[Chamaco]

Hi all

Having to play a more or less standard form of Precision, I'd like to use 2NT as the forcing raise with 4 trumps.

Assume that:
1) you play splinter raises 12/13-15 hcp with side shortness
2) a 2/1 does not deny 4 card raise: e.g. if I have a good side suit I prefer to start with a 2/1 in that suit and show later support
3) the forcing raise 1M:2NT guaranrtees 4+ trumps and includes balanced hands or unbalanced hands too strong for a splinter.
4) you play inverted Bergen raises (although I am toying with the idea of moving to fitshowing jumps in the version described in "Partnership bidding" by Robson/Segal).

---------------
The "normal" Jacoby 2Nt responses by opener would be, in SAYC or modified 2/1:
- new suit at 3 level = shortness in that suit
- new suit at 4 level, natural suit headed by top honors, as a source of tricks, preferably 5-5 (although Bergen suggests to use this as void showing compared to 3 level bid = singlton showing)
- 3 level major rebid = reverse with good trumps (found this in the book by Barbara Seagram), no shortness, no good side suit
- 3NT = reverse with bad trumps (Seagram again), no shortness, no good side suit
- 4 M = signoff offer, minimum hand no shortness, no good side suit
----------------

Now it seems to me that in Precision, since opener is limited to max 15 hcp, there may be better schemes of responses rather than the original J2NT ?
What do the expert use (if playing 2NT forcing raise at all) ?

Thanks !!

[whereagles]

Hi,

I played precision with the 2NT classic scheme you showed for some time. Mostly because I never bothered to look for a better one.

I found it was sufficient for most situations, but keep in mind that, since responder is 100% in charge, you don't need any bids that relinquish control of the auction to opener. In short, whatever scheme you decide to use, make it so that opener can describe his hand very accurately, enabling responder to place the final contract with the information given.

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on May 23 2004, 03:54 PM, said:

In short, whatever scheme you decide to use, make it so that opener can describe his hand very accurately, enabling responder to place the final contract with the information given.

Yes, that is what I am looking for, if there is better scheme than the original to describe opener's hand, perhaps more accurately.

The original scheme uses 2 bids (3M and 3NT) for reverses, which is a wasted use in Precision (no reverse) , and goes too high to show a good side suit.
When responder is strong and uses J2NT, he may wish to stay at a lower level.

[Flame]

I want to tell you something in general, As i follow your post about the system, i see you want to play precision but you are looking to implemnt non precision bidding into it, it was 2/1 GF before and now its 2nt jacoby. Im not saying its always a bad idea, just that these stuctures were develpoed to handle the huge opening hcp range, the limit openings oviosly are supirior , and using same structure will get you better results then those who doesnt play precision but , this benefit could maybe be even bigger if you use a structure that suits precision.
One thing that makes alot of sense is using relays, since opener is already limit, it could be easy for responder to get the full picture of opener hand.

[Chamaco]

Flame, on May 23 2004, 08:15 PM, said:

I want to tell you something in general, As i follow your post about the system, i see you want to play precision but you are looking to implemnt non precision bidding into it, it was 2/1 GF before and now its 2nt jacoby. Im not saying its always a bad idea, just that these stuctures were develpoed to handle the huge opening hcp range, the limit openings oviosly are supirior , and using same structure will get you better results then those who doesnt play precision but , this benefit could maybe be even bigger if you use a structure that suits precision.
One thing that makes alot of sense is using relays, since opener is already limit, it could be easy for responder to get the full picture of opener hand.

Flame,
I appreciate your advice, and actually I am sort of exploring relays (I got myself a copy of th book on Viking Precision).

Yet, with my teammates we are moving from a SAYC-like system to Precision, and they want to start -at the beginning at least - by modifying as little as possible from previous SAYC structure.

One may say that when you decide to jump in a precision syste,m, he/she'd better forget previous SAYC-2/1 approach.
Maybe this is true, but if that were the approach, I would never convince anyone in my area to play Precision like that, it is too much.
In other words, I have nothing for or against relays, but my teammates have explicitly requested the absolutely need to limit the number of things to remember, and I think at this stage they are absolutely right.

As I said in a previous post, I must be practical.



So the first step will be to move to Precision in a "soft" way, and then we'll see.

--------------------------------------------

Now I am asking whether there is anybody who plays the forcing 2NT raise on Precision 1M opening, and whether they use Jacoby structure or an improved one, or a totally different system.

Thanks !!

-----------------

PS- 2/1 game forcing and 1NT forcing is suggested in the original Wei book on Precision, so I guess it is not a NON-Precision feature

[csdenmark]

I completely agree with Flame. Mauro your constant asking whether this or that feature from other systems can be implemented in a club system structure. Of course they can. It will be a very confusing and complicated system to handle. Nobody will ever know what they are doing. They can use it for nothing.

My advice will be: Tell them to learn Precision or try to find companions interested in what you are interested in - such kind of partnerships will have a chance to last.

[Chamaco]

csdenmark, on May 23 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

My advice will be: Tell them to learn Precision or try to find companions interested in what you are interested in - such kind of partnerships will have a chance to last.

Claus,
I know your suggestions are driven by the idea of directing my enthusiasm towards a more rewarding goal, and I appreciate this.

However, I do think you do not understand my sistuation in practical terms, so I will give details here.

I started playing 3 years ago, in the states. I learned by myself, being a Chess Master, buying a lot of books, studying the "right" books on bidding, play and defense (Mollo, Lawrence, Kelsey, Bergen, Cohen, Woolsey, Kantar, etc etc)suggested to me by Life Masters.
Also I made a lot of practice on BBO and at the local club.
I was playing SAYC + gadgets (Bergen, J2NT, Inverted raises, nmf, etc etc).
I developed some live partnerships with other "illuminated beginners", and it was fun after a while to play with someone who actually followed your defensive signals and whom you could trust on his signals !

2 years ago I moved to Italy, and it was another total change.
There nobody plays Bergen nor Jacoby nor almost anything I had learned in the US.
They play a strong club system but then most of the people just opens 1 club and then bids naturally.
If you mention "Asking bids" they may think you are asking for money rather than anything technical.
This si 90 % of the club. The remaining 10% are good players who have tehir ptsships and will not play with me.

Actually this should not come as a surprise to you nor to any bridge players: good partners are always taken. The left ones are either weak, or they are not taken because they are a....holes and noone can play with them.

So the first months at the club meant that everytime I had no pard for the next week and I should be coupled there with some Mr Smug yelling at me or with some Mrs Guggenheim looking at me in a sweet manner perhaps thinking to her cup of tea but certainly not to my defensive signals....

After a while I met my current partner.
He was an old buddy from ten years before (college time) and we used to play chess together at competitive level; we always got along well, at the time, then we did not keep in touch (I moved in the US, he married, etc etc).

He discovered I was playing bridge, and he was pleased of this, because, as an ex chess player, he knew we were in same frame of mind of trying to build something out of the bridge game. He was playing since longer than me, together with his wife, who is actually a "good" player (as good as me I mean ).

So we started to exchange books and exchange emails on the system (SAYC + gadgets, much like the one I used to play in the US).
And then we made a team, he plays with his wife and me (alternate), and I do the same with him and another girl who is a bright intermediate.

Periodically we try to fill the holes of the system, and some months ago we came to the conclusion that the SAYC system had several holes in terms of showing hands as a reverse, or, even worse, the 2C opening.
Of course, there are conventioins for almost each of these pitfalls, but thenm the adding up of conventions (Ingberman, Gazzilli, 2C + sequences, not to mention competitive bidding situations) suggested that we could just move to a strong club system.

The basic idea was to try to improve it littleby little. But then severalò things came up: TABs, CABs, SABs, strong club overcalled sequences etc etc.
Lots of stuff.
We want to learn, but there is a limit to the amount of things you can store.
My friends do not play online so we can practice only once a week at the local club tourney (they live in another town).

2 days ago, Alessandra, my partner, was almost crying because of the drop of her level of dummy play: she was doing silly mistakes, and it was obvious it was due to the overload by the system.
If there were relays it would be madness. (BTW: once I ended up playing a contract in an asking bid suit).

-------------------

You may say: "Give up these partners and look for better ones or that are willing to study".

1) I do not think to be better of my current partners

2) I do not think that a player like me *finds* parters. You may *find* a partner if you are an expert. But if you are like me, all you can find is a nervous advanced player who yells at you, or a lovely smiling old lady for some nice social bridge.

When you are a player of my level you do not FIND a partnership, you BUILD it.

You start with a lot of exchange of material and you make your choices with the consensus of your teammates.
You build partnerships based on respect, trust and harmony.
I'd rather play a distorted precision rather than change my partners, who are the most valuable part of my bridge activity right now.

Ok, end of the story, hope I did not bore too much anyone

and... BTW is there anyone who plays a better version of J2NT in a big club system ??

[csdenmark]

Very nice Mauro. I think I have told you of similar problems. Living in remote area in Denmark it is impossible - or pure luck - to find somebody interested in something else than just standard. They dont know what it is a standard of but they play it and call it bridge. They have fun with that - I dont have.

My solution has been simply to give up live bridge. I now only play bridge on internet. Here I can find partners for interesting systems - some more interested than others of course - but for me much more interesting than playing here where I live. I would like to find danish partners. I have found a few who at least knows something of Nusine Club(Blakset/Bruun - currently the best danish pair). Else I have a few swedes and now I have learned Viking I can attract norwegians too. Nothing of that will be possible in live bridge in a danish club.

I think it is a pity you waste your time with your project. I doubt it has something - but I certainly understand it is attractive to keep together with people you live with if you can find an agreement. But living in a social community also means you must apply to the standards there.

You mention yourself Cinderella Team - play that. It is basic and natural. At least nobody will get anything wrong doing so and it is so simple so all can partcipate. Same with the simplified version of Wei. In that way you will be preparing the right and good menu and if somebody will be more hungry - then go for Viking. You dont need to use all the realys. Skip 1♣ - ♦ - 1♥ relay. The system has no normal asking bids. You can also skip sidestep and sixshooter relays. You will still have the fundament to build on. Such a fundament will be missing creating a private system.

Meaning: Take a standard version - skip the complicated structures. Use some features with some partners - maybe more or other structures with other partners - but always in the same direction. In that way all will some day reach what they hope for.

Direction is the important thing if you want to take a trip - not speed!

[Chamaco]

csdenmark, on May 23 2004, 10:19 PM, said:

You mention yourself Cinderella Team - play that. It is basic and natural. At least nobody will get anything wrong doing so and it is so simple so all can partcipate. Same with the simplified version of Wei.

-------------------

That's the basic idea.
Building on top of the Cinderella team system but not giving up completely the previous structure (at leat major suit raises) until the rest is well defined.


After all, this is what is suggested in the book "Precision Today" by Berkowicz.
And, it is also suggested in the book "Precision in the 90s" by Barry Rigal.
I know it is not the "purist" approach, but certainly the most practical.
And if Berkowicz and Rigal suggest it, it may not be 100% wrong

I do not like to have to choose between a totally elementary system and a supercomplicated one
Life is no black and white but shades of grey...

[MickyB]

Firstly, if i may - a word on your partnerships. A theoretically superior system will make very little difference to your results. Before you see this benefit, you will have many losses - bidding misunderstandings, errors in both bidding and play due to concentrating on remembering the system, and the time spent on system that could have been spent reading a book on play or bidding judgement. Having said that, if learning a new system is something that both of the partnership enjoy, then go for it. Just don't pressurise anyone into doing anything they aren't keen on. And I mean keen, not just 'accepting', I speak from bitter experience!

Now, a suggested answer to your question: Jacoby 2-step. It isn't intended particularly for using with limited opening bids, but my guess is that it would work quite nicely, in fact I may give it a go in the near future.

3C = min, no good second suit, no void.
3D = any strength, good second suit or void.
3oM/4C/4D = max, singleton
3M = max, no shortage
3N = max 5332

After 3C, a lot of responding hands will sign-off in 4S. Otherwise 3D asks more, and opener bids 3H->4D as he would have done on the previous turn with a max.

After 3D, 3H asks for more info:

3S shows a void, 3N asks where (if hearts are trumps, 4H then shows a spade void).
3N shows a max 5422, 4C asks for the good 2nd suit.
4C/D are natural, 5-5s, and 4H shows spades as the second suit.

Hope that is helpful, good luck!

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on May 23 2004, 10:30 PM, said:

3C = min, no good second suit, no void.
3D = any strength, good second suit or void.
3oM/4C/4D = max, singleton
3M = max, no shortage
3N = max 5332

After 3C, a lot of responding hands will sign-off in 4S. Otherwise 3D asks more, and opener bids 3H->4D as he would have done on the previous turn with a max.

After 3D, 3H asks for more info:

3S shows a void, 3N asks where (if hearts are trumps, 4H then shows a spade void).
3N shows a max 5422, 4C asks for the good 2nd suit.
4C/D are natural, 5-5s, and 4H shows spades as the second suit.

Hope that is helpful, good luck!

Micky, thanks a lot for your contribution !
As far as thge ptship is concerned, you hit right on the nail

Now a question on about Jacoby 2 step.

What does opener bid with a singleton and a minimum ?
3C and responder asks again with 3D ?

Thanks !!!

[csdenmark]

Fine Mauro - go for that.

Let your partners propose/choose what to do for raises of 11-15 openings -matters very little. Then you will have a chance to have control asking(CAB) accepted - matters much more and not complicated.

If you can get them to accept Roman defense - somewhat local in Italy I think - you will soon have a something good.

[MickyB]

Yup, you've got it.

1♠:2NT, 3♣:3♦, 3♥/4♣/4♦ shows a min, singleton in the suit bid.
3♠ shows a min with no shortage
3NT shows a min 5332

[mishovnbg]

MickyB, on May 24 2004, 12:44 AM, said:

Yup, you've got it.

1♠:2NT, 3♣:3♦, 3♥/4♣/4♦ shows a min, singleton in the suit bid.
3♠ shows a min with no shortage
3NT shows a min 5332

Need to add if responder didn't ask by 3♦, he show singleton/void with hand stronger than splinter.
1M-2NT, 3♣-?
3♦: ask for shortness
3OM/4♣/4♦: splinter

Other bids depend of 2NT range. We play with Ben 2NT as inv+. In this case they are natural and NF.

Misho

[Chamaco]

mishovnbg, on May 24 2004, 09:35 AM, said:

MickyB, on May 24 2004, 12:44 AM, said:

Yup, you've got it.

1♠:2NT, 3♣:3♦, 3♥/4♣/4♦ shows a min, singleton in the suit bid.
                                    3♠ shows a min with no shortage
                                    3NT shows a min 5332

Need to add if responder didn't ask by 3♦, he show singleton/void with hand stronger than splinter.
1M-2NT, 3♣-?
3♦: ask for shortness
3OM/4♣/4♦: splinter

Other bids depend of 2NT range. We play with Ben 2NT as inv+. In this case they are natural and NF.

Misho

Ciao Misho from the Tiger of Mompracem !!

May I ask if you or Ben could post the full development of your 2NT invitational + response ?

I am planning in the near future to move to fitshowing jumps after 1M opening (following Robson/Segal), and 2NT would become inv+, so a good scheme as the on eyou mentioned u play with Ben, would be very interesting to me !

[mishovnbg]

Ciao Sandocan, the tiger of Mompracem!

Link about Ben's scheme:
http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...indpost&p=22288

His 2NT scheme (taken from ETM victory system) is similar tp posted by MickyB with addition I already posted.
1M-2NT, ?

3♣: didn't accept inviation
3♦: accept inv, deny slam interest
3M: slam interest 6M (can include here 5422)
3NT: slam interest, 5M332(5M422), max hcp, in your case 14-15
side suit: slam interest, singleton/void in that suit
4M: slam interest, 7 cards in M, deny singleton/void

Continuations after 3♣/3♦:
Cheapest suit show slam interest and responses are same as after 2NT
Side suit show slam interest with singleton/void in that suit.
...

Note: ANY our 2NT is inv+ major raise, when p bid major, doesn't matter in competition or not and we use same scheme after 2NT too.

Misho

[inquiry]

I will describe the 2NT limit + raise, you can also find the write up taken directly from the larger ETM Victory document at the following link:
Jacoby 2NT+

Be aware that since your opening bid is limited to 15 (or 14) hcp, this scheme may not be exactly the same for you. For instance, opener will probably never have a slam try hand opposite limit game raise so you might need to change the meaning of 3♣ to minimum or maximum with shortness, and 3♦ to game force opposite maximum, but not super max hand or something.

1M - 2NT,

Opener rebids are:

• 3[c] - either no interest in game opposite a limit raise, or at least some slam interest opposite limit raise
  
• 3♦ - game force, no slam interest (see 3♣
  
• 3♥/3♠/3NT = natural and at least mild slam interest
  
• 4any but 4 of original major = very strong slam interest
  
• 4M = warns of very weak hand, but too many ♥ to stop short of game

Over 3♣, responder usually bids

• 3M = limit raise, opener passes unless has the slam invite hand
  
• 4M = more than limit raise, enough for game, but no slam interest opposite weaker oopening
  
• 3♦ - shortness relay, opener rebids 3M with 5422, 3NT with 5332, 4M with 7222 or 6322. Relay over 3M ask for 4 card suit (if major is ♠ then 3NT ask).
  
• New suit = splinter by 2NT bidder, showing hand too strong for intial splinter. This is singleton.

Over 3♦, responder can [LIST]
[*]show limit raise with shortness (by bidding 3M),
[*]limit raise no shortness (4M), better than limit raise, but not much (4M/3M),
[*]ask for shortness (relay over 3♦ that is not M (if ♠ bid 3♥, if major is ♥, bid 3♠.
[*]show shortness by bidding suit
[*]if shortness is in the other major, rebid 3NT to show it.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

inquiry, on May 24 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

I will describe the 2NT limit + raise, you can also find the write up taken directly from the larger ETM Victory document at the following link:
Jacoby 2NT+

Be aware that since your opening bid is limited to 15 (or 14) hcp, this scheme may not be exactly the same for you. For instance, opener will probably never have a slam try hand opposite limit game raise so you might need to change the meaning of 3♣ to minimum or maximum with shortness, and 3♦ to game force opposite maximum, but not super max hand or something.

1M - 2NT,

Opener rebids are:

• 3[c] - either no interest in game opposite a limit raise, or at least some slam interest opposite limit raise
  
• 3♦ - game force, no slam interest (see 3♣
  
• 3♥/3♠/3NT = natural and at least mild slam interest
  
• 4any but 4 of original major = very strong slam interest
  
• 4M = warns of very weak hand, but too many ♥ to stop short of game

Over 3♣, responder usually bids

• 3M = limit raise, opener passes unless has the slam invite hand
  
• 4M = more than limit raise, enough for game, but no slam interest opposite weaker oopening
  
• 3♦ - shortness relay, opener rebids 3M with 5422, 3NT with 5332, 4M with 7222 or 6322. Relay over 3M ask for 4 card suit (if major is ♠ then 3NT ask).
  
• New suit = splinter by 2NT bidder, showing hand too strong for intial splinter. This is singleton.

Over 3♦, responder can [LIST]
[*]show limit raise with shortness (by bidding 3M),
[*]limit raise no shortness (4M), better than limit raise, but not much (4M/3M),
[*]ask for shortness (relay over 3♦ that is not M (if ♠ bid 3♥, if major is ♥, bid 3♠.
[*]show shortness by bidding suit
[*]if shortness is in the other major, rebid 3NT to show it.

Ben

Hi Ben!
I like scheme as I describe it...
1. 3♣ must not include slam hands, this is nonsense, because in such case you will receive normally 4 of major (can be just shoot) and will continue for slam in dark area of 5 level without any info about distribution or controls.
2. Strong/very strong/hyper strong slam interest is not interesting as information actually. Much more important is to show side singleton/void with average hand, in which case without duplication slam is possible without much hcp. With lot of hcp you can bid it by any system/way.
3. Because 3♦ establish GF bid of 3 in major fit can't have natural meaning except slam interest(limit raise with shortness is usefull only for opps defense, with such hand you must simple to bid game)), in which case is of course it is interesting to learn more about p hand. So cheapest bid is better ask than other major, allow to receive all bids same way, like direct responses to 2NT(for singleton, not natural), 3NT as natural bid, showing hcp without singleton or 6 cards in major, because 1 additional step.

Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on May 24 2004, 08:47 AM, said:

I like scheme as I describe it...
1. 3♣ must not include slam hands, this is nonsense, because in such case you will receive normally 4 of major (can be just shoot) and will continue for slam in dark area of 5 level without any info about distribution or controls.

Hi misho,

Please note, the responses I gave were for 2/1 system, noting the problem with "limited opening systems" Now as for your comment about over 3♣. If I recall, the way you describe is the way the ETM victory plays it. 3♣ always weak opening, not including slam interest.

However, I find should the 3♣ hand happen to include a hand with SLAM INTEREST opposite a limit raise, and should your partner leap to 4M over 3♣ showing (obviously) more than a limit raise, I think the person with slam interest will have no trouble now bidding on (let see, I was willing to consider slam opposite 10-11, partner has more... hehehe, I think I can work this out).

If I had to convert these things to ZAR points, I would guess 3♣ would be minimum of 26 to 28 or so, 3♦ would be 29 to 36 Zar points (36+25=61, hence no slam opposite maximal limit raise), so 3♣ could also include 37 to 38 Zar points. This means any other bid would be 39+ Zar points, and obviously, huge slam try. Although these ranges could be altered (I suggest an alternative range at the bottom), the math falls out nicely. Limit raise of around 22-25, so

1M-2NT-3C (26-28),

• 3♥ = 22/24, to play
  
• 4♥=25 to 32, no chance for slam opposite "normal" 3♣ response
  
• 33+ Zar points, bid something other than 4♥ or 3♥

Practice hands show that this scheme narrows the focus. For example, if you open with 37 ZAR points, and partner bids 2NT and then leaps to 4♥ over your 3♣, you can count, at a minimum, 36+25 = 62. It is true you are now hampered by the lack of easy of cue-bidding, but on the plus side you have expected values for slam. Blackwood or exclusion blackwood might help here. Likewise, if the bidding goes 3♣-3♦, you are well on your way to grand slam, as your partner is showing better than 33+ ZAR's and you have 37 = 70. I really see no downside. Most of the time, the bidding will be 3♣-3/4♥, and when it is not, you have loads of extra information.

Let's take a simple auction where 3♣ was big hand...

1H-2NT-3C-3H-3S = 3S is asking singleton (same scheme responder uses but here used by opener), and showing 37/38 ZARS. North, with only 22, might decide not show singleton and bid 4H since maximum is only 60. Not enough for slam according to ZAR scale. But with 24, bad 25 should be very interested in slam.

Second, also note in Jacoby 2NT+, over 3♣, responder has room to ask singleton (3♦,), show singleton (new suit), or offer choice of contracts between 3NT/4M (3NT). I think the flaw you see (if for 2/1) is not a flaw at all. However, you are correct that over 2NT, 3M is a bigger slam try than 3♣, for instance. But the best news, is when the bidding goes,

You know me, I am willing to play whatever you like. And if you want to take the slam invite hands out of 3♣,that will be ok with me. But other considering the limit + structure should consider them. Maybe the range I suggested above is too high. Maybe 3♣ should be slam try opposite minimum game forcing 2NT, but here I think I agree with misho, that risk giving too much information away. So I like raising the requirements very high for the "good" 3♣ versus the 3♦ response.

Quote

2. Strong/very strong/hyper strong slam interest is not interesting as information actually. Much more important is to show side singleton/void with average hand, in which case without duplication slam is possible without much hcp. With lot of hcp you can bid it by any system/way.

The hyperstrong ones, go as you suggested. I think 3H by opener should ask for responders short suit (3S=other major).

Quote

3. Because 3♦ establish GF bid of 3 in major fit can't have natural meaning except slam interest(limit raise with shortness is usefull only for opps defense, with such hand you must simple to bid game),

Well if responder does have limit raise, I agree with the jump to 4M over 3♦. To bid 3M must include some slam interest, so more than limit raise. The issue becomes how much more given the range of values that 3♦ can show. Maybe 3♣ should be more limited than I suggest above, like 29 to 33, good 3♣ 34 to 36, and anything else 37+. Using this range, over 3♦, responder with anything less than 30 Zar points could simply sign off in 4M. And with 31, at least you are close to slam and could make a slam try.

Quote

...in which case is of course it is interesting to learn more about p hand. So cheapest bid is better ask than other major, allow to receive all bids same way, like direct responses to 2NT(for singleton, not natural), 3NT as natural bid, showing hcp without singleton or 6 cards in major, because 1 additional step.

Ok. This is fine. Over 3♦, 3♥ always ask, 3♠ always tells. Simple and direct. 4M instead of asking is always not enough for the range promised by 3♦.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Zar points translation into native LTC for lazy players, Misho's edition:

3♣: 7+L
3♦: 6L
short suit ask/try 5-L
3NT: 6L, max hcp

Аpproximately time and mind resourses used for Zar >= 10 times than LTC.
Аpproximately accuracy and number of swings for Zar >= 1.00132 times than LTC

Of course is possible to invent even more complicate way to count hypothetical tricks during the bidding, like bim-bam 3.14 and 2.71 points and improve it by tools of higher mathematics... I am especially fan of n-dimension mould incude such characteristics like time for opps to count his hand, before to look arround...
Misho