[Free]

We play the following after 1X-1Y-1Z:
- 2♣ (puppet to 2♦) followed by 3m shows an invitational hand with 4M and 5+m
- 2♣ followed by 2Y is an invite with long Y (depends if Z = NT or not obviously)
- 2NT (puppet to 3♣) is either signoff ♣ or GF 5-5 hands
- immediate 3-level bids are invitational 5-5
(- some other irrelevant agreements)

Me and my partner were wondering if it wouldn't be better in 1 particular situation to play it a little differently. It's about 1m-1M-1Z. Here you might define 2♣ followed by 3m (opener's suit) as invite with 5M and 4m, while 2♣ followed by 3Om would still remain invitational with 4M-5Om. Note that we don't immediately raise on 3 card M support.

Is this a good idea? Or is this unnecessary because you can start with 2♣ followed by 2M, and if opener bids 2NT you can still bid 3m? Perhaps it's too dangerous that opener passes 2M? Thanks for your advise.

[mgoetze]

So, if I understand correctly, what you are trying to sort out is whether or not 1Y was a canapé bid (which it apparently can often be with INV-strength hands), and you are saying that if you have opener's minor you don't need to (be able to) show a canapé hand.

Now we are just missing the information what your 1♣ and 1♦ openings actually show...

[Free]

mgoetze, on May 26 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

Now we are just missing the information what your 1♣ and 1♦ openings actually show...

1m openings are pretty standard, 3+m. Some rules:
- with 3-3m open 1♣
- with 4-4m open 1♦ with <16HCP, open 1♣ with 16+ (1NT opening is 14+-17)
- with 4♦-5♣ open 1♦ with <16HCP, open 1♣ with 16+
- with 4♦-6♣ open 1♣

Basically 1♦ is pretty much always a 4+ card suit, unless 4=4=3=2 exactly. 1♣ is 4+ cards except some 4M333 or 4=4=2=3 exactly.

[straube]

Free, on May 26 2010, 06:37 AM, said:

We play the following after 1X-1Y-1Z:
- 2♣ (puppet to 2♦) followed by 3m shows an invitational hand with 4M and 5+m
- 2♣ followed by 2Y is an invite with long Y (depends if Z = NT or not obviously)
- 2NT (puppet to 3♣) is either signoff ♣ or GF 5-5 hands
- immediate 3-level bids are invitational 5-5
(- some other irrelevant agreements)

Me and my partner were wondering if it wouldn't be better in 1 particular situation to play it a little differently. It's about 1m-1M-1Z. Here you might define 2♣ followed by 3m (opener's suit) as invite with 5M and 4m, while 2♣ followed by 3Om would still remain invitational with 4M-5Om. Note that we don't immediately raise on 3 card M support.

Is this a good idea? Or is this unnecessary because you can start with 2♣ followed by 2M, and if opener bids 2NT you can still bid 3m? Perhaps it's too dangerous that opener passes 2M? Thanks for your advise.

I think 2C-2D, 2M showing GI with 6M or 5M/4m will leave opener with an impossible guess very often. Curious why you don't jump to 3 of opener's minor with 5M/4m as well s 5M/5m. Opener will convert to 3M with 3-cd support anyway and when he doesn't, then he surely has a 4 cd minor anyway and you've found a 4/4 minor suit fit.

Have you thought about using transfer XYZ? You could show more hands.

[kenrexford]

My partner and I recently decided to play with these sequences and decided to just go fairly normal:

After 4SF of 2♣ or 2♦, Opener bids:

Two of Responder's Major = Minimum 3-piece
2NT = Maximum 3-piece (GF)
Cheapest other = minimum no 3-piece
Other = natural GF maximum

Our approach might not allow as many stops in a partial in the fourth suit, but that seems rare anyway. With invitational JS at round one, some stress is off this sequence, though. Just seems easier and better for slam auctions.

[cherdanno]

One solution is to have opener break the 2C->2D puppet with hands that have 3-card support for responder's suit and are minimum. Then you can have all your invites go throught 2C, as you don't need to distinguish between 5/5 and 4/5 invites.

[Free]

cherdanno, on May 27 2010, 12:45 PM, said:

One solution is to have opener break the 2C->2D puppet with hands that have 3-card support for responder's suit and are minimum. Then you can have all your invites go throught 2C, as you don't need to distinguish between 5/5 and 4/5 invites.

That's actually an interesting idea. You lose the option of playing 2♦ (which is probably worst after a 1♦ opening) but you win the ability to play 2M in a 4-3 or 5-3 fit when responder is just invitational.
- If Z = ♠ it's probably better (although you don't have a solution to the max with 3 card support when responder wants to signoff in 2♦)
- If Z = NT it depends on what will gain/lose most.

[Fluffy]

Free, on May 26 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Me and my partner were wondering if it wouldn't be better in 1 particular situation to play it a little differently. It's about 1m-1M-1Z. Here you might define 2♣ followed by 3m (opener's suit) as invite with 5M and 4m, while 2♣ followed by 3Om would still remain invitational with 4M-5Om. Note that we don't immediately raise on 3 card M support.

the tweak seems positive to me.

4M-5om invitational sounds a bit risky, 6om or balanced invitational is what I normally try.

Unlees you rebid 1NT with singleton in partner's major you don't really need 5-5 invitationals IMO on the caze Z=NT, it is better to just invite in the 5 card major and play your partscore low most of the time.

Althou having the option doesn't hurt obviously. But we use the 2 way NT invitational to show willingness to play in 3 of opener's minor if he wants to correct.