[karlson]

Does anyone have good agreements in 1m-1M-2m auctions? Care to share?

One of the big problems I have with standardish treatments is that there seems to be no forcing way to agree M after the relay. For instance, 1d-1s-2d-2h-2s, and there's no way to set spades in a forcing way. But I've never felt comfortable in these auctions in general.

Oh, we play the (now standard?) style where 2m shows 6, and we sometimes raise 1M on 6-3.

[Echognome]

Phil and I play a form of New Suit Invitational ("NSI") where we basically flip a lot of our 4th suit and new suit auctions to show the invitational hand, whereas bidding our suit (or partner's) at the 3-level is GF. The cheapest new suit is INV and ART. Most of the hands are INV only, but we add a few GF hands.

So let's take your first example:

1♦ - 1♠
2♦ - ?

It would look something like this:

2♥ Artificial, INV+
2♠ 6♠ Signoff
2NT INV, 4♠ exact
3♣ Natural, GF
3♦ Agree's diamonds, GF (still possibile to play in 3NT)
3♥ 55 majors, GF (with 5-4 bid 2♥, then 3♥ if need be)
3♠ 6+♠, GF, good spades (with bad spades, bid 2♥ first)
3NT To Play

There's a bit of work around the 2♥ auction, but you can work it out.

The tricky one, of course, is 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦. We play 2♠ there as NSI, but it can get awkward.

[whereagles]

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

Does anyone have good agreements in 1m-1M-2m auctions? Care to share?

One of the big problems I have with standardish treatments is that there seems to be no forcing way to agree M after the relay. For instance, 1d-1s-2d-2h-2s, and there's no way to set spades in a forcing way. But I've never felt comfortable in these auctions in general.

Oh, we play the (now standard?) style where 2m shows 6, and we sometimes raise 1M on 6-3.

There's a gadget called "3rd suit forcing" for situations like these.

1m 1M
2m 1st step = artificial F1, inv+ values.

Follow ups are natural, with rebids by responder above 2NT GF. So to set a force with spades you'd have:

1♦ 1♠
2♦ 2♥*
any 3♠ = forcing, slammish.

The 3rd suit forcing gadget was originally designed for 1m-1M-2m rebids showing 5+ cards.

[joker_gib]

Jlall, on Nov 7 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

I play 2N as a GF raise in the minor in these auctions, not interested in a major suit fit, and the first step is like checkback for major suits.

And what do you say when you have the natural 2NT (11-12-) ???

[P_Marlowe]

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

Does anyone have good agreements in 1m-1M-2m auctions? Care to share?

One of the big problems I have with standardish treatments is that there seems to be no forcing way to agree M after the relay. For instance, 1d-1s-2d-2h-2s, and there's no way to set spades in a forcing way. But I've never felt comfortable in these auctions in general.

Oh, we play the (now standard?) style where 2m shows 6, and we sometimes raise 1M on 6-3.

Sure there is a standard way.

#1 if 2H was 3rd suit => 3S
#2 if 2H was natural but forcing for one round,
you have to use FSF
This is a bit more ugly than #1, but still works
most of the time

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read your comment that 2m shows 6,
and that you raise regular on 3 cards, I would guess,
that this just means that opener wont often bid 2S.
In my opionion 2S should show 3 cards.

[ArtK78]

I play a simple bid of the other minor (1♣-1M-2♣-2♦ or 1♦-1M-2♦-3♣) as Extended New Minor Forcing. It is artificial and forcing one round. This allows responder to bid spades and then hearts as non-forcing.

Everything else falls in place logically.

[pclayton]

I like Matt's and my structure. The auctions flow very efficiently - much like a 2/1. You don't have to temporize with some pseudo-bid to set up a force later.

This was partially inspired from an article on the Bridge World's web site (under the esoterica section) called TSAR.

Arend and I penned some threads on here about two years ago and this was the genesis of NSI. I'm surprised Arend and Han don't play it now.

[mike777]

This all seems like alot of work for what seems a tiny problem we are trying to solve. Surprised so many have come up with so many different gadgets to solve this one.

Assuming 2H is invite+ here.
Reverse flannery(Cosmic Convention) with less.
3H with 5-5

[Fluffy]

I simply play cheapest bid = GF, and bid 2NT limit with invitational, no matter if it has 5 card major, if partner is gonna accept (he always does anyway ) you can find the fit later.

raises are limit, and 3M is also limit

[MickyB]

I play that the lowest unbid suit is a general force, except after 1♣:1♠, 2♣, when 2♦ shows 5♠4♥ and 2♥ is the general force.

[karlson]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
I think I like the idea of having a bid for immediate gf with D (2N for justin, 3d for matt/phil). I think I prefer 2N, I agree that natural 2N is not so useful across from known 6-card minor suit.
Presumably then this means that for responder's next bid after the relay (e.g. 1D-1S-2D-2H-any), 3D is NF and everything else is GF. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Echognome]

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
I think I like the idea of having a bid for immediate gf with D (2N for justin, 3d for matt/phil). I think I prefer 2N, I agree that natural 2N is not so useful across from known 6-card minor suit.
Presumably then this means that for responder's next bid after the relay (e.g. 1D-1S-2D-2H-any), 3D is NF and everything else is GF. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When you say NF, it's a bit ambiguous. Yes, I agree it's NF, but also that it's invitational. If it were purely a signoff, the hand would pass 2♦. Since 2N is what you like as the GF, then 3♦ will be the invite. It's certainly a reasonable alternative.

[karlson]

Echognome, on Nov 7 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
I think I like the idea of having a bid for immediate gf with D (2N for justin, 3d for matt/phil). I think I prefer 2N, I agree that natural 2N is not so useful across from known 6-card minor suit.
Presumably then this means that for responder's next bid after the relay (e.g. 1D-1S-2D-2H-any), 3D is NF and everything else is GF. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When you say NF, it's a bit ambiguous. Yes, I agree it's NF, but also that it's invitational. If it were purely a signoff, the hand would pass 2♦. Since 2N is what you like as the GF, then 3♦ will be the invite. It's certainly a reasonable alternative.

Lol. I actually wrote "NF inv" before, but changed it because I thought it was obvious and redundant

[Echognome]

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

Lol. I actually wrote "NF inv" before, but changed it because I thought it was obvious and redundant

Yes sorry. Was certainly semantics.

[joker_gib]

Jlall, on Nov 7 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

12 is a GF to me

For me too that why I had put '12-' in my post !

Jlall, on Nov 7 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

Partner has shown 6+

Well, not in my book, what about ♦/5 + ♥/4 ?? (1NT rebid ? and fit with 3451 ??)

[Fluffy]

karlson, on Nov 7 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

Oh, we play the (now standard?) style where 2m shows 6, and we sometimes raise 1M on 6-3.

I know of exactly 1 person (you) who plays this as 6 card showing, where do you live in?

[whereagles]

gonzalo, that style (1m-1x-2m = 6 cards) is normal across the ocean