[jdonn]

I actually think there is tons of merit in allowing 4 card majors into your inverted minor raises, though I only (in theory since no one plays it with me) do so on game forcing hands with 5+ support and exactly 4 in the major.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Jul 16 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

I actually think there is tons of merit in allowing 4 card majors into your inverted minor raises, though I only (in theory since no one plays it with me) do so on game forcing hands with 5+ support and exactly 4 in the major.

Yup likewise. If they are about to bid many-somethings on your left you are much better of having shown some diamonds with your first call.

[hanp]

Maybe that's good but I think it requires some discussion. Say I open 1D, partner raises to 2D. Now I have 2-3-4-4 shape with 2 small spades and a 14-count, so I bid 2H. Partner raises to 3H, showing 4. Partner is aware that I don't have to have 4 hearts, but what do I bid? If I bid 3S, does that show a stopper, ask for a stopper, is a cuebid? What if this happens with spades, am I supposed to bid 3NT since I already denied spade values and make sure I wrongside diamonds, spades and notrumps?

If they opponents bid 3S next, are we really better of having shown 4 diamonds than having shown 4 hearts? If we are 4-4, I would rather show my major. If we have an unbalanced hadn with 5+ diamonds, ok it could be good then.

[Free]

Depends a lot on how strong I am, and where my honours are. My partner's 1♦ opening can contain 4♦-5♣ with 11-15HCP.

I can choose from:
2♣ GF (or BAL INV)
2♦ inverted
2NT 12+-15/19+ balanced
3NT 16-18 balanced

[mike777]

gwnn, on Jul 15 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

what do you usually bid with a GF 2344 hand when partner opened 1♦? interested in every system but mostly with sayc style 1♦ openers (1NT=15-17, 1♦ can be 3 only if 4-4-3-2 exactly).

ya...expect 3nt very often

other options are;
2c=nat and gf
3c=art and gf in d.

I dont play inverted

[Codo]

I do not agree that the merits of inv. minor can include a 4 card major do outscore the downsides.

As an extension to Han`s example:
1 ♦ 2 ♦ 2♥ 3 ♥.

Now you are on the third level, responder does not know whether they have a real heart fit and how strong partner is. Opener does not know how strong partner is either. Responder is still unlimited.

[Cascade]

Codo, on Jul 16 2010, 09:13 PM, said:

I do not agree that the merits of inv. minor can include a 4 card major do outscore the downsides.

As an extension to Han`s example:
1 ♦ 2 ♦ 2♥ 3 ♥.

Now you are on the third level, responder does not know whether they have a real heart fit and how strong partner is. Opener does not know how strong partner is either. Responder is still unlimited.

Isn't this conclusion very much dependent on what 2♥ means. If it shows four then we have a fit. And if responder's raise is limited (or opener's 2♥) then we know the range.

[Codo]

Cascade, on Jul 16 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Isn't this conclusion very much dependent on what 2♥ means. If it shows four then we have a fit. And if responder's raise is limited (or opener's 2♥) then we know the range.

And you think it is an improvement to play that 2 M shows exactly four?
Then of course you can never show something like stoppers.

And you think 2 ♥ should be limited? Fair enough. Obviously then 3 ♥ must show another possible range and cannot be used for other purposes like controls or splinters.

Maybe it is possible to overcome all problems, but....


And about the raise: OF course, IF 2 ♥ shows four, then the raise is limited. But in Han`sexample 2 ♥ did not show four at all.....

[gwnn]

jdonn, on Jul 15 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

In some partnerships it might also depend what system I'm playing.

?! in some partnerships it does not depend on what system you're playing?

[gnasher]

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

  1m-2m
  <2M on a 3-card suit>

and this was necessary to get to the right contract? That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

  1m-2m
  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Jul 16 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

  1m-2m
  <2M on a 3-card suit>

and this was necessary to get to the right contract? That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

  1m-2m
  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

BUT YOU MUST SHOW THE STOPPERZ!!!111

[nige1]

gnasher, on Jul 16 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started
  1m-2m
  <2M on a 3-card suit>
and this was necessary to get to the right contract?  That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting
  1m-2m
  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

1♦ - 2♦ -
2♥!? - 4♥
This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.

---

[gnasher]

nige1, on Jul 16 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.

I was really hoping for a response from someone who thinks that 1♦-2♦ should deny a four-card major, since these are also, I believe, the people who want to be able to use 1♦-2♦;2M to show stoppers.

[Codo]

Okay I bite:

Axx KQx
xx xx
AKxx Qxxxx
Qxxx Akx

1 ♦ 2 ♦
2 ♠ 3♣
3 ♦ 5 ♦

You play 3 NT, don't you?

But btw, can someone show me a hand where it was madatory to show the fit first and the major later? From real life would be nicest, but I take constructed hands too....

[Free]

nige1, on Jul 16 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 16 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started
  1m-2m
  <2M on a 3-card suit>
and this was necessary to get to the right contract?  That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting
  1m-2m
  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

1♦ - 2♦ -
2♥!? - 4♥
This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.

---

If you raise on 3 card suits with a good reason (small doubleton ♠ here) you don't have any problem with finding the moysian game.

Basically, IF the moysian is better than 3NT, you'll have a reason to support 1M on a 3 card suit. So there's no need to bid 2♦ with a 4 card M to find the moysian later on imo.

[gnasher]

Codo, on Jul 16 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

Okay I bite:

Axx KQx
xx xx
AKxx Qxxxx
Qxxx Akx

1 ♦ 2 ♦
2 ♠ 3♣
3 ♦ 5 ♦

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♦-3♠
4♦-5♦

or

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♠-5♦

[bluecalm]

2♦ in poilsh club (where 1♦ is 5+ unless 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors).
2♣ in my preferred system (precision).

I don't much care about stops. If two balanced hands meet I am happy to bash 3NT and hope.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Jul 15 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

Maybe that's good but I think it requires some discussion. Say I open 1D, partner raises to 2D. Now I have 2-3-4-4 shape with 2 small spades and a 14-count, so I bid 2H. Partner raises to 3H, showing 4. Partner is aware that I don't have to have 4 hearts, but what do I bid? If I bid 3S, does that show a stopper, ask for a stopper, is a cuebid? What if this happens with spades, am I supposed to bid 3NT since I already denied spade values and make sure I wrongside diamonds, spades and notrumps?

If they opponents bid 3S next, are we really better of having shown 4 diamonds than having shown 4 hearts? If we are 4-4, I would rather show my major. If we have an unbalanced hadn with 5+ diamonds, ok it could be good then.

Obviously if you allow 4 card majors, then opener's 2♥/2♠ bids over the raise are natural (unless you want to play something artificial ie 2♥ min balanced etc) and balanced hands are balanced hands are balanced hands.

But my argument for this method isn't because I anticipate bidding on my left and want to show diamonds. It's because I can describe my hand well, and make the suit lengths less ambiguous when it goes 1m, 1M, blah, gf, blah, 3m since that shows 5+ in the major (sorry I mis-thought in my earlier post when I said the raise should be 4-5+, it should be 4-4+).

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jul 17 2010, 03:06 AM, said:

Codo, on Jul 16 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

Okay I bite:

Axx     KQx
xx       xx
AKxx  Qxxxx
Qxxx  Akx

1 ♦ 2 ♦
2 ♠ 3♣
3 ♦ 5 ♦

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♦-3♠
4♦-5♦

or

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♠-5♦

So more interesting would be a hand where 3NT makes from responder's hand but not declarer's. Which can be constructed by adding the ♥K to responder's hand and putting the ace over the king.

In practice it is rare where

1. We have 11 tricks in 5m
2. We have fewer than 9 tricks in 3NT
3. Both hands are balanced (no singletons)

and even rarer if we have flexibility about right siding the no trumps.

And there is also the additional possibility on a less informative auction that the opponents will not find the killing lead against 3NT.

[Codo]

gnasher, on Jul 17 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

Codo, on Jul 16 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

Okay I bite:

Axx    KQx
xx      xx
AKxx  Qxxxx
Qxxx  Akx

1 ♦ 2 ♦
2 ♠ 3♣
3 ♦ 5 ♦

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♦-3♠
4♦-5♦

or

1♦-2♦
2NT-3♣
3♠-5♦

Fair enough, unluckily they do not have the space to ask if they have Qx oppsite Jxx

Maybe I asked the wrong question: On which hands do you win with your approach. Where do you think it is better to find the diamond fit before you find the major fit?