[kenrexford]

So I thought about an interesting new idea for advancing a Two Spade Michaels overcall.

1♤-2♤-?

2NT = diamond preference to hearts, or any game interest. Partner will pick the minor normally. Advancer might then correct to 3♢ to play or some level of hearts, etc. So far, not too radical.

3♧ = club preference to hearts.

3♢ = generic game try hearts.

The reason for this proposal is not obvious. The inference not stated is that (1) Advancer's choice of minor focus identifies his better minor (still not obvious why) but (2) does not express preference between hearts and the non-preferenced minor.

Consider an example to understand why all of this is done. Advancer might have, say, 4♢/2♧/3♡ or4♢/1♧/2♡. If 3♧ is the pass-or-correct bid, Adbancer might pick 3♡ and miss a good diamond fit. Even if 2NT asks, which solves that problem, showing a minor as Advancer can yield benefits. Maybe lead direction. Maybe enabling partner to upgrade himself with new confidence (in or out of competition).

I am not sure if the benefits are worth it. I only mention this because this structure occurred to me today. It seems interesting as a possibility. Comments and Analysis are welcome.

[Phil]

Edit. Can't read Ken's suit symbols.

[Stefan_O]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-24, 05:32, said:

Advancer might have, say, 4♢/2♧/3♡ or4♢/1♧/2♡

Hi Ken.
Just curious what user-interface/app/OS/platform you are using?
When you type a hearts-sign, I see a symbol with 3 dashes:

>>>

[kenrexford]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-24, 12:02, said:

Hi Ken.
Just curious what user-interface/app/OS/platform you are using?
When you type a hearts-sign, I see a symbol with 3 dashes:

>>>

Two responses to that. First the way your computer or cell phone is showing you the heart symbol maybe a sign from God. I would be worried.

Second however I just use my Edge S7 and the symbols font.

[Stefan_O]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-24, 14:07, said:

the way your computer or cell phone is showing you the heart symbol maybe a sign from God.

OK, could be.... but I suspect then I'd rather call it an Edge-bug...

I'm on a Win-10 PC, and checking your msg in Edge, I actually see the dashes (and no hearts-symbol) there, too.
Some complicated microsoft-spaghetti in the character-codings, I guess...
Weird.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-24, 14:07, said:

Two responses to that. First the way your computer or cell phone is showing you the heart symbol maybe a sign from God. I would be worried.

Second however I just use my Edge S7 and the symbols font.

I see your suits but just as faint outlines.

Why not just use the symbols here?

[barmar]

Ken, you've been here for over a decade. Surely you know about the bbcode for suit symbols: [ sp ], [ he ], [ di ], [ cl ] (with no spaces around the symbols).

[kenrexford]

When you're on a cell phone it's a pain in the ass to do all the coding. I'll try to do better next time. I usually just doing sh t or d which is easy. But I assumed it was coming through until I got notified otherwise.

[barmar]

FYI, the symbols look OK to me on my Mac. But they look weird compared to the normal suit symbols -- they're just borders, not filled in, and not colored appropriately.

I guess it's an issue of having compatible fonts.

[mycroft]

At least it's not those stupid MS suit symbols that code as [section], [arrow],... in *anything else but Werd*.

But it's a growing issue - google "fontified icons". If you use your own fonts because unlike some random website's crap idea of a cool font, it's readable and consistent, and ... you get lovely boxes of crap.

And of course, they're icons with no text - even hover text - and I'm just supposed to understand it. And it's not the industry standard icon for that action, because we want to "brand our page" or "look cool", so even if I could read pictographs (for which, read my history), I would have to guess what *this one* means. I've had to change my "real font" to a version I don't like as much because otherwise I get wordsrunningall together - who in their right mind uses *custom kerned spaces*? Everybody, I guess.

[Jinksy]

Personally if I'm feeling lazy, I've never felt like much clarity is lost in '1S 2S' etc.

[Zelandakh]

Do you have something against using Muiderberg-style advances?

2NT = asks for minor + strength
... - 3♣ = min + clubs
... - 3♦ = min + diamonds
... - 3♥ = extras + clubs
... - 3♠ = extras + diamonds
... - 3NT+ = strong
3♣ = pass/correct
3♦ = good raise of hearts
3♥ = preference

[nullve]

One thing I don't like about

(1M)-2M = Michaels

is that Advancer has no inv+ relay available over

(1M)-2N = Unusual.

That's why I've toyed with

(1♠)-?:

(...)
2♠ = 5+R5+C
...2N = inv+ relay
......3♣ = min (NF)
.........P = C tolerance, can't afford to find out which red suit p has
.........3R = P/C
.........(...)
......3♦+ = extras (GF)
...3♣ = < inv, C tolerance, can't afford to find out which red suit p has
...3R = < inv, P/C
...(...)
2N = 5+H5+D¹
...3♣ = inv+ relay¹
......3♦ = min (NF)
......3♥+ = extras (GF)
...(...)
(...),

and similarly over (1♥).

¹ Also part of jorj5500's (George Cuppaidge's) 2-suited scheme described here.

EDIT: Or, sort of midway between the above and Cuppaidge's scheme,

(1♠)-?:

(...)
2♠ = 5+D5+C / extras, 5+H5+C
...2N = inv+ relay
......3♣ = min, 5+D5+C (GF)
......3♦ = extras, 5+D5+C (GF)
......3♥ = extras, 5+H5+C (GF)
...(...)
2N = 5+H5+D
...3♣ = inv+ relay
.....3♦ = min (NF)
.....3♥+ = extras (GF)
...(...)
3♣ = min, 5+H5+C
...(...)
...3♦ = GF relay
...(...)
(...)

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-August-27, 15:52

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-27, 04:20, said:

Do you have something against using Muiderberg-style advances?

2NT = asks for minor + strength
... - 3♣ = min + clubs
... - 3♦ = min + diamonds
... - 3♥ = extras + clubs
... - 3♠ = extras + diamonds
... - 3NT+ = strong
3♣ = pass/correct
3♦ = good raise of hearts
3♥ = preference

That's what I normally play. However I'm finding more and more that the asking dad asking for the strength is so much more rare then the situation where you have an imbalance like I described then I'm thinking that perhaps an alternative approach might be more utilitarian in the long run.

[Zelandakh]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-27, 13:34, said:

That's what I normally play. However I'm finding more and more that the asking dad asking for the strength is so much more rare then the situation where you have an imbalance like I described then I'm thinking that perhaps an alternative approach might be more utilitarian in the long run.

I think if I were adjusting this scheme to take account of this case I would remove the 3♠ response to 2NT and replace it with something showing extras with clubs (probably highlighting the shortage. That would mean that we could respond 2NT with hands that would have game interest opposite clubs but not diamonds, which are a problem in the Muiderberg style. So:-

2NT = asks for minor + strength
... - 3♣ = min + clubs
... - 3♦ = diamonds (3♥ is probably then a further relay)
... - 3♥ = extras + clubs, diamond shortage
... - 3♠ = extras + clubs, spade shortage
... - 3NT+ = strong
3♣ = pass/correct
3♦ = good raise of hearts
3♥ = preference

Like you, I doubt whether this is worth it but it seems to me to be worth concentrating on the better hands here. The weak hands should just locate a playable spot and stop, in much the same way as we tend not to look for the absolute best part score after, say, 1M - 1NT; 2m.