[Gerben42]

So many players like to raise on 3 cards. I'm interested what your methods are finding out that the raise was on 3 cards, after this start.

[Jlall]

2M+1 asks then:

3 min bal
3 min unbal
3 max unbal
4 min (bal)
3 max bal
splinters
4m=5422 concentrated
4M=4 max bal

[Jlall]

Alternatively for something simpler you can play after 2M+1:

Naturalish

or

3min/3max/4min/4max seems to be popular because of simplicity.

I'm sure some people have more efficient/better ways than the way I'm used to also.

[awm]

I play the following amazingly complicated method:

Bidding a new suit is natural and forcing to game. With four-card support, partner rebids three of the major (or jumps in a singleton suit). With three-card support and shortness (or a weak doubleton) in the new suit, partner bids 3NT (i.e. other suits are covered). With some other hand including only three-card support, partner makes the most natural call possible (often a raise of the new suit or a rebid of the original suit).

Bidding 2NT is non-forcing and shows an invitational hand with only four cards in the major. With a minimum and three-card support, opener passes. With a maximum and three-card support, opener makes some natural call (either rebid his original suit or bid a third suit where he has length). With four-card support, opener bids 3M/4M as appropriate.

Bidding 3M is non-forcing and shows an invitational hand with five or more cards in the major.

Besides being super-natural and easy to remember, this has advantages over the "cheapest bid relay" method Justin describes in that it tends to isolate the reason partner raised on three card support so as to make an intelligent decision between 3NT and 4M on a moysian. It also starts the exploration for alternative strains cheaply. The relay method seems good for hands where you know you are playing in the major (i.e. responder has 5+ cards) and you just want to determine degree of fit in order to evaluate slam prospects, but it's not so good for exploring alternate strains (in fact over 1X-1♠-2♠ you can't even play in 2NT). The main downside to my approach is that you don't have an array of specific game tries available (i.e. invites just bid 2NT or 3M) but opener's 2M raise is fairly limited (and you already know his longest suit from the opening call too) and these game tries are arguably less useful than in a 1M-2M auction (where 2M has a wider range and less is known about the hand).

[Free]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

2M+1 asks then:

3 min bal
3 min unbal
3 max unbal
4 min (bal)
3 max bal
splinters
4m=5422 concentrated
4M=4 max bal

I play something very similar, works fine. Only problem you can get is when responder is INV with a 4 card suit and opener is minimum with a 3 card suit, although you can still play 3m in that situation...

[jdonn]

My problem is that 3 min/max unbalanced is not specific enough. Are you 3145 or 3415 after 1♣ 1♠ 2♠? That has led me to prefer natural bidding with 3, min or max (and can bid 3NT over a signoff with max) and the obvious responses of 3M+ with 4. The advantage is you split up 3 unbalanced better and you find opener's doubleton if he is balanced with 3. Disadvantage is responder can't stop in 3 of opener's minor as easily since his partner could still be 3 max (but he can pass it if he needed 4 max for game).

[gordontd]

Better Bidding with Bergen (I think it's in Book 1 but I might be wrong) has a useful section on this.

[kenrexford]

ANy bid except 2NT agrees the major and is ostensibly a long-suit game try OR a slam-try.

2NT is a "random" game try. However, Opener rebids his minor if he had 3-card support. As I only raise with 3-card support when holding a "reverse" pattern with insufficient values for the reverse, this will always show 5431 with a 4-card suit higher than the opened minor. If diamonds is the opened minor, and hearts raised, this promises 4-card support. If clubs is the opened minor, and spades raised, the shortness is unknown (as is perforce the 4-card suit); in that event, 3♦ asks for the four-card suit (3♥ = hearts, 3♠ = not hearts).

[Phil]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

3min/3max/4min/4max seems to be popular because of simplicity.

I'm sure some people have more efficient/better ways than the way I'm used to also.

If I sit down with someone and say "Meckwell" in this sequence, I would expect this to be the meaning.

I think this is one of those treatments that the more variations there are, the more accident-prone it becomes. XYZ is getting to be the same way.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

3min/3max/4min/4max seems to be popular because of simplicity.

I'm sure some people have more efficient/better ways than the way I'm used to also.

If I sit down with someone and say "Meckwell" in this sequence, I would expect this to be the meaning.

I think this is one of those treatments that the more variations there are, the more accident-prone it becomes. XYZ is getting to be the same way.

Weird since Meckwell do not raise with 3 ever (except 3451 specifically after 1D 1S) when playing together.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

3min/3max/4min/4max seems to be popular because of simplicity.

I'm sure some people have more efficient/better ways than the way I'm used to also.

If I sit down with someone and say "Meckwell" in this sequence, I would expect this to be the meaning.

I think this is one of those treatments that the more variations there are, the more accident-prone it becomes. XYZ is getting to be the same way.

Weird since Meckwell do not raise with 3 ever (except 3451 specifically after 1D 1S) when playing together.

But Rodwell invented it, didn't he?

[aguahombre]

i understand the inventor of the guillotine only used it once himself.

[awm]

I have seen this one attributed to Garrozzo. He's been playing a bit longer than Rodwell, and also seems to play a style that involves raising on three more often...

[BillHiggin]

awm, on Jul 20 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

I have seen this one attributed to Garrozzo. He's been playing a bit longer than Rodwell, and also seems to play a style that involves raising on three more often...

What I have seen attributed to Benito:
2M+1 asks then
..2M+2 = 4 card unbal raise any strength
.. .. 2M+3 = relay
.. .. .. 2M+4 = min, lower shortness
.. .. .. 3M = min, higher shortness
.. .. .. 3M+1 = max, lower shortness
.. .. .. 3M+2 = max, higher shortness
..2M+3 = 3 card, min
..2M+4 = 3 card, max
..3M = 4 card bal, min
..3M+1 = 4 card bal, max

[jeffford76]

awm, on Jul 20 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Bidding a new suit is natural and forcing to game.

Bidding 2NT is non-forcing and shows an invitational hand with only four cards in the major.

Bidding 3M is non-forcing and shows an invitational hand with five or more cards in the major.

How do you play 1m - 1M - 2M - 3m? What about 1m - 1M - 2M - 3NT? (In particular, if "natural", does the game choice depend more on NT suitability or just 3/4 cards in the major?)

[awm]

jeffford76 said:

How do you play 1m-1M-2M-3m?

Natural, game forcing. Obviously other treatments have some merit, but on a double fit hand where responder has good enough cards to bid over 2M, I'm content to play in game.

jeffford76 said:

What about 1m-1M-2M-3NT?

Promises stoppers in all unbid suits (else would bid three of the stopped unbid) and four trumps; normally opener passes with 3 cards in the major and bids 4M with 4, although 4333 hands are occasionally an exception. Usually I prefer to play 4M when a 4-4 fit materializes (4333 opposite 4333 being really the only exception).