[nigel_k]

An unbalanced three card limit raise can just be treated as four card support. The law doesn't matter much because you aren't raising the bidding beyond what is justified by the constructive value of your hand. Obviously you would make the necessary downgrade for having one less trump. If you can show a mini-splinter then surely that is more useful to partner than knowing your trump length.

A balanced limit raise can respond 1NT - if partner passes 1NT they weren't accepting the invite anyway. So I wouldn't allocate a bid to show specifically a three card limit raise.

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on 2011-June-27, 14:27, said:

A balanced limit raise can respond 1NT - if partner passes 1NT they weren't accepting the invite anyway. So I wouldn't allocate a bid to show specifically a three card limit raise.

No, but an artificial 2♣ response usually has several meanings.

[jh51]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-27, 10:10, said:

I don't like it, as it is not Law-ful.

My first reaction to this response was "Why would this not be allowed?" but then I realized that "Law-ful" may be a reference to LTT? Am I correct?

Of course, the usual way of showing this hand in 2/1 is to bid 1NT (forcing) and then bid the major at the 3-level. If by Law-ful you meant LTT, this is not very lawful either.

Much of what I have read about LTT says that the idea that you should only compete to the level determined by your combined trump couny should be ignored when your side has the balance of strength. After all, there are plenty of hands that belong in game with only an 8 card major fit.

[Vampyr]

jh51, on 2011-June-28, 09:12, said:

Much of what I have read about LTT says that the idea that you should only compete to the level determined by your combined trump couny should be ignored when your side has the balance of strength. After all, there are plenty of hands that belong in game with only an 8 card major fit.

Yes, this is true. And as another poster has mentioned, most methods will get you to the three-level anyway.

[aguahombre]

The key (operative) term when applying the LTT is "compete". "Competing" to the level indicated by the combination of our, and the opponents' total number of trumps in the fit suits.

Yet even though LTT is not directly applicable to auctions where there is no competition, there are cases where knowledge of whether responder has 3-card or 4-card support might be important. The weak Bergen Raise (1M-3M) anticipates or inhibits competition, and thus is an effective extention of LTT.

And obviously upgrading in constructive auctions with extra trumps is appropriate; so having bids to distinguish between invites with 3 vs. 4 trumps has been shown to be useful. This is not really an application of the LTT.

None of this is new to most forum regulars. You already know it. But, it might clarify for someone getting confused by the use of "LAW-ful" outside of it's bounds.

Nigel-k "would not allocate a bid to show specifically a 4-card limit raise." Our style finds it inconvenient to allocate a bid for that, also; but I certainly see its advantages. It is a matter of what holes we choose to fill.

edit: We have not really hijacked; this is all related back to forcing or semi-forcing NT and its use with support for the major.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-June-28, 10:02

[wickedbid1]

relknes, on 2011-June-15, 10:51, said:

Does the decision to use the forcing NT in 2/1 affect the decision of weather to open a balanced hand with a 5 card major 1M or 1N?
I use a weak NT in a 2/1 structure (basically K-S). Historically, I have opened 1M whenever possible, but that basically gives up on a 1N final contract when that is often the best spot, because of the forcing 1N response. Then again, opening 1N basically gives up on playing 2M as a final contract, which is the best spot about as often.
I know that, in general, it is ok to open either way, but I assume that the other conventions used weigh in on the decision. Given that I use these two conventions (weak NT opener and forcing NT response), is opening 1M or 1N better with 5M332 and 12-14 points?

Here is another wrinkle for u to consider Phil. Playing wk nt is largely about yr run-out method, especially vul. There is another thread on this site discussing the merits of some of these. It is a good thread.

Putting 5 crd majors into one's wk nt puts strain on one's run-out methods, obviously. And life is even more difficult if one has both the lousy 5 crd majors & the good ones in the NT bid -- now in competitive auctions it can be tricky for the NT bidder's partner to make decisions, without info about the quality of the 5 crd major.

I would advocate putting just the Good 5 crd majors into the wk no-trump bid, rather than the bad ones, like some have suggested.

These r my reasons.

1) the negative inference of 1sp - (no raise by responder) helps the opener give up on sp when the spades r bad, & quickly consider finding a minor spot to land in. When these hands r stuck into 1NT by the time one is ready to investige for a minor fit, it is too late. Conversely the direct major raise auction(s) give opener confort in competitive decisions after opps put their two bits in.

2) Altho a good game can be missed when languishing in one's 1nt opening if responder is too cowardly to invite, the decent 5 crd major is one that can proudly be descriptively introduced in constructive situations. 1NT-p-2cl/2di-2hrt-2sp describes one's hand perfectly & very efficiently (sp is a touching suit with NT!). Balancing at the two level is much less scary with a decent five crd major to run to, as well. If one has bad five card majors in one's hand all the balancing decisions must be pre-balanced by pard, and pard will get them wrong a lot (cuz opener is not always as flat as pard is gessing).

3) In NT auctions it is responder who "takes charge" and starts showing stuff, or asking questions. If opener has a good side suit to introduce in a constructive sequence, this will only be good news, and will give our side lots of chances to get to optimal spots (an important consideration at matchpoints especially)

So, for example 1nt-p-2cl-p-2hrt-p-2sp-p-3hrt (now prd can pick the right game.)

1nt-p-2cl-p-2sp-p-2nt-p-3sp... (now prd can pick the right game)

Bad 5 crd majors can only be introduced in these sorts of sequences when u have started with a maximum, and they can only help pard judge whether to play NT or the major if they r known to be bad & not good. Two-way suit types on this sort of auction --so confusing.

I assume that with a good 5 crd major, yr hand has enough to accept any invitational sequence invite, (tho responder can obviously pass 3hrt/sp in the examples above when feeling nauseated) because a hand with a good five crd major & two wk side suits doesn't look notrumpy at all. It should be treated as "unbalanced" at first view.

Those r my thots. Happy hunting.

[mtvesuvius]

wickedbid1, on 2011-June-28, 12:52, said:

Here is another wrinkle for u to consider Phil. Playing wk nt is largely about yr run-out method, especially vul. There is another thread on this site discussing the merits of some of these. It is a good thread.

Putting 5 crd majors into one's wk nt puts strain on one's run-out methods, obviously. And life is even more difficult if one has both the lousy 5 crd majors & the good ones in the NT bid -- now in competitive auctions it can be tricky for the NT bidder's partner to make decisions, without info about the quality of the 5 crd major.

I would advocate putting just the Good 5 crd majors into the wk no-trump bid, rather than the bad ones, like some have suggested.

These r my reasons.

1) the negative inference of 1sp - (no raise by responder) helps the opener give up on sp when the spades r bad, & quickly consider finding a minor spot to land in. When these hands r stuck into 1NT by the time one is ready to investige for a minor fit, it is too late. Conversely the direct major raise auction(s) give opener confort in competitive decisions after opps put their two bits in.

2) Altho a good game can be missed when languishing in one's 1nt opening if responder is too cowardly to invite, the decent 5 crd major is one that can proudly be descriptively introduced in constructive situations. 1NT-p-2cl/2di-2hrt-2sp describes one's hand perfectly & very efficiently (sp is a touching suit with NT!). Balancing at the two level is much less scary with a decent five crd major to run to, as well. If one has bad five card majors in one's hand all the balancing decisions must be pre-balanced by pard, and pard will get them wrong a lot (cuz opener is not always as flat as pard is gessing).

3) In NT auctions it is responder who "takes charge" and starts showing stuff, or asking questions. If opener has a good side suit to introduce in a constructive sequence, this will only be good news, and will give our side lots of chances to get to optimal spots (an important consideration at matchpoints especially)

So, for example 1nt-p-2cl-p-2hrt-p-2sp-p-3hrt (now prd can pick the right game.)

1nt-p-2cl-p-2sp-p-2nt-p-3sp... (now prd can pick the right game)

Bad 5 crd majors can only be introduced in these sorts of sequences when u have started with a maximum, and they can only help pard judge whether to play NT or the major if they r known to be bad & not good. Two-way suit types on this sort of auction --so confusing.

I assume that with a good 5 crd major, yr hand has enough to accept any invitational sequence invite, (tho responder can obviously pass 3hrt/sp in the examples above when feeling nauseated) because a hand with a good five crd major & two wk side suits doesn't look notrumpy at all. It should be treated as "unbalanced" at first view.

Those r my thots. Happy hunting.

http://www.learntospell.org.uk/

[Phil]

wickedbid1, on 2011-June-28, 12:52, said:

Here is another wrinkle for u to consider Phil.

Why is this directed at me?

Quote

Playing wk nt is largely about yr run-out method, especially vul.

I stopped reading after this.

[helene_t]

Making a limit raise with 3-card support makes it hard to find slam in another strain, sometimes you want to be in 6m in a 4-4 or 4-5 fit when you also have a 5-3 M fit. So I would rather make the 3-card limit raises via either 1NT or an artificial 2♣. Or simply via a natural non-gf 2m response (not that I like to play non-gf 2/1 but when I do have a 3-card limit raise hand it is often great to be playing it). Bidding another suit en route to 3M (or 2M) may also make it easier for opener to decide whether to accept the invite.

[Vampyr]

wickedbid1, on 2011-June-28, 12:52, said:

Playing wk nt is largely about yr run-out method, especially vul.

Is it? I have played weak NT almost exclusively for over a decade, and do not use a "run-out method".