BBO Discussion Forums: Major suit raises - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Major suit raises Structure in a 2/1 system where 2C=balanced/natural

#21 User is offline   Bende 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 2007-January-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-May-01, 14:18

View PostZelandakh, on 2016-May-01, 12:45, said:

In the OP, you had 3M-1 as mixed. Any reason why you have decided to change that? it seems like a sensible usage to me!


I guess I am not sure of the usefulness of the preemptive raise when second hand passed. That's why I moved the mixed raise to 1M-3M. I suppose I could bring it in again. That would form this structure:

1M-
2M+1 = 4 card support, INV, any SPL
2M+2 = 4+ support, GF
2M+3 = 4 card support, INV or min/GF
2M+4 = mixed
3M = PRE
0

#22 User is offline   Bende 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 2007-January-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-May-03, 09:01

Another option would be to ditch the preemptive opening in favor of having BOTH the INV hands with a side suit and with a splinter. Something like:

2M+1 = 4-card support, INV, side suit; next step asks
2M+2 = 4+support, GF
3M-2 = 4+support, INV or min GF
3M-1 = 4-card support, INV, any SPL; 3M+1 asks
3M = mixed

Opener can then only stop below game after asking about the side suit, not about the splinter. This feels like a bit too many bids with invitational hands to me. They would also overlap as I suppose you can have four card support with both a side suit and a splinter, even if those hands would probably be unlikely to accept stopping below game.
0

#23 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,920
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2016-May-03, 09:18

View PostBende, on 2016-May-03, 09:01, said:

Another option would be to ditch the preemptive opening in favor of having BOTH the INV hands with a side suit and with a splinter. Something like:

You cannot do this and obtain the information as to the suit/shortage below 3M, which is the point. Well you can but you have to give up too much to do so if you only have calls above 2M to work with. For example, in your suggested structure Opener only finds out about Responder's shortage after committing to game, which is too late to use the information in making an informed choice.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#24 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,512
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2016-May-04, 05:48

View PostBende, on 2016-May-03, 09:01, said:

Opener can then only stop below game after asking about the side suit, not about the splinter. This feels like a bit too many bids with invitational hands to me. They would also overlap as I suppose you can have four card support with both a side suit and a splinter, even if those hands would probably be unlikely to accept stopping below game.

My feeling is that showing a shortage is more useful than showing a side suit. Yes, you are likely to have both, but if you want to bid this with weaker hands that may stop in 3M, then your side suit will not be strong nor solid enough for opener to rely on for running tricks. So why bother with the side suit? Knowledge of the shortage is more useful.

You could swap those meanings. If you did, then your side suit showing 3M-1 would have stronger hands, as it is GF, presumably with some agreed solidity in the suit. But now there is no point in using 3M-1 for a GF bid that gives wasted space : 3M+1 is sufficient. This means that you now have 3M-1 spare.

You may care to use this as the strong splinter in that suit. This allows you utilise the next step up as a relay to find out whether singleton or void, useful for interpreting later ace asking, which you cannot do after 1M 4M-1.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users