[RichMor]

I think many would use 2NT in the sequence
1♥ - (2♠) - 2NT
as something other than natural (and non forcing ?)

As Fluffy mentions, you can play Rubensohl (transfers). Or you can play some form of good/bad 2NT which distinguishes between direct and delayed Heart raises.

So it's hard to say what a 'standard' treatment is among scientific bidders.

RichM

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 24 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 24 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

This approach (which I suspect is neither standard nor American) isn't particularly good for finding slams, but does help in judging what to do in the face of further competition.

Your partner always passes after 1H 2S 4H 4S? It seems like you put him in a pretty horrible spot to judge what to do.

What sort of problem are you envisaging?

If opener thinks he can make 5♥ opposite the weaker variety, he bids. If he thinks they're going down opposite the weaker variety, he doubles. Otherwise, he passes. If responder has a limit raise, opener will find out about it on the next round and may then reconsider.

The only thing we can't do is finding a sacrifice when responder is weak, but I don't think our methods should be geared to saving after our side has opened the bidding and then made the opponents guess. Anyway, you're not going to be any better placed if your style obliges you to start with 3♥ on this hand-type.

Of course, in reality responder doesn't have one of two distinct types, but a continuous range of hands of similar offensive strength but varying defensive strength. That makes it harder to cope than the above would suggest, but it usually seems to work out OK.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Doesn't this approach do exactly the opposite of helping to judge what to do in the face of further competition? You could have a balanced 16 count with 3 trumps or an unbalanced 3 count with 5 trumps. Partner may want to know which. It seems the advantage is in making the opponents guess, not in helping your side make the best decisions.

Sorry, I don't understand. With a balanced 16-count and three trumps, responder would bid 3♠, not 4♥.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jun 25 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Doesn't this approach do exactly the opposite of helping to judge what to do in the face of further competition? You could have a balanced 16 count with 3 trumps or an unbalanced 3 count with 5 trumps. Partner may want to know which. It seems the advantage is in making the opponents guess, not in helping your side make the best decisions.

Sorry, I don't understand. With a balanced 16-count and three trumps, responder would bid 3♠, not 4♥.

Yes sorry that was careless of me. My point is that I believe you are misstating the advantage of your methods. Bidding 4♥ on more hands obviously (by definition?) makes both sides guess more, it doesn't help your side judge what to do in competition. In your response to Justin's post you talk about what opener can do opposite the weaker variety. But you have widened the range of that type of hand considerably, opener will often have real problems. As will the opponents more often.

[gnasher]

True, I have more hands bidding 4♥ than Justin does. However, what I'm trying to do is to get the effect of an extra bid, by making maximum use of the distinction between 4♥ followed by double, and 4♥ followed by pass (or 5♥).

If 4♥ shows from a maximum limit raise to a minimum game raise, responder is rarely going to defend 4♠ undoubled. (In fact, there's a good case for playing this 4♥ as setting up a forcing pass.) Responder's options after they bid 4♠ allow you to divide responder's already fairly narrow range of hands into those that will double 4♠ and those that will bid 5♥.

By making 4♥ cover a wider range of hands, straddling the threshold for doubling 4♠, I make better use of responder's second-round options. I also gain by narrowing the range of 3♥.

One other thing: this style works better if you can do something else with the three-card limit raises. That considerably reduces the range, in terms of defensive strength, of 4♥.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not expounding any deeply thought-out ideas, just rationalising what I actually do. And it's true that I don't mind situations where both sides are partly guessing, as long as they face more uncertainty than we do.