[Bbradley62]

If I open 1M and partner raises to 2M, I can make any of the four bids between 2M and 3M to invite game. Sometimes, especially with a minimum (and possibly a sixth trump), I just want to make it harder for the opponents to compete, and I like bidding 3M to accomplish this. Is this another of my 1980s anachronisms?

[aguahombre]

You are not alone. There are several of us old fossils out there. Almost always a sixth trump.

[TylerE]

This convention totally boggles my mind.
There are certainly some useful (e.g. constructive) ways to play the 3M bid, and if they balance over 2M, you can just bid 3M... If they bid on over that, holding less than half the deck, on a hand where we were content in 2M... well, let's just say I like my matchpoint expectations.

[rogerclee]

The thing about 1-2-3 stop is that there is almost no hand I would want to do it on even playing this convention.

1) They don't balance even close to all the time. I would say you get to play 2S a little less than half the time, depending on your opponents and the form of scoring. 2H, you will get to play less of the time.
2) Compare these two auctions

1S P 2S P
3S AP

and

1S P 2S P
P X P 3H
3S AP

On the first auction you do not know anything.

On the second auction you know that RHO has no second suit except hearts (else he would bid 2N), and depending on your card reading you can probably guess if LHO has 1 or 2 spades (if he is light he probably has 1, if he is heavy he probably has 2+). Both of these things are very valuable in the play. Yes, sometimes they get off to a better lead against 3S because they find partner's suit, but on average it is very much in your favor to allow them to tell you about their hands before you bid 3S. Also, in the first auction the opponents know you have 6 spades, but in the second one you do not necessarily.

3) It is unlikely that the opponents bid 4 over 3 on an auction like this (or 3S over 3H, since RHO could have overcalled 2S if he had 5, and LHO probably would have overcalled 1S if he had 5). If they do, I agree on average this is bad for you, but it is infrequent enough that the first two considerations greatly outweigh this one.

[Siegmund]

In hearts, I think it has quite a bit going for it, especially at matchpoints. (And for me the 6th trump is all but mandatory.)

In spades there isn't so much of a need, since there is no cheap bid for the opps.

I guess for me the question is - do I need a 5th bid for yet another kind of game try - and so far the answer has been no.

[the hog]

I may be wrong, but there was a thread on this some years ago and I believe that many posters here played it. I agree with Clee and Tyler that it is unnecessary. However what else are you going to use it for?

[pooltuna]

Siegmund, on Jul 20 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

In hearts, I think it has quite a bit going for it, especially at matchpoints. (And for me the 6th trump is all but mandatory.)

In spades there isn't so much of a need, since there is no cheap bid for the opps.

I guess for me the question is - do I need a 5th bid for yet another kind of game try - and so far the answer has been no.

clearly the answer is yes we need this game try to check if partner really meant to bid 2M and to check if he didn't really mean to bid game and BTW the game try shows a 6th trump card

[aguahombre]

Well, I don't pretend to be a rocket scientist but I do believe that when the hand is likely to be a LAW hand, we should get to our Law level first --before the opps figure out what the total is.

Larry wrote all those neat tables, and I would prefer that the opponents be the ones who have to guess where their fit is at a likely impossible level.

[jjbrr]

I think it's useful when playing limited openers definitely.

[Bbradley62]

This is not limited to uncontested auctions. I especially like 123Stop in:
1M-(p)-2M-(Dbl)
or
1♥-(1♠)-2♥-(p)
or
1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(p)

[the hog]

jjbrr, on Jul 21 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

I think it's useful when playing limited openers definitely.

For a good explanation as to why the treatment is not useful, I suggest you read Ron Klinger's section on Major suit treatments in his Power system book.

[Bbradley62]

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Jul 21 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

I think it's useful when playing limited openers definitely.

For a good explanation as to why the treatment is not useful, I suggest you read Ron Klinger's section on Major suit treatments in his Power system book.

SInce I don't have that book handy... Does Mr. Klinger say that 1-2-3 is useful as a game invite? Does he play against as many Flight B players as some of us do, who might handle the pressure less well than advanced players?

[jjbrr]

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Jul 21 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

I think it's useful when playing limited openers definitely.

For a good explanation as to why the treatment is not useful, I suggest you read Ron Klinger's section on Major suit treatments in his Power system book.

Alternatively you could explain it to us.

[the hog]

Bbradley62, on Jul 21 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

Does Mr. Klinger say that 1-2-3 is useful as a game invite? Does he play against as many Flight B players as some of us do, who might handle the pressure less well than advanced players?

Yes, Ron does play it as a balanced game invite.
No, he doesn't play against many "flight B" players, especially as that concept does not exist in Oz. Perhaps you should ask yourself whether it is wise to play inferior methods because weak players find some things difficult to cope with. Perhaps you should aim higher.

[Bbradley62]

In another thread a few months ago (RUNT Revisited) there was a side-conversation about doing things to pressure weaker players; almost everyone agreed this was a good idea in order to bolster your overall score. Since I have four other ways to invite game, I think it's useful to have one way to be more obstructive. In all likelihood, I'd be inclined to use it more against weak players than against stars who might wrap it around my neck. But if it's not in my system, I can't use it against anyone.

[Bbradley62]

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

Yes, Ron does play it as a balanced game invite.

What does 2NT show over 1M-2M?

[the hog]

Bbradley62, on Jul 21 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

Yes, Ron does play it as a balanced game invite.

What does 2NT show over 1M-2M?

To be honest, I can't really remember, though I have a suspicion it asks for shortness.
One of the points rdk makes is that if you play some form of Bergen or Lott raise, you will be at the 3 level anyway in 5-4 fits. It is only the 6-3 hand that would raise to the 3 level. He comments, among other things, that 6-3 shapes do not play as well as 5-4 shapes and that often the opps would not have balanced anyway.

[nigel_k]

Obviously you shouldn't do this any time you have a minimum opening with six trumps. But there are hands where you definitely want to bid one more to keep opponents out (yes, they do sometimes make at the four level). With good judgment, I think the shutout usage is better than any alternative use.

But when one side is quoting the LAW and the other side is quoting a book by Ron Klinger, I really feel bad about supporting either.

[JLOGIC]

Siegmund, on Jul 20 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

In hearts, I think it has quite a bit going for it, especially at matchpoints. (And for me the 6th trump is all but mandatory.)

In spades there isn't so much of a need, since there is no cheap bid for the opps.

Yeah I agree with this, if I'm 6331 with a stiff spade I'd always like to do this.

I play 1-2-3 stop because it seems pretty useless as a game try, but it seems pretty useless over 1S 2S also so whatever.

[JLOGIC]

With a balanced game try I like to just bid 2N. This gives partner room to bid 3x, and we can further see how well we fit (if I have Kxx of his 3m, or if I have Jxx is a big difference).

TBH I think I just never bid 1S 2S 3S, or at least I don't remember doing so.