they are willing to gamble in 1Cxx rather than missing some games or some opportunity to double the opponents.

They want to avoid hands where opps make a takeout X and advancer is happy to pass with

xxx
xx
xxx
QJTxx since its no big deal if you make your contract.

[PhilKing]

Building a system around being able to show diamonds cheaply might not be optimal.

[awm]

This seems like a huge loser on the hands that would've passed. If you have garbage you are basically in a force, and could give up some big numbers. If you have a penalty pass you can't penaltize. In exchange you get some small gain on the hand that normally would double (instead you pass and opener can double, but what does that even mean?) but I really doubt this is enough to compensate.

[mrdct]

 benlessard, on 2012-September-13, 08:09, said:

Inverting pass and redouble(after a takeout X) seems barely playable. I dont see how inverting pass and double (after an overcall) can work.

Is it possible they bid a suit even if they dont have pts ? So when they XX they either have points or at least some support for opener ?

if so it mean that...
1C--(X)--1H--(P)
??

here Im assuming that 1S can be 3 cards and is up to 19 and 2S is 20-22. There is still some guessing for the 1NT rebid however. I also think its possible they play that 1C show a real suit or 15-17 bal, so they are willing to gamble in 1Cxx rather than missing some games or some opportunity to double the opponents.

With or without the pass/dbl inversion, we play the Swedish-style of transfer acceptance whereby accepting the transfer shows 11-14 balanced with 2-3 ♠. With 11-14 and 4♠ you bid 2♠ and with 18-19 balanced you bid 1NT. The 1♣ opener can't have 15-17 balanced (he would've opened 1NT).

[mikestar13]

The only contexts I have personally found pass/double inversion useful are forcing pass situations. In such sequences it can't be right to sell out undoubled. When it can be right to sell out, sometimes it will be right, and you need to be able to do it, which PDI makes impossible.

[fromageGB]

It may be an expert method (?) but I am not an expert. I would be rather worried that when the bidding starts 1♣ (1♥) X, with opener having 11-14 balanced and responder having a 6 or 7 count, without 4 spades, we are onto an immediate bad score with no chance of recovery.

[mrdct]

 fromageGB, on 2012-September-17, 10:12, said:

It may be an expert method (?) but I am not an expert. I would be rather worried that when the bidding starts 1♣ (1♥) X, with opener having 11-14 balanced and responder having a 6 or 7 count, without 4 spades, we are onto an immediate bad score with no chance of recovery.

We wouldn't necessarily be booked for a bad score with opener likely to rebid 1NT is he doesn't have a ♠ suit himself and we should be able to scramble to our best fit if the opps smell blood. There might be merit in playing our weak NT escape mechanism if the 1♥ overcaller doubles 1NT which is another thing I'll need to clarify with my partner.

[fromageGB]

Escape mechanism, certainly, as 1NT is unlikely to be the normal contract. So use pass and X as artificial. As spades is ruled out, we are considering minors only, so something like pass = equal length in minors, opener to pick one, X = club preference and 2♣ transfer to diamonds. You need it played the right way round, because with this inversion you need all the help you can get.