[vang]

hello,

for those who play 1M-2NT as invitational or better with 4 card fit, there are many systems for further development. it was about time to invent my own (joking, it seems nothing is new in bridge ;-).

basically, you give the losing trick count (LTC) in steps:
3♣=minimal hand, 7 losers or worse
3♦=6 losers
3♥=5 losers
3♠=4 losers or better

after this, the responder can see if there is any slam posibility and continue in accordance (cue-bids, stop in game, stop in 3M).

a small article on this method:
http://VangOnBridge.blogspot.com/2007/04/m...ter-1m-2nt.html

[pclayton]

I hate this.

How can a balanced invitational hand evaluate across from a LTC?

Perhaps you can provide some examples of how it is effective, and how other methods can't obtain the same results?

[EricK]

It seems quite wasteful of space. You could probably do better by combining your 3♣ and 3♥ bids into 3♣ and your 3♦ and 3♠ bids into 3♦. Later bidding can separate these if need be. That gives you two free bids at the two level.

As an aside, if you are going to play 1M-2NT as inv+ I would remove the raises to precisely game (i.e. the 7 loser hands if that is how you evaluate) from 2NT and put them into 3NT for balanced hands and splinters for unbalanced hands. By keeping 2NT for invitational hands or hands with some slam ambition, you can further refine your responses (because if opener shows extras you can too at a low level and both partners know where they stand).

[whereagles]

Wrong startegy there, vang. Unless 1M is 11-15, the follow-ups after 1M-2NT should give OPENER control, not responder. This is because opener is the one who's unlimited and can be potentially strong. Note that 90%+ of the time responder will have 10-13 and won't be interested in slam unless opener has extras. Control should be given to opener thus.

Incidently, there are much more important things for opener to say than the nr. of losers he has... shape and hcp, for instance. The LTC kinda tries to sum-up shape+hcp into one feature, the loser count, but practice doesn't vindicate this approach too much. Other means of evaluation turn out to be more accurate.

[glen]

whereagles, on Apr 17 2007, 04:16 AM, said:

... Note that 90%+ of the time responder will have 10-13 and won't be interested in slam unless opener has extras. ...

Karen and I have been trying something out the last two months that I haven't written about since I'm not certain how effective it will be. It is called the Majority raise, and targets these 90%+ hands only. Essentially 2NT is 10+ to 14 with a hand not appropriate for a Bergen raise (which cover game invites with four+ trumps) or a splinter or a direct raise to game. With 14/15+ one uses 2/1 with 3 or 4 trumps, and with 5+ trumps one uses two-way Bergen - the constructive Bergen does double duty and handles these, since if opener jumps to game after the constructive Bergen, responder if 14+ and 5+ trumps can take another bid.

The main idea is to have lots of 1M-2NT;4M sequences. I got tired of 1M-2NT followed by showing or denying shortness and then ending in 4M, or 1M-2/1;rebid followed by show M, then end in 4M. It seemed we stopped in 4M on a whole bunch of hands, but only after telling the opponents more about what opener had. We now find that the sequence where responder bids 2/1, then rebids M, which shows 14/15+, is quite useful - opener knows responder has at least a little extra, and so cuebidding is helpful now, not just a courtesy.

Just to repeat, this is something we are using for better or worse, and it may not be the best approach to raises.

[awm]

It does seem like just reordering opener's rebids actually helps a lot. The major problems with Jacoby seem to be:

(1) Opener with a very minimum hand showing shortage, when there isn't a real chance of slam unless opener has extras (this gives more info to the defense).

(2) Opener jumping to 4M with a minimum hand, removing space for cuebidding when responder has extras.

If opener rebids 3♣ with all minimums, and we shift the shortage showing bids on other hands, it seems to fix these problems, as well as potentially letting you use 2NT on invite hands (responder plans to rebid 3M NF over 3♣).

[PrecisionL]

The reverse is better and is what I have been playing for 2 years which allows more room for slam exploration. Now 1M - 3m can be mini-splinter or fit jump.

3C = 5-losers or less
3D = 6-losers
3H = 7-8 losers if Hs are trumps, otherwise 7-losers
3S = 8-losers if Ss are trumps

Larry

[vang]

officeglen, on Apr 17 2007, 02:35 PM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 17 2007, 04:16 AM, said:

... Note that 90%+ of the time responder will have 10-13 and won't be interested in slam unless opener has extras. ...

Karen and I have been trying something out the last two months that I haven't written about since I'm not certain how effective it will be. It is called the Majority raise, and targets these 90%+ hands only. Essentially 2NT is 10+ to 14 with a hand not appropriate for a Bergen raise (which cover game invites with four+ trumps) or a splinter or a direct raise to game. With 14/15+ one uses 2/1 with 3 or 4 trumps, and with 5+ trumps one uses two-way Bergen - the constructive Bergen does double duty and handles these, since if opener jumps to game after the constructive Bergen, responder if 14+ and 5+ trumps can take another bid.

The main idea is to have lots of 1M-2NT;4M sequences. I got tired of 1M-2NT followed by showing or denying shortness and then ending in 4M, or 1M-2/1;rebid followed by show M, then end in 4M. It seemed we stopped in 4M on a whole bunch of hands, but only after telling the opponents more about what opener had. We now find that the sequence where responder bids 2/1, then rebids M, which shows 14/15+, is quite useful - opener knows responder has at least a little extra, and so cuebidding is helpful now, not just a courtesy.

Just to repeat, this is something we are using for better or worse, and it may not be the best approach to raises.

that sounds very interesting, i'm not sure i understood exactly. so, 1M - 2NT is fit3 or fit4? INV or GF?

[glen]

It covers fit3 and fit4, and inv and GF. However it can't have fit4 with a limit raise since we Bergen that. It can't have GF fit3/fit4 with a splinter type hand. So it is fit3 inv OR fit3/4/5 non-splinter minimum GF. 1M-2NT--3M says pass with fit3 inv, bid 3NT (choice of game) or 4M otherwise. 1M-2NT--3C says big or awful -> awful being even some GF hands will not have enough for game -> after 3C responder rebids 3M or stays low, and then big hand cuebids as a slam try.

It may not be appropriate for expert events, but in the events we mostly play in (ACBL BBO, club games, sectionals, regionals), it pays to bounce to game (e.g. 1M-2NT--4M) and hope they misdefend often.

Note that 1M-1NT is semi-forcing for us, very rarely with a 3 card fit.