[foo]

Chamaco,

Someone brought up "Mike Lawrence" style 2/1 GF.
In this style, a 2/1 is GF =unless the suit is rebid=.

If playing that style and holding ♠A♥QT9x♦xx♣AT98xx as Responder,
I'd respond 2C and rebid 3C:
1S-2C;2S-3C
Or raise H's to 4H and hope my 6 loser, 4 control hand gives GOP what they need:
1S-2C;2H-4H


Another thought that occurs is that ?if? you are going to play 1M-1N;blah-3m as a minimum, it should be reserved for minimum hands that rate to improve the contract by rebidding 3m. Hands that just don't rate to be good dummies for Opener's suggestion(s).

So x.Ax.Kxx.Txxxxxx or x.xxx.xxx.KQJxxx would be good for 1S-1N.;2H/2S-3C! in this style since it rates to stink in anything but a ♣ contract.

But x.xxxx.xx.AQTxxx would not be good for 1S-1N.;2H/2S-3C! in this style since it rates to be useful in a 2M contract.

Playing this style, your 3m sign off attempt is going to be on 7+ card suits most of the time and occasionally on "chunky" 6 card suits not headed by the A. Say those that will play for 3 or less losers opposite a small stiff.

This will reduce the frequency of the sequence, but IMHO increase the safety and utility of it.

[Chamaco]

Quote

Chamaco,

Someone brought up "Mike Lawrence" style 2/1 GF.
In this style, a 2/1 is GF =unless the suit is rebid=.

Sure, I know that style, but I much prefer having an absolute GF 2/1. Just my own taste, I am no guru of course

Quote

Another thought that occurs is that ?if? you are going to play 1M-1N;blah-3m as a minimum, it should be reserved for minimum hands that rate to improve the contract by rebidding 3m. 

Quote

Playing this style, your 3m sign off attempt is going to be on 7+ card suits most of the time and occasionally on "chunky" 6 card suits not headed by the A.  Say those that will play for 3 or less losers opposite a small stiff.

This will reduce the frequency of the sequence, but IMHO increase the safety and utility of it.

I certainly wholeheartedly agree: signing off 1 level higher and a minor partscore (especially at MP) SHOULD have VERY good reasons to do so


BY THE WAY, THANKS A LOT FOR ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS, YOU ALL WERE HELPFUL AS USUAL !

[ArcLight]

Foo,
>The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed. Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP.
That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents.


You are not forced to the 3 level, its a choice. Use judgment. It can work out badly. It can also work out well.

Pard opens 1 spade, you hold:
♠
♥ x x x x
♦ x x
♣ A Q J x x x x


Do you respond 1NT (forcing)? (yes)
Pard bids 2♦ (drat).
Now what?
Pass or 3♣?

Should you have just passed pards 1♠ bid? (no)

What if your clubs are only 6 long, and you have 1 spade?
With 3 ♦ you can pass.

Is being at the 3 level in this case, with pard hopefully holding 2 clubs, worse than being at the 2 level in a 5-1 or 3-2 fit?

Foo, how would you bid this hand opposite pards 1 Spade opener?


Your last post showed a hand I would not bid 2 Clubs with.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Jun 5 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

Foo,
>The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed. Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP.
That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents.


You are not forced to the 3 level, its a choice. Use judgment. It can work out badly. It can also work out well.

Pard opens 1 spade, you hold:
♠
♥ x x x x
♦ x x
♣ A Q J x x x x


Do you respond 1NT (forcing)? (yes)
Pard bids 2♦ (drat).
Now what?
Pass or 3♣?

Should you have just passed pards 1♠ bid? (no)

What if your clubs are only 6 long, and you have 1 spade?
With 3 ♦ you can pass.

Is being at the 3 level in this acse, with aprd hopefully holding 2 clubs, worse than being at the 2 level in a 5-1 or 3-2 fit?

Foo, how would you bid this hand opposite pards 1 Spade opener?

I think foo answered such questions in his last post, together with some evaluations on this structure, that (despite being unfavourable to the structure I am thinking to adopt), I have appreciated very much indeed