[jvage]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-16, 06:54, said:

Your first sentence is completely false. As a general rule, people do not respond in 3-card suits. If they are required to do so as part of their system, then I think it is alertable. No common natural-based system ever _requires_ a 3-card 1M response to 1m. If you choose to agree that you respond on a 3-card suit in specific instances that of course if up to you, but your opponents deserve to know you are doing it.

I was under the impression that it was relatively common among both beginners and "old-timers" to play after a 1minor opening 2m as 6-9 and 3m as invitational (9-11). Those who do play like this in Norway will often not have any agreements about (or even have considered) what to do with say 2362 and 16HCP in response to partners 1♦ opening (it is a "system-hole"). While some may bid 3/4NT, 4/5♦ or even 2♣ I would expect some to "invent" a 1♥ response as the least bad bid. Their partner would not consider this possibility (if they had no prior experience) and would not alert it.

It seems from several of the responders (including Sven, who is Norwegian) that 1♥ in this case should be alerted and that you would have adjusted if the opponents may have been damaged from a lack of alert?

John

[campboy]

You shouldn't alert if you haven't any (explicit or implicit) agreement that this can happen. The pair in question had discussed it, though, and decided that a 1♥ response was permitted on that shape.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-16, 06:49, said:

A 2C response to 1S is slightly different. All (English) players know this could be a game-forcing 3=4=3=3 hand.

Game forcing?

[iviehoff]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-16, 06:54, said:

Your first sentence is completely false. As a general rule, people do not respond in 3-card suits. If they are required to do so as part of their system, then I think it is alertable. No common natural-based system ever _requires_ a 3-card 1M response to 1m. If you choose to agree that you respond on a 3-card suit in specific instances that of course if up to you, but your opponents deserve to know you are doing it.

I think you misunderstood me, because you proceed to say more or less just what I said.

[mgoetze]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-16, 06:54, said:

Your first sentence is completely false. As a general rule, people do not respond in 3-card suits. If they are required to do so as part of their system, then I think it is alertable. No common natural-based system ever _requires_ a 3-card 1M response to 1m. If you choose to agree that you respond on a 3-card suit in specific instances that of course if up to you, but your opponents deserve to know you are doing it.

I think you might find in other parts of these forums that some people who believe themselves to be playing a natural system consider it perfectly normal to bid e.g. 1♥-1♠-3♣ on a 3- or even 2-card club "suit".

[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-16, 10:04, said:

I think you might find in other parts of these forums that some people who believe themselves to be playing a natural system consider it perfectly normal to bid e.g. 1♥-1♠-3♣ on a 3- or even 2-card club "suit".

Frances said 'response' not 'rebid'. Of course a 3-card suit for a rebid is quite normal, though getting less so.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2010-November-16, 08:25, said:

Game forcing?

...or invitational (although if your methods are old-fashioned enough, an invitational 3=4=3=3 just bids 2NT)

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2010-November-16, 07:59, said:

You shouldn't alert if you haven't any (explicit or implicit) agreement that this can happen. The pair in question had discussed it, though, and decided that a 1♥ response was permitted on that shape.

Yes, this.