cnszsun, on Mar 12 2004, 07:24 AM, said:
I want to construct a biddding structure to handle a good hand with a long minor suit.
1)GF hands open 2♣;
2)almost GF hands, like 9-10 winning tricks, open multi-2♦ like Ben does;
3)1m-1M-3m: 3 card support, and a good hand with long minor;
4)1m-1M-4m: 4 card support, and a good hand with long minor;
5)1m-1M-3NT a good hand with solid minor suit, without fit, and unbid suit stopped;
6)1♣-1M-2♦: forcing, real reverse in ♦ or long ♣ suit without fit, just rebid your ♣ next round to show this kind of hand; But if the minor is ♦, 1♦-1M-?, i have no minor reverse to be used. In Ben's post, it seems you still use 2♣ here as forcing and multi-meaning. Is that right? And anybody can help me to improve my structure?
Michael,
The method you have drawn up is exactly what I am doing now with Misho. I think there would not be too much controversy until you get to your item number 6,
In fact, we do play
1
♦ 1M
2
♣
As 100% forcing, and does not promise a
♣ suit. For matchpoints this might be a bad option, because it means you can't play 2
♣s when both partners are weakish with a club fit. In fact with a weak hand and
♦&
♣'s we don't even rebid 2
♣'s. We will instead, (consider this auction.. 1
♦-1
♠-?)...
1) raise partner with three card support (3-2-4-4 or 3-1-5-4)
2) rebid 1NT (with 1-3-5-4, and even 1-2-5-5)
3) rebid our first minor is if is "strong" enough five card suit or a six card suit (1-2-5-5; 2-1-5-5).
This has an effect of making our low level auction where the hand belongs in 2 of the other minor problematic. But it improves out slam and game auctions, and at imps, I would rather bid my hands that can be +920 or more better than my hands that can be +90. I think it was Kantar commenting on the difficulty in modern bridge to bid clubs naturally (stayman, drury, nmf, 1
♣ strong and forcing, 3
♣ bergen, etc), who said something like "we can't bid clubs naturally anymore, and soon we they will take away natural
♦'s bids too". Lol, misho and I are rapidly approaching this stage. :-)
This new minor has helped us in another way, I think. As i said earlier, we save 1m-1M-2NT for something other than a balanced hand. That something other is really good hand with raise of partner's major. So, to show the balanced hands others jump to 2NT on, we use the new minor by the opener as forcing, and then rebid 2NT. By taking using an opener's jacoby 2NT (for lack of a better term), we can narrowly define 1m-1M-2M and 1m-1M-3M (jump to 2NT is stronger than the 3M raise). This puts us at a lower level for slam tries (2NT being lower than 3M), and gives us room to use our limit+ raise responses to separate responders mear game interest hands opposite a strong raise from his own slam interest hands.
As a final caveat, after 1
♣-1
♦, opener doesn't have the other minor to force on. We still use the jump to 2NT to show a monster raise of responders suit. But now we rebid 1NT not with the balanced 11-13 (or 11-14 if you play 15-17 NT), but rather 1NT would be the big hand (17-19). With the 11-13, we rebid 1 of a major. This might be a three card suit, and this bid is not forcing.
This last concept is fairly new, as we always played 1m-1x-1M as 100% forcing before. I know one hand will not be convincing, but here is one played in a recent team match (freee was no my team at the other table, and had an interesting auction over there too).
West Misho East Inquiry
Pass 1♣ Pass 1♦
Pass 1♥ Pass Pass
Pass
Note 1
♥ and 1NT are the only contract NS can make, but 1
♥ is easier to make than 1NT, and in fact, you can make 2
♥ if you guess everything correctly (1
♠ ruff, 2
♠, 1
♦, and 4
♥), while in NT, you have to guess
♦ right to make. The correct bid with my hand is probably 1NT (to play) unless partner has hidden extra values, but what the heck, 1
♥ worked out well for us.
At Free's table, he was west and his partner opened 1NT (14-16) (despite having only 13...) and when Free bid 2
♣ (stayman) and his partner took the decision to pass (Free was a passed hand after all). EW can make 2
♠ without problems.
Ben