[straube]

Which structure is stronger? This...http://www.fernside.com/bridge/TheOvercallStructure.html#TONTOFT
or Ken Rexford's R.U.N.T. ?

Both use 1N as takeout of RHO's opening suit, but The Overcall Structure has a lot higher requirements for it than does Ken. Like 6-15 for the one (and no 4333s) vs 0-11 (and 4333s allowed). Huge difference right there.
I'd actually think of doing something in between. Like 4-13 NV and 8-13 V.

In any case, using 1N for strong balanced hands is useful and fairly frequently occurring but there's a big opportunity cost and I wonder if we don't notice that.

For example, after 1S, do we really want our second lowest bid to show a strong NT? And after 1C, if 1N is takeout, it really disrupts the opponents' ability to find a fit.

Thoughts?

[dake50]

Are you intending to compare their published works
OR theory of their bids??
I don't see much difference in each theory.
Yes, some details contrast.
Develop your own scheme. Base that on some sense of payoff
whether personally assumed or statistically shown.
Play it to assemble your own payoff experience.

[straube]

Well, I'd rather adopt something good and tested. I haven't seen any world class pairs adopt these methods. That could be because these methods aren't any good or it could be just inertia and laziness.

Here's a sketch for a 1S defense. I'm sure it could be improved, but the idea anyway is to compete on more hands. I have trouble with the notion that 1S (1N) is natural and 1S dbl P 1N is natural as well. Those are big investments in a spot that is unlikely to be your best contract.

dbl-good hand (maybe 14+)
.....1N-bad hand without 5 hearts
..........2C-takeout of 1S
..........2D-natural, 14+
..........2H-natural, 14+
.....2C-bad hand, takeout
.....2D-five hearts
.....2H-four hearts, invitational
.....2S-good hand, diamonds
.....etc
1N-8-13 takeout
2C-clubs, wide ranging
2D-diamonds, 8-13
2H-hearts, 8-13

[kenrexford]

One issue that I have with the OS 1NT is that the range seems bizarre. 13 to 15 hands are where the money is. OS lumps these in with weak hands while RUNT has these as strong hands. Thus, it seems that RUNT is more oriented to enabling lucrative game tries and penalty dounles when it is most effective.

The structures have a parallel in thought to opening bid structures. OS tends to parallel a strong club thinking, where 16 is the magic divide. RUNT parallels KS (weak notrump), where the divide is balanced 15 or unbalancexd opening strength (and hence 15+ in total poimts). As this is in competition, the latter seems to me more practical. Focus the divide where you expect the midpoint to be.

Plus, RUNT has a second divide, as 1NT can also be very strong, sort of at the stronger Neopolitan or Vandedrbilt point (19), which OS does not zhare, to my knowledge.

But, OS is more than just the 1NT or double issue...

[straube]

Well, they have different continuations after double. RUNT uses a Herbert negative while NTO lets advancer respond naturally but without clarifying strength. Personally, I think RUNT makes more sense here. If dbl is basically power, then you need some kind of negative. I mean, compare this to a strong club where...

1C-
.....1D-negative, natural
.....1H-negative, natural
.....1S-negative, natural
.....1N-4-7, natural
.....2C-negative, natural
.....2D-positive, natural
.....etc-

I mean, no one would play this. But NTO after 1H dbl where the double can be takeout or balanced and the bidding goes...

1H dbl P ?
.....1S-negative, natural
.....1N-4-7, natural
.....2C-negative, natural
.....2D-negative, natural
.....other-positive

Why would responder use so many bids to show suit holdings (possibly 3+) and all negative hands when opener may not even be interested in this information?

[Phil]

Many who play power doubles in a OS context do play Herbert Negatives. Josh Sher thinks its 'unplayable' without a negative. I don't quite agree, but you see the point.

I have dropped OS for about five years and generally haven't missed it. Part of this (I hope) probably reflects some sort of maturation as a bridge player and not feeling the need to be different from everybody (read: arrogant). More of it was a function of getting tired of introducing system-based random results.

All this being said:

- NTO's are particularly volatile, especially over a minor, since you are jumping into a very possible no-fit auction with substandard values. Gains are questionable.
- I do like power doubles, and the roman jump overcalls, since both get tangible pickups and have sound underlying principles.

If I were to play this again, I'd prefer to use 1N as something else, or switch things around somewhat.

[straube]

Phil, on 2012-December-14, 17:37, said:

Many who play power doubles in a OS context do play Herbert Negatives. Josh Sher thinks its 'unplayable' without a negative. I don't quite agree, but you see the point.

I have dropped OS for about five years and generally haven't missed it. Part of this (I hope) probably reflects some sort of maturation as a bridge player and not feeling the need to be different from everybody (read: arrogant). More of it was a function of getting tired of introducing system-based random results.

All this being said:

- NTO's are particularly volatile, especially over a minor, since you are jumping into a very possible no-fit auction with substandard values. Gains are questionable.
- I do like power doubles, and the roman jump overcalls, since both get tangible pickups and have sound underlying principles.

If I were to play this again, I'd prefer to use 1N as something else, or switch things around somewhat.

Maybe they're most useful NV and over a 5-cd major. A major is preemptive against us (space is tight) and the likelihood that both sides have a fit is higher. Look at what it can do after 1H...

1H-?
.....dbl-14+
..........1S-negative
...............1N-natural
....................2m-to play (note that we couldn't play 2m after a natural 1N overcall)
....................2H-transfer
...............2C-takeout of hearts
...............2D-natural
...............2S-natural
..........1N-spades, 8+
..........2C-clubs, 8+
..........2D-diamonds, 8+
..........2H-cue
..........2S-negative, 5+ spades

.....1N-takeout, 6-13
.....2C-clubs
.....2D-diamonds, 8-13

You could probably do better than this. The point is that the double and Hubert negative really slows the auction down which is what you want when space is constricted.

[awm]

It seems we are focusing on the use of Dbl/1NT rather than other parts of these structures (i.e. Roman Jumps) so I will do that here too.

When opponents open, we are very likely to get a competitive auction. Under this situation it will usually be more important to show shape rather than strength, with one exception. The reason shape is more important is that we are often trying to gauge par rather than making; for example a sequence like 1♠-Dbl (points, any shape)-4♠ is very difficult whereas an auction like 1♠-2♥ (long hearts, any strength)-4♠ is quite a bit easier (in the first auction, advancer can do little except pass or double on the vast majority of hands, and either action leaves doubler at a guess whether to defend or bid on; in the second auction advancer knows when to bid five hearts and when not, and when he doesn't he can pass back to overcaller who will double with a really good hand and otherwise pass, and this gets the auction right almost always).

The one exception to the above is when our hand is really quite poor (both in values and shape). The reason is that these hands are overwhelmingly likely to belong to the opponents. They are the hands where opponents can often make overtricks (i.e. opponents have eleven tricks in their major and not ten) such that attempting to sacrifice is usually foolish (instead of they make their game and we are down two for a good sac, it's they make their game with overtrick and we are down three for a bad sac). Also our shape-showing action will help opponents quite a bit in judging the bidding and play (i.e. they know we have "takeout shape" so can play for a bad trump break, etc), and the odds that they are bidding and playing the hand is quite high.

Putting these together, the power double seems not so effective. It's true that this will help you on some of the really strong hands (which are hard to show) but these hands are pretty rare even if opponents open light. Odds that I have 17+ are low to begin with, and lower after my RHO has shown 10+ or 9+ or whatever their one-level opening is. On the "minimum power double" hands (like 15-16) we'd be much better off with a more shape-showing call. It's true that you can define fairly nice structures with herbert negatives and/or transfers etc. to advance the power double, but these are all out the window if opener's partner does anything but pass (as he very often will). The "light takeout" actions (R.U.N.T. especially) are dubious because they help opponents in the play, expose you to penalties on a misfit hand, and often lead to sacrifices that are not so good (because opponents have the vast majority of values). There is also the mild problem that 1NT is often a reasonable contract (much more than you seem to suggest) and these (1NT takeout) actions will seriously wrong-side it.

[awm]

straube, on 2012-December-14, 16:35, said:

Well, they have different continuations after double. RUNT uses a Herbert negative while NTO lets advancer respond naturally but without clarifying strength. Personally, I think RUNT makes more sense here. If dbl is basically power, then you need some kind of negative. I mean, compare this to a strong club where...

1C-
.....1D-negative, natural
.....1H-negative, natural
.....1S-negative, natural
.....1N-4-7, natural
.....2C-negative, natural
.....2D-positive, natural
.....etc-

I mean, no one would play this.

This is not necessarily obvious, because the auctions are different. In the power double auction, you know doubler's RHO has a decent hand. This greatly reduces the chance that partner has a good hand, to the degree that it makes sense to focus on negatives (or semi-positives perhaps). Even the "herbert negatives" approach usually doesn't have the non-negative bids as GF (while most play mostly GF responses to strong club).

[straube]

Thanks for weighing in, Adam.

What I keep coming back to is that hands with no preference should use less room than hands with preference. If RHO opens 1D and I hold Axxx KJx xx Jxxx I have a fair preference that trump not be diamonds and if I use 1N to announce 9 of my suit cards, well that's one more than if 1N showed a balanced hand. If instead I hold Axx KJxx AQxx Jx then I don't have much preference and should think to keep the bidding lower with double. We use that idea over and over. For example, if we open 2m (limited natural) and are overcalled, we use dbl to show values but no clear direction. It simply puts us in a force until 3m is reached.

So when I look at defense to 1S (for example), I'm really cramped for room here and yet we have lots of opportunities with standard methods for stopping in 1N. Really, shouldn't dbl be used to show values but (usually) no clear direction while 1N be takeout? I mean, forget for the moment that 1N has been recommended as a weak takeout and think about how both the dbl and the 1N are (by inversion) allowing for more sequences and branching. 1N takeout is usually taken out. Dbl is usually taken out and that leads to more sequences. If inverting the meanings means that communication is enhanced, then it's natural that we can start bidding with more (and weaker) hands. It's the same idea as a strong club allowing for lighter openers. It's just more efficient.

I think you raise an interesting point about after dbl and responder makes a bid that the basic nature of his hand (takeout or balanced or...) is not immediately known. Well, at least it's not a light takeout double and advancer can choose to bid something or not. Probably he choose assume a stronger takeout double and "agree" with one of doubler's implied suits. Doubler can always bid 1N or 2N later knowing that advancer has some points.
OTOH, making a light takeout bid of 1N will quite frequently destroy the opponent's auctions. I'm not talking about whether to take a save and go down 3 when the opponent's are able to make 5M. I'm talking about competing to the 2 or 3 level (our law level) and letting the opponent's guess whether they are on for game or slam or settle for hitting us.

I'm definitely thinking of vulnerability, too. Perhaps 1N as takeout is the best method even vulnerable and we just have to be more disciplined about when to use it, but maybe at vulnerable we should go back to more standard methods as playing a 4-3 fit at the 2-level on a combined strength of under par is not likely to be a good result. Or perhaps after 1M is opened, the odds of us finding a fit at the 2-level are high enough that we can use 1N takeout here, too.

Interested in your reaction. I don't have any sort of clarity on these methods and am trying to foster discussion. Also, if Ken is still following this, I'd like to get his sense of when this method gets its best results vs its worst. For instance...

NV vs 1m opening
NV vs 1M opening
V vs 1m opening
V vs 1M opening

Does your method an improvement for all of these or only some?

[awm]

One thing you are missing here is that both Dbl and 1NT carry some shape information in standard bidding.

If you decide that one of these two calls will say "I have a really good hand with any shape" and the other will say "I have takeout distribution" and you totally don't care about right-siding contracts, then it would make more sense to use double as the strong hand and 1NT as the takeout. However, this is far from what those two calls mean in standard bidding.

The standard 1NT bid is very well-defined, showing a hand that will extremely often play best in notrump, and allowing partner to usually place the contract (in some level of notrump or in some suit of his own). This is actually much better defined than "takeout shape" which has a wider range of values and likely also a wider range of distributions. So even ignoring the right-siding issue, if one call is "I have a balanced hand with some strength in their suit and a very specific point range" and the other call is "I have a takeout distribution" it will be much better to play the standard way than to reverse the bids.

Whether the 1NT bid "destroys opponents auctions" depends a lot on what their opening is and what their methods are. Over a 1M opening this call will do very little to opponents most of the time, because they usually will play in their major (or double you for a number, which you have potentially exposed yourself to by acting on a balanced nine-count in the first place). Over a minor-suit opening you can definitely make it harder for them to find 4-4 major fits (for example) but this also works both ways -- they will avoid the major-suit contracts that are breaking 4-1 (for example) which they would've found if you had just passed. Certainly this bid works well against weak and/or unprepared opponents after the 1m opening (I hear that responder attempting to redouble is not unusual) but I think you overrate it against good players. They can always pass or double and then make a takeout double later and find their fit that way; you have both exposed yourself to being penalized and basically put yourself in a forcing auction so they have a good number of chances to get back what ground they have lost.

[dake50]

Many who play power doubles in a OS context do play Herbert Negatives. Josh Sher thinks its 'unplayable' without a negative. I don't quite agree, but you see the point.

*** Agree, almost.
*** I use a transfer scheme, but the lowest transfer may be a "Joker" to keep low.
*** This makes non-Joker transfers have +-5 useful points.
*** Of course, a Power Doubler has a demand bid: "show me your
*** double negative = "Joker"; or something else to show 5+ points.
*** I don't reserve a bid as 'Herbert Negative' when that info seldom matters
*** immediatly - just blabbing "I got nothing" to opponents.
*** Yet a mechanism if/when Power Doubler needs to know.

[rbforster]

awm, on 2012-December-15, 13:41, said:

Whether the 1NT bid "destroys opponents auctions" depends a lot on what their opening is and what their methods are. Over a 1M opening this call will do very little to opponents most of the time, because they usually will play in their major (or double you for a number, which you have potentially exposed yourself to by acting on a balanced nine-count in the first place). Over a minor-suit opening you can definitely make it harder for them to find 4-4 major fits (for example) but this also works both ways -- they will avoid the major-suit contracts that are breaking 4-1 (for example) which they would've found if you had just passed. Certainly this bid works well against weak and/or unprepared opponents after the 1m opening (I hear that responder attempting to redouble is not unusual) but I think you overrate it against good players. They can always pass or double and then make a takeout double later and find their fit that way; you have both exposed yourself to being penalized and basically put yourself in a forcing auction so they have a good number of chances to get back what ground they have lost.

Sure you get bad outcomes sometimes, but I think the odds favor the NTO. Yes, if the opponents have excellent methods and agreements over the NTO, bid passively and await your scramble, and you have no fit to scramble to, you might get doubled for a bad result. But that's a lot going wrong and these alternatives seem a lot more likely to me -

- you may have a fit (partner does have shortness in their suit), and partner is able to bid or jump to the law level quickly, leading to the opponents missing their best contract or at worst bid over you for a similar result as without interference

- opponents methods over NTO or it's advance lead to confusion or an imprecise competitive auction where they are worse off on average than if you had not interfered and they may not be able to penalize you even if they wanted to

- your doubled part score may be a better result than their game

Remember many of the same criticisms you make about NTO can be made of a strong balance NT overall - no guaranteed fit, opponents have announced strength, could be doubled off and go for a number. The standard NT has a wider range of shapes than NTO, being 2-5 cards in 4 suits (vs 3-5 cards in 3 suits and known shortness), so clearly if you want to play a contract other than 1NT you are much better positioned to do so after NTO than 1NT balanced. So how likely is a natural NT overcall to be the best and final contract? I don't know, but if it's not that often, I feel like putting yourself out there at the two level is risky, while the similar hands starting with a power double can often scramble to a suit at the one level which is a lot safer.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2012-December-15, 13:26, said:

Thanks for weighing in, Adam.

What I keep coming back to is that hands with no preference should use less room than hands with preference. If RHO opens 1D and I hold Axxx KJx xx Jxxx I have a fair preference that trump not be diamonds and if I use 1N to announce 9 of my suit cards, well that's one more than if 1N showed a balanced hand. If instead I hold Axx KJxx AQxx Jx then I don't have much preference and should think to keep the bidding lower with double. We use that idea over and over. For example, if we open 2m (limited natural) and are overcalled, we use dbl to show values but no clear direction. It simply puts us in a force until 3m is reached.

So when I look at defense to 1S (for example), I'm really cramped for room here and yet we have lots of opportunities with standard methods for stopping in 1N. Really, shouldn't dbl be used to show values but (usually) no clear direction while 1N be takeout? I mean, forget for the moment that 1N has been recommended as a weak takeout and think about how both the dbl and the 1N are (by inversion) allowing for more sequences and branching. 1N takeout is usually taken out. Dbl is usually taken out and that leads to more sequences. If inverting the meanings means that communication is enhanced, then it's natural that we can start bidding with more (and weaker) hands. It's the same idea as a strong club allowing for lighter openers. It's just more efficient.

I think you raise an interesting point about after dbl and responder makes a bid that the basic nature of his hand (takeout or balanced or...) is not immediately known. Well, at least it's not a light takeout double and advancer can choose to bid something or not. Probably he choose assume a stronger takeout double and "agree" with one of doubler's implied suits. Doubler can always bid 1N or 2N later knowing that advancer has some points.
OTOH, making a light takeout bid of 1N will quite frequently destroy the opponent's auctions. I'm not talking about whether to take a save and go down 3 when the opponent's are able to make 5M. I'm talking about competing to the 2 or 3 level (our law level) and letting the opponent's guess whether they are on for game or slam or settle for hitting us.

I'm definitely thinking of vulnerability, too. Perhaps 1N as takeout is the best method even vulnerable and we just have to be more disciplined about when to use it, but maybe at vulnerable we should go back to more standard methods as playing a 4-3 fit at the 2-level on a combined strength of under par is not likely to be a good result. Or perhaps after 1M is opened, the odds of us finding a fit at the 2-level are high enough that we can use 1N takeout here, too.

Interested in your reaction. I don't have any sort of clarity on these methods and am trying to foster discussion. Also, if Ken is still following this, I'd like to get his sense of when this method gets its best results vs its worst. For instance...

NV vs 1m opening
NV vs 1M opening
V vs 1m opening
V vs 1M opening

Does your method an improvement for all of these or only some?

The situations are obviously different. This is kept in mind when acting. It seems fairly obvious that the power double gains similarly in allauctions. But, perhaps the gain is moreso when vulnerable as to getting to game but if nv in penalizing them.thus, the cutoff betwwen weak and stronger is typically looked at from defensive power is nv, playing strength if v.
for the 1nt, overcalling a major is defenaive while oveecalling the minor is preemptive, if you follow the nuance.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2012-December-15, 22:30, said:

The situations are obviously different. This is kept in mind when acting. It seems fairly obvious that the power double gains similarly in allauctions. But, perhaps the gain is moreso when vulnerable as to getting to game but if nv in penalizing them.thus, the cutoff betwwen weak and stronger is typically looked at from defensive power is nv, playing strength if v.
for the 1nt, overcalling a major is defenaive while oveecalling the minor is preemptive, if you follow the nuance.

I think I follow. One concern I have is for using this after 1S openings. I think I would rather...

1S
.....dbl-takeout
..........1N-Lebensohl (requests 2C with weak hand)
..........other-constructive
.....1N-natural

The problem I see with using a power double here is that partner never learns that you have it...

1S
.....dbl-power
..........1N-negative
...............P-
....................huh?

whereas....

1H
.....dbl-power
..........1S-negative
...............1N-natural
....................2C-to play
....................2D-to play
....................2H-transfer
...............2C-takeout

1D
.....dbl-power
..........1H-negative
...............1S-takeout
...............1N-natural

1C
.....dbl-power
..........1D-negative
...............1H-takeout
...............1S-takeout, 4S/3H
...............1N-natural

Basically, the power double handles auctions with not only takeout shape, but awkward and balanced shapes as well. It says, "I'd like to start a fit-finding auction with you if you have the strength" and you basically force with new suits until a fit is reached or you retire in NT. If pd has a bad hand, he makes the Hubert negative and then you start to find your fit.

Say I have Axxx KQx xx AQxx and the bidding goes 1C ? If I can double here instead of use all of the 1-level to show a strong NT, then pd might respond 1S for me and I'll be able to raise. We find our 4-4 fit while other pairs play 1N. Sure, if pd bids 2D I won't like it as much. I'll bid 2N.

The NT overcall (except for 1S) is takeout with a weaker hand...maybe 6-13 depending on vul and degree of shape/shortness...which leaves advancer in the catbirds seat as to who can make what.

I initially thought this would work better over 1M, but I think I'm seeing how it works better over 1m.

Thoughts? Ken, what do you think of my structure for 1S? Btw, do you have notes for what follows a power double beyond what's written in your book? It seems like you could write a few chapters just on that. For example...is 1C dbl P 1N (which shows hearts) forcing? What would 1C dbl P 2H show?

[kenrexford]

I dont want to get too detailed, becUse zo much depends on seat, vul., style,etc. Make one slightchange and the must be adjusted. and, my thought is neverto be definitive butratjer inspirational.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2012-December-16, 07:53, said:

I dont want to get too detailed, becUse zo much depends on seat, vul., style,etc. Make one slightchange and the must be adjusted. and, my thought is neverto be definitive butratjer inspirational.

I'm asking about unpassed hand continuations for when it goes...

1H dbl P 1N P ?
.....Partner is showing spades. Is this forcing? Is doubler's new suit forcing?

What does...

1H dbl P 2H, 2S, 2N, 3C, etc mean?

Is

1H dbl P 2C forcing?

Stuff like that. I assume you have notes for these. I'd say you are very detail-oriented in general. You have detailed escape sequences (for example) for 1C (1N) dbl

Well, thanks if you can help.

[straube]

One of the things we'd have to solve is differentiating's advancer's 5S/4H from 4S/5H hands....

1C dbl P ?
.....1D-0-5 any, f
..........suits are natural and nf, jumps are invitational, cue bid is forcing to game
...............advancer should presume that opener has a takeout double hand until proven otherwise...so advancer is free to "correct" to a suit for which he has a 4-card holding
.....1H-natural, 6-9, could have 4S/5H, forcing
..........1S-forcing
..........2C-GF
..........all other, natural, nf
.....1S-natural, 6-9, could have 5S/4H, forcing
.....1N-natural, 6-7
.....2C-GF
.....2D-natural, 6-9
.....2H-natural, 8-9, 5-cd suit
..........new suit is GF
.....2S-natural, 8-9, 5-cd suit
..........new suit is GF
.....2N-natural, 8-9
..........new suit is GF

1D dbl P ?
.....1H-0-5 any, occasionally higher without major, f
.....1S-natural, 6-9, could have 5S/4H, forcing
.....1N-four+ hearts, 6-9, f
.....2C-natural, 6-9
.....2D-GF
.....2H-4S/5H, 6-9
.....2S-natural, 8-9, 5-cd suit
.....2N-natural, 8-9

1H dbl P ?
.....1S-0-5 any, occasionally higher without major, f
.....1N-four+ spades, 6-9, f
.....2C-natural, 6-9
.....2D-natural, 6-9
.....2H-GF
.....2S-natural, 8-9, 5-cd suit
.....2N-natural, 8-9

1S dbl P
.....1N-lebensohl, 0-6
..........2C-p/c
..........2D-natural, nf
..........2H-natural, nf
..........2S-GF
.....2C-natural, 7-10
.....2D-natural, 7-10
.....2H-natural, 7-10
.....2S-GF

One thing I like here is that after a power double, a Hubert negative response, and a 1N rebid, advancer is free to sign off in a suit naturally. So we can get to 2m as well as 2 OM. The weak hand will be declarer which has the offset that opener will be on lead.
Like this?

[kenrexford]

Sure, seems decent. That said, I am not sure that this requires all that. Some auctions are fairly well established by gp even if nuanced by treatment, and that is ok for me. I tend toward minutae detail when seeking great reward (slams) or seeking to avoid great taxes (penalty doubles on us). I also will be detailed when going into new areas, like a very artificial convention. But, when the auction becomes nuanced natural, or tweaked conventional, I tend to rely on logic. You provided detailed statement of your logic, which seems logical.

I, for example, use very detailed agreements in some areas, but many notable areas not so much. For instance, i use a sloppy version of "gazilli" because 2C is just 1+, naturalish thereafter by Opener with BART by Responder. I open an unbalanced 1D but then rebid naturally and let nuance provide the benefit rather than artificiality. I respond with 2C as a catchall 2/1 GF and a companion 2D rebid as diamonds or weak balanced but without any relay concept. So, in thos auctions, i let gp fill in the blanks. In fact, my entire canape system seems complicated at first blush, but the goal was to naturalize and make canape more logical and less artificial, which is why average players can master it but not Roman Club or Neopolitan. Thus, i do have a tendency to be more natural and logical than conventional, despite reputation, if you actually think througvh what i am often doing.

[straube]

Well pd and I would rather have simple than complicated, but at a minimum one has to decide which bids are forcing and which are not. I don't want pd or me to become too lost in hcps per se, but I list them as a guideline. One thing I like about this is that it might handle awkward and balanced hands better than bidding 1N natural with all of them. We have a shot at uncovering a 4-4 major suit fit that we might miss otherwise. Etc. We also get to sign off in 2m (when advancer has a bust) which we couldn't otherwise manage. We might even find a 4-4 major suit fit opposite a bust.

So I'm thinking that dbl would handle...

1) balanced or awkward
2) takeout strength of 14+
3) single-suited hands of 17+

It would not handle...

1) two-suited hands (these bid suits one at a time or use Michaels, unusual, or a jump cue bid)
2) single-suited hands of less than 17
3) takeout shape less than 14 hcps

Actually starting to see this function for vulnerable as well, but I think with vulnerable that we need to bring a lot more to the table. I think I'll have to look at hands.

Rob, do you have experience with Ken's method or similar? Is it a significant advantage? Which vulnerabilities would you want to use this? What do you think of my scheme?