[Chamaco]

It seems to me that the underlying statement of many posters here is that after
1C-pass-ANY CONTROL SHOWING RESPONSE-?
4th hand preemption will most of the time result in a damage for the big clubbers.
Are we sure about it ?
Preempting is fun, as it is fun to watch opponents annoyed, but it can result also in many big penalty.
Increasing the frequency of preemption will increase the penalties resulting, and there must be a threshold where the payoffs are reversed...

At MP, I may agree on the effectiveness of increased preemption frequency: we may cause opps to find the wrong strain and score 400 instead of 420; we may go down 500 instead of 620. As we know, the cost-benefit justifies risks.

But I don't have such an evidence at IMPS.
In a team match, after 4th hand preemption, a good pair:

- many times will be able to find a reasonable contract iusing the normal devices used when opps open a preempt; actruially, in the big club case, they will be better placed because they alreeady know the no. of controls, so there is no risk of passing out undoubled opps.
Sure, some of the times you'll play 3NT when 4 of a mjor is better, or you'll end up in a moysian when you have a better contract available. (But even then, many times you'll be able to get away with it and collect your game score)
Some other times you'll miss a close slam.
These are the minuses.

But there are also pluses: many opponents will try preemption on rubbish, just to hinder the bidding machinery.
But in those cases, a good pair has good devices to penalize them.
I suspect that collecting the penalties of frisky preemptor will at east even the chances compared to some losses in the bidding accuracy for the right game contract when you have no clearcut slam values.
Let's not forget that penalizing phantom sacrifices are worth slam values.
I remember reading somewhere a declaration by Meckstroth (must be "win the Bermuda Bowl with me") who says that they gear their bidding system towards penalizing often opps preempting the big club.

And, since against these step responses the frequency of preemption will increase, and the quality of preemption will be lowered, it is likely that the number and amopunt of penalties inflicted to opps will also increase.

One more point is worth mentioning: after responder has shown a GF hand, it is much more dangerous to preempt.
Second seat preempt can be quite desruptive since reponder did not yet give any info to opener (no matter whether distribution , controls, or negative response).
Fourth seat preempt is much less effective because responder had a chance to limit his hand by means of the control step response.

e.g.
1C-(3S)-?
Now one of the problems is that responder may or may not have GF values.

But

1C-(pass)-POSITIVE RESPONSE-(3S)
?

Now opener knows that we are in GF, so that very often the issue will be finding the right strain or penalizing.
Under such conditions it is much easier, for an expert, to decide whether to settle for a safe plus penalizing opps or too bid with distributional hands.
So, I think it's an even money bet between the times you hinder the bidding machinery and the times when your wild preempts wil be penalized (in order to make them more frequently they'll have to be wild much of the times- otherwise you'd just be passing more often and this thread would not exist :-) ).

So the bottomline is: at MP , where the strains in which you play game matters a lot, this control steps may backfire, but at IMPSm, where suboptimal games score about the same and collecting penalties often pays off, I am not so sure.

Or, to put in another way: at IMPS the concept that preempting more frequently will be a winning action may be a commonplace, at least when the control steps have suggested or denied that slam is unlikely.Let's try to wash our head from this concept and try to verify the data... :-)

[mike777]

Great thread!
1) Assume preempts work, otherwise everyone would not be using them.

2) On Ron's hand one, 2c would be 0-2 controls and 6-7 long and poor clubs, at most one top honor. So controls and shape.

3) On Ron's hand two, 4 controls, no shape showing but how much worse off am I then over a (2/1)...1C=P=1S=4H bid? Maybe more, maybe less.

4) Above thread discussion on penalty doubles is excellent.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Oct 25 2004, 01:33 PM, said:

Great thread!
1) Assume preempts work, otherwise everyone would not be using them.

Preempting more frequently after a big club and a positive response necessarily means doing it lighter than usual, and taking more risk than usual.

My point is:
there is a difference in preempting in different situations: some preempts are more effective than others.
As more and more info are exchanged, it becomes more and more dangerous (especially at IMPS) to preempt because opps have more elements to decide whether or not to penalize.
This applies even if the info exchanged is only hcp and controls, without shape involved.


1) Opening Preempt: opps did not exchange ANY info so far. Most damaging.

2) Preempting after opps opened but before responder bid: still damaging but less than at point 1. Can be very dangerous opposite a limited opener.

3) Preempting after both hands bid: even if they did not exchange SHAPE info but only hcp (16+ by opener) and controls by responder, now they know a hell lot more.
They know they are in a GF, and the control response often helps determining the likelihood for slam.
So, at MP preempting here may pay off, but at IMPS not so sure, since even playing the wrong game often makes anyways, AND there is the added advantage of being able to choose for a severe penalty to opps.


So it is not a sure thing that 4th hand preempt will certainly work, and I do believe it may be true the opposite, at IMPS (not at MP).

In situation 3, I am suspecting that an expert pair of big clubbers will often collect penalties at IMPS from the frisky preemptors.

[mike777]

In "situation 2" I would guess most control showing systems are:

1)Still on over 1 level overcalls

2)Still on over some 2 level overcalls...say through 2D or so.

3)Off over 2nt overcalls and higher.

Would be interested to know more about Meckwell's response system and skewing towards penalty doubles if anyone knows.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Oct 25 2004, 02:01 PM, said:

In "situation 2"  I would guess most control showing systems are:

1)Still on over 1 level overcalls

2)Still on over some 2 level overcalls...say through 2D or so.

3)Off over 2nt overcalls and higher.

Would be interested to know more about Meckwell's response system and skewing towards penalty doubles if anyone knows.

Just to clarify my thoughts:
I do believe that after 1C-(overcall)-? it is better to give shape.
Here the "tempo" of the bidding is different, since if opps have a fit they wuill anticipate you (e.g. they can jump raise much safer at level 3/4), it's totally different from situation 3 where you have had the chance to show control without interference.

My whole thread was referred to auction that start

1C-pass-CONTROL SHOWING RESPONSE,

e.g. AFTER PARD OPENS ONE CLUB AND RHO PASS, CHOOSING BETWEEN SHAPE-FIRST OR CONTROL/SHOWING FIRST

so it was restricted to discussing "situation 3".

Of course the points you raise here ar of utmost interest too :-)

[1eyedjack]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 07:56 AM, said:

garozzo and hamman both played control showing responses, and both have said that it is not the best way to play. These are great players, but when they were in their primes, bidding theory was not advanced as it is today

Bidding "theory" in the face of aggressive competitive bidding is not going to develop much. If the prospect of aggressive competitive bidding is the deciding factor ...

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Oct 23 2004, 04:55 AM, said:

There are 3 answers to this

1) Playing a full relay system, shape is 100% better than controls. Why? Because your shape shwong bids don't move up and down.

2) Playing a non relay system against automatons controls are 100% better than shape. Why, because you know at low levels at what level to play the hand.

3) Playing a non relay system agains real live people, shape is 100% better than controls. Why? What would you arther know in a similar auction to the following?

1C (P) 2C (4H) where 2C showed some no. of controls OR
1C (P) 1S (4H) where 1S showed a positive with some no. of S

As a VERY amusing aside, I was playing in the Victorian open team playoffs and we were discussing weird systems. One Northern Territory pair play a system totally based on points. Apparentlye they get to 3N and know they either have the points to play game or they don't and they have NO idea of either hands shape. They played one board in 4H on a combined 28 count in a 5-0 fit, another in 3N in a 1-1 C fit. So you can see where my sympathies lie. (Their system is apparently called version 52!!)

Cheers
Ron

Seems to me that the point numbered 3 has equal application whether playing a relay or non-relay system. Even if playing a relay system, relays will go out of the window following the 4H overcall.

Having tried both, I have to say that in the absence of competition there is very little to choose between responses that are based on shape v those based on controls.

[EarlPurple]

I have played my own strong club system whereby you show points (not controls) in response to the opening bid, and this in practice has worked well. The theory is that you know potentially how high you intend to bid, and it should then be relatively easy to find your fit. Of course, if a perfect fit comes to light, you can bid higher, but you can still use the overall strength as a guide.

I think points work better than controls, because the strong club hand will tend to hold most of the high cards, and therefore queens and jacks will potentially play a useful part. Yes, it might be useless, but then an ace can be totally useless opposite a void too.

In my more recent system (which I have still yet had no opportunity to use, and actually uses a strong diamond rather than a strong club) and also in my old system following any serious level of intervention (at least 1♠), the response is a mixture of shape or strength.

Most of the bids show shape, and around 7-10 points (considered the point range you are most likely to hold). (After an intervening bid this range is actually 8-11, simply beacuse they are split into 0-3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12+). With a stronger hand you show this massive strength first.

Yes, the opps might sometimes be able to pre-empt you but that will usually only be when they have a big fit, which usually means you will have one too, and at least enough strength to compete with it to the 5-level.

This sort of thing might happen:

You: 1♦ (strong, could be 1♣ in your system
LHO: 1♠ (some bid that shows spades and perhaps something else)
Partner: 2♦ which we will say shows 8-11 points and 5+ hearts
RHO: 4♠ (pre-emptive raise).

Now say you have an unexciting

♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ AQxx ♣ AKxx

That's a balanced 19-count. Partner might have all the right things and 6♥ might be making but the chances are 5♥ is a good bet by me. It is true, of course, that I have not yet shown my hand. But if this were a standard system (2/1 or SAYC) I'd have opened this hand also with 1♣, and the bidding might have gone the same, except that partner's 2♥ would presumably be a "negative free bid" if we played them. If we don't and partner made a negative double instead, I'm totally stuck on this hand.

Partner might have this:

♠ x ♥ AJxxxx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx

In which case 6♥ is pretty cold. But opps don't always follow Larry's rule and have 10 trumps between them to bid to 4♠ (and they don't always need them, particularly if they are green). Partner could have more points but:

♠ Qx ♥ AJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx

and we might not make 5♥.

[Free]

Earlpurple, in my region most players use HCP (0-6, 7-8, 9-10,...) as response to a 1♣ opener. It has a huge flaw imo: if you have around 9-12 HCP, you waste more biddingspace than necessary, and most of the time you don't even have slam (where controls make it easier to know this quicker).

It's always the same problem however: if opps intervene (in 2nd or 4th hand, whatever) you'll have more problems to find the right contract. I play against these guys every week, and they hate their own 1♣ opening if they have to play against me, since I have a VERY agressive defense against it, and they usually don't get to their optimal contract (which is a problem in MP's )

[whereagles]

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+
1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

[EarlPurple]

Are you sure they have methods to combat intervention?

The reason most strong club systems fall to intervention is because their system (try reading one of them) is not based on logic and concepts but on masses of sequences of bids and responses, and any bit of intervention blows it to bits.

Let's say the bidding goes:

1♣ pass 1♠ 3♦

where 1♠ shows 9-10 points. Don't know if it does, but this is an example. Let's say, for the sake of it, that 3♦ shows a 6-card suit, and that's pretty much it.

Right: so we have a sort-of limit bid, and the 1♣ opener knows the general strength of the hand, i.e. we are definitely in the game zone, slam will probably need specific cards.

So do we have a method to combat intervening bids? What does pass mean? And double? And are 3♥ and 3♠ natural bids? Do we play any kind of forcing bids? What do we do with a shapely 1-suited hand? 2-suited hand? Extremely strong hand? 4♦ can't show everything, but we must have clear methods.

We could also double 3♦. In fact that will be the right thing a lot of the time. If none of our methods allow us to do that then of course the opps are going to jump in with it as much as they can. (Much less to lose).

I have played against intervention like that. And the number of times the intervention has helped me place the cards (especially at MP for an extra overtrick!) has probably outweighed the rare occasions we reach a bad contract.

Having methods to combat intervention is far more important, in my opinion, than having convoluted relay systems (or just long sections of bids and responses which I can't possibly memorise, and no notes of logic or approach) which are best reserved for computers. (I can never learn them and every time someone sends me system notes that's all I ever seem to see, after which I subsequently don't play their system).

1st generation: Players brought in strong club systems with control or strength responses and they worked very well.
2nd generation: Opps learned to combat the system with intervention.
3rd generation: Strong club users learn to prepare better against the intervention rather than having pages and pages of system notes for uncontested auctions.
3rd generation again: More players realised the advantages of pre-empts against all systems, not only forcing club.

By the way, it's that last point that also emphasises why strong club systems can work so well - sequences when you do not open 1♣ and particularly the ability to play all opening 2 bids as weak.

[Free]

One of the biggest problems imo from the systems played in my region is that they keep showing their HCP's after intervention. This means: Pass = 0-6, Dbl = 7-8, step 1 = 9-10,... So they don't have a penalty Dbl, and with a little luck opps will start bidding their 5 cards at 3-level

Another thing is that intervention after strong ♣ is mostly destructive, while intervention over anything natural is constructive. I would NEVER play my defense against strong ♣ against a natural system, it's suicide!
This also means your bids don't have to be real.

Just to give you one of my favorite bids: 1♠ = any hand with 0-3 ♠s. How can you place some cards in my hand? You don't have a cuebid, you don't know what suit(s) I have, ♠s might as well be YOUR suit,... It's a pure pain in the ass, and we usually find a playable contract (btw, 1♠ is not forcing ). I can even overcall on any 4333!

[Free]

whereagles, on Oct 28 2004, 10:36 AM, said:

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+
1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

[Chamaco]

EarlPurple, on Oct 28 2004, 10:29 AM, said:

Are you sure they have methods to combat intervention?

The reason most strong club systems fall to intervention is because their system (try reading one of them) is not based on logic and concepts but on masses of sequences of bids and responses, and any bit of intervention blows it to bits.

Let's say the bidding goes:

1♣ pass 1♠ 3♦

where 1♠ shows 9-10 points. Don't know if it does, but this is an example. Let's say, for the sake of it, that 3♦ shows a 6-card suit, and that's pretty much it.

Right: so we have a sort-of limit bid, and the 1♣ opener knows the general strength of the hand, i.e. we are definitely in the game zone, slam will probably need specific cards.

So do we have a method to combat intervening bids? What does pass mean? And double? And are 3♥ and 3♠ natural bids? Do we play any kind of forcing bids? What do we do with a shapely 1-suited hand? 2-suited hand? Extremely strong hand? 4♦ can't show everything, but we must have clear methods.

We could also double 3♦. In fact that will be the right thing a lot of the time. If none of our methods allow us to do that then of course the opps are going to jump in with it as much as they can. (Much less to lose).

I have played against intervention like that. And the number of times the intervention has helped me place the cards (especially at MP for an extra overtrick!) has probably outweighed the rare occasions we reach a bad contract.

Having methods to combat intervention is far more important, in my opinion, than having convoluted relay systems (or just long sections of bids and responses which I can't possibly memorise, and no notes of logic or approach) which are best reserved for computers. (I can never learn them and every time someone sends me system notes that's all I ever seem to see, after which I subsequently don't play their system).

1st generation: Players brought in strong club systems with control or strength responses and they worked very well.
2nd generation: Opps learned to combat the system with intervention.
3rd generation: Strong club users learn to prepare better against the intervention rather than having pages and pages of system notes for uncontested auctions.
3rd generation again: More players realised the advantages of pre-empts against all systems, not only forcing club.

By the way, it's that last point that also emphasises why strong club systems can work so well - sequences when you do not open 1♣ and particularly the ability to play all opening 2 bids as weak.

Agree on all the post by Earl.

The point is that too many players seem to claim that preemptive overcall is damaging, without discussing the difference in different situations.

We should not discuss here the policy on overcall in DIRECT seat [e.g. 1C-(3S)], since it is not the subject of the original post.
We should discuss the sequence where the responder bids undisturbed and the interference occur before opener's rebid.

After a strong club opening and a response based on controls (or hcp), despite not having idea of the shape, overcalling is FAR more dangerous at IMPS (I won't discuss Matchpoints here, where it might have a point).

The discussion should obviously focus on the case where both pairs have adequate methods, e.g. the strong clubbers have methods for handling jump overcalls.

And I think that we' find out that most of the time, doubling opps and defending will in the long run payoff much more than anything we have lost for the extra preemption by opponents cause by our choice of using step-responses to 1C instead of shape-showing bids.

[whereagles]

Free, on Oct 28 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

You're just not used to it, lol When my pard came up with 1D = 0-8 or 13+, I also disliked it. But after using it in practice, it turned out to be quite ok. And much more relaxing to opener, who very much knows what to do after a limited 9-12 positive.

Using 1D as 0-5 or 9+... well, that's quite stressing for opener when opps compete before responder has a chance to bid again. Any action by opener can turn out to be an overbid or a gross underbid, even though the 9+ variant is more likely.

[hrothgar]

Free, on Oct 28 2004, 01:44 PM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 28 2004, 10:36 AM, said:

A nice idea is to bid is like this:

1C 1D = 0-8 OR 13+
1C 1/2x = nat GF 9-12

The positive response gets truncated, while the negative becomes ambiguous, but that's normally not a problem: just make forcing bids to warn opener you're in the top zone.

Another idea is to bid via the "6AB" device (six-ace-blackwood), where the first suit bid by opener asks for aces out of 6, the 1st step by responder being 12+ hcp and the rest 8-11 hcp and reply to 6AB. Bidding goes natural after that.

1♦ as 0-8 or 13+ is quite awful imo. Even if opps don't intervene, your 0-8 range is too big I'm afraid. I would rather go for double negative or GF, and consider other bids semi-positive or so.

Has anyone ever experimented with such 2-way 1♦ responses?

The first time that I saw 1♣ - 1♦ as either game force or negative was in the context of Magic Diamond. Its a very interesting concept with some very elegant possibilities. I originally tried to get this to work in the context of MOSCITO. While this was not successful, it did lead to the current 1♣ - 1♦ artificial game force...

(It should be noted that playing MD< the 1♣ opening shows ~12-17 HCP)

[EarlPurple]

I don't like a negative response being 0-8 either. The most common range is probably 7-10 and if the strong club is 17+ rather than 16+ it is not that unreasonable to suggest that any positive response should be game forcing even if though there might be only 24 combined points. (Hey, a lot of the time game makes with 24 points!)

I therefore have a liking for most of the rebids to be 7-10 because this is what will probably occur most of the time.

Perhaps some 6-point hands can also be allowed into positive responses, of course. KQJxxx and nothing else, for example, if you play that jump-response shows a one-suited hand, then you can make one with such a holding.

I hadn't thought of using 1♦ also to show the super+ response, but I guess there is a lot of attraction in it.

As you will see, with this general type of system, most of the positive responses are limit bids, i.e. 7-10 (or your own preferred range) and shape-showing. Intervention is thus far less effective as one of the opponents has now pretty much shown their hand, and therefore the strong club opener is well placed to judge the situation based on his own hand.

Of course, there will still be times when pre-empts are effective - there always are. But we have reduced it down now much further.

[EarlPurple]

And to Free's point, which I think we have discussed before.

Let's consider 4 cases:

1. Their opening 1♣ is strong.
2. Their opening 1♣ is Standard American style i.e. could be prepared and a wide range
3. Their opening 1♣ shows one of many hand types which could be weak and balanced or could be strong.
4. Their opening 1♣ is natural and promises at least 4, and will not be a weak balanced hand because the opps play a weak NT.

1. In the first case, your methods may be primarily destructive, because you do not expect a game on for your side. But of course there will be occasions when your side does have game, and cases where your intervention will now prevent you finding a good sacrifice because you cannot show such a constructive (yet weak) overcall.

2 & 3. Here you need to have methods for when you have a good hand. And you may decide to defend differently depending on whether or not partner has shown a passed hand. However you should have semi-destructive/semi-constructive methods, in my opinion.

When partner has not passed, you can overcall aggressively but within limits, eg a 6-9 point range (approximately) for weak jump overcalls or 2-suited pre-emptive overcalls. When the opponent does have a strong hand (which includes an 18-19 balanced hand in Standard American systems, or such strong hands with clubs), 6-9 will be your most common point range.

When partner has passed, you can stretch this a bit more, either by being a little stronger or a bit weaker or either. Here you will be giving up chances of game, although you might stumble into one as a sacrifice which happens to make (or getting doubled into game).

Your 1-level overcalls should be sound, but there is something to be said for giving a conventional meaning to a 1♦ overcall of 1♣. You give up the natural bid, but this might not be a great loss and the purpose is to show a hand which cannot bounce to a high level but invites partner to do so with the right fit. For example, a 6-9 point hand with at least 4 cards in both majors.

These are just ideas. Haven't tested them. But I will tell you that intervening their 1♣ in these auctions will also cause disruption, whilst still enabling you to reach your own best contract when it is your hand.

In (4) the same applies to some extent but exercise more caution here.

[cwiggins]

EarlPurple, on Oct 27 2004, 08:30 PM, said:

I have played my own strong club system whereby you show points (not controls) in response to the opening bid, and this in practice has worked well. The theory is that you know potentially how high you intend to bid, and it should then be relatively easy to find your fit. Of course, if a perfect fit comes to light, you can bid higher, but you can still use the overall strength as a guide.

I think points work better than controls, because the strong club hand will tend to hold most of the high cards, and therefore queens and jacks will potentially play a useful part. Yes, it might be useless, but then an ace can be totally useless opposite a void too.

In my more recent system (which I have still yet had no opportunity to use, and actually uses a strong diamond rather than a strong club) and also in my old system following any serious level of intervention (at least 1♠), the response is a mixture of shape or strength.

Most of the bids show shape, and around 7-10 points (considered the point range you are most likely to hold). (After an intervening bid this range is actually 8-11, simply beacuse they are split into 0-3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12+). With a stronger hand you show this massive strength first.

Yes, the opps might sometimes be able to pre-empt you but that will usually only be when they have a big fit, which usually means you will have one too, and at least enough strength to compete with it to the 5-level.

This sort of thing might happen:

You: 1♦ (strong, could be 1♣ in your system
LHO: 1♠ (some bid that shows spades and perhaps something else)
Partner: 2♦ which we will say shows 8-11 points and 5+ hearts
RHO: 4♠ (pre-emptive raise).

Now say you have an unexciting

♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ AQxx ♣ AKxx

That's a balanced 19-count. Partner might have all the right things and 6♥ might be making but the chances are 5♥ is a good bet by me. It is true, of course, that I have not yet shown my hand. But if this were a standard system (2/1 or SAYC) I'd have opened this hand also with 1♣, and the bidding might have gone the same, except that partner's 2♥ would presumably be a "negative free bid" if we played them. If we don't and partner made a negative double instead, I'm totally stuck on this hand.

Partner might have this:

♠ x ♥ AJxxxx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx

In which case 6♥ is pretty cold. But opps don't always follow Larry's rule and have 10 trumps between them to bid to 4♠ (and they don't always need them, particularly if they are green). Partner could have more points but:

♠ Qx ♥ AJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx

and we might not make 5♥.

This approach (separation by HCP) is a variant of what Hamman and Soloway do. Their 1♣ is 17+ HCP.

If there is no interference, the responses are:
1♦ = 0-7 HCP
1♥ = 8-11 HCP any shape
1♠ = 12+ without 5+ hearts or 5+ in a minor
1NT = 12+ with 5+ hearts
2m = 12+ with 5+ in bid minor
2♥ = 8-11 HCP, 4441 any
Higher responses show solid suits, broken suits, etc.

Over interference, they attempt to separate 8-11 HCP hands from 12+ HCP.

I.e. with game only hands (absent an exceptional fit), announce the strength not shape.

With 12+ HCP (i.e. slam is in the air with a fit or only a little more HCP from opener or responder), start showing shape. Sort of.