[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ (1) - 1♠
1NT (2) - ?

---

(1) 10-15 hcp, 3+ ♦, but an unbalanced hand (could be 6322 or 4441 though)
(2) Both minors, but ♦ at least as long as clubs

The equivalent auction in standard (other than the inferences from the system) is:
1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - ?

You have the similar options to standard.

[han]

3D?

[pclayton]

3♦!?

[Echognome]

Say no more my friends.

Was my call at the table.

Didn't do well when it hit partner with a 1=4=4=4 minimum.

Filed under R from resulting at partner's suggestion of any other call.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3D.

He should survive the 4-3 fit.
Partner will show a 3 card spade
suit if he is max.
Or do you raise regular with 3 card
support?

I take it, that 2H is game forcing,
else it would be perfect of course.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

3D

[655321]

3♦ WTP

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Jan 14 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

Didn't do well when it hit partner with a 1=4=4=4 minimum.

Filed under R from resulting at partner's suggestion of any other call.

You should have retaliated by telling him he didn't have an opening bid.

You shouldn't strain to open with a 1444 shape if your system is going to force you to show diamonds and clubs, because of the two risks of losing the heart suit and getting unwanted preference to diamonds. If you don't open the opponents are likely to provide a convenient opportunity for you to show your hand anyway.

Even playing limited opening bids, I'd want a solid-looking 13-count before I opened 1D with this shape.

[jchiu]

gnasher, on Jan 14 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

Even playing limited opening bids, I'd want a solid-looking 13-count before I opened 1D with this shape.

What happens when you're playing with a client who bids every time it's his turn?

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the system parameters enough, but I'll guess using the given info and the apparent problem.

I also play an unbalanced opening of 1♦, and have been doing so for perhaps 20 years. But, the 1NT rebid here would nearly guarantee contextually poor shape. Meaning, shortness in spades and either 1444 or 1453. A 2♣ rebid would show at least 5-4 in the minors.

So, it appears that maybe your 2♣ rebid shows something different, like transfers. 2♣ would then be a "diamond rebid," and 2♦ showing hearts and diamonds?

If this is accurate, then it seems that the approach may gain in many auctions (when Opener is tweener+, perhaps, and can pattern out) but loses in the inability to show an unshapely minimum as a passable 1NT. OK, a cost. So, do you risk 3♦ opposite the weak hand, or risk a drop at 2♦? IMO, if the approach is designed to enable patterning out by Opener on tweeners, then bid a mere 2♦, which gains when Opener does have a tweener and patterns out at 2♠.

Play on the system strengths and trust them. Accept the weaknesses. The strength of system is in Opener patterning out on lesser values, it seems, so enable that. If the system fails, switch systems. But, do not switch system by failing to trust it and manufacturing anti-system calls mid-auction. A call is "anti-system" if and when it runs afoul of system philosophy.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Jan 14 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

I don't understand the system parameters enough, but I'll guess using the given info and the apparent problem.

I also play an unbalanced opening of 1♦, and have been doing so for perhaps 20 years. But, the 1NT rebid here would nearly guarantee contextually poor shape. Meaning, shortness in spades and either 1444 or 1453. A 2♣ rebid would show at least 5-4 in the minors.

So, it appears that maybe your 2♣ rebid shows something different, like transfers. 2♣ would then be a "diamond rebid," and 2♦ showing hearts and diamonds?

If this is accurate, then it seems that the approach may gain in many auctions (when Opener is tweener+, perhaps, and can pattern out) but loses in the inability to show an unshapely minimum as a passable 1NT. OK, a cost. So, do you risk 3♦ opposite the weak hand, or risk a drop at 2♦? IMO, if the approach is designed to enable patterning out by Opener on tweeners, then bid a mere 2♦, which gains when Opener does have a tweener and patterns out at 2♠.

Play on the system strengths and trust them. Accept the weaknesses. The strength of system is in Opener patterning out on lesser values, it seems, so enable that. If the system fails, switch systems. But, do not switch system by failing to trust it and manufacturing anti-system calls mid-auction. A call is "anti-system" if and when it runs afoul of system philosophy.

Our 2♣ bid is made for hands with longer clubs. That could be a 1=3=4=5, 0=4=4=5, 1=4=3=5, or occasionally a 1=2=4=6 with concentrated diamonds (something like x Ax AKQx xxxxxx).

We could go the route of using 2♣ as 4-5 either minor longer, but have found that we actually like clarifying so responder can take proper preference.

One thing that is relevant is that 1♦ - 1NT is artificial GF. So perhaps it's as simple as using fourth suit invitational and being done with it.

I'm not quite sure what you were getting at with system trust. Specifically the issue here is how to invite opposite what might be a light shapely opening. The lighter the hand (and typically the more playing strength we'd like), then the heavier the invites need to become. Kind of a quid pro quo.

[kenrexford]

I was guessing system and then talking about system trust within that hypo system. As my guess was wrong, the analysis would be different.

The point is to lay out all nuances before getting advice.