[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-September-17, 08:29, said:

I might hunt up Fred's articles on an improved 2/1 just for the fun of it.

One of the things I learned through BBF is that Fred does not like the 2♣ method on hands like this and prefers a 2NT response over 1M to be natural and forcing, with 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ becoming the GF raise. Those that object to the 2♣ followed by hearts route should consider looking up some of his old posts and perhaps adopting such a method. It is if nothing else certainly an advantage when these hand types are kept separate.

[rmnka447]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

If you want the ability to distinguish between a 3 or 4 card raise with the flat hand, you could possibly use 4 ♣ as a relay with 4 ♦ showing one holding and 4 M showing the other.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-September-20, 16:07, said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

If you want the ability to distinguish between a 3 or 4 card raise with the flat hand, you could possibly use 4 ♣ as a relay with 4 ♦ showing one holding and 4 M showing the other.

It's been done in the past with unremarkable success. Pre-splinters there were also Swiss raises and the Blue Team 4C-4D convention. Suffice it to say the issue of more ways to raise a major has been around a long time.

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2017-September-20, 16:07, said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

It was mentioned implicitly in #9.

[dcrc2]

My preference is to bid this hand starting 1♥:2♣,2x:2NT. You wait until the third round to show support. This distinguishes it from 1♥:2♣,2x:3♥ which promises a genuine club suit.

[mathboy]

After partner opens 1M,you bid 3NT to show 13-15Hcps,balanced hand and 3 cards support.

[Winstonm]

mathboy, on 2017-September-22, 08:24, said:

After partner opens 1M,you bid 3NT to show 13-15Hcps,balanced hand and 3 cards support.

Are you allowed to bid 3NT with 5332 shape if the 5-card suit is weak? And then what do you do with opening NT hands with only 2-card support?

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2017-September-22, 08:50, said:

Are you allowed to bid 3NT with 5332 shape if the 5-card suit is weak? And then what do you do with opening NT hands with only 2-card support?

Is THAT a common usage for a 3NT response? Seems to leave very little room for investigation (if you mean a strong NT). If you preferred meaning I'd "to play", I think that you would be better off making this bid with minimum hands. or better yet, using it to show very specific raises, e.g. any void.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-22, 09:02, said:

Is THAT a common usage for a 3NT response? Seems to leave very little room for investigation (if you mean a strong NT). If you preferred meaning I'd "to play", I think that you would be better off making this bid with minimum hands. or better yet, using it to show very specific raises, e.g. any void.

Picture bids by their nature are quite specific. A weaker 3N bid is fine. The question really is whether or not 5332 shape qualifies, meaning, if it does, that a 2/1 with belated support can indicate a better secondary suit.

The original question still pertains: how do you distinguish KQx, Axx, xx, KJxxx from KQx, Axx, xxx, KJxx if you bid them both the same way? Do you think it is important to bid them differently?

[rhm]

kenberg, on 2017-September-16, 19:18, said:

But let us assume 2/1. Most everyone agrees that 1♠-2♥ shows five hearts. But after 1M-2m, choices have to be made.

I have played that bidding 1M-2♦ shows five diamonds. This is playable but then 1M-2♣ has to be a catchall. There is no choice. You can have the above hand after a 1♥ opening, and you could have a 3=4=4=2 shape after a 1♠ opening. You cannot rationally require that 1M-2m be based on five cards regardless of what m is.

I have also played, in fact I usually play, that 1M-2♦ can be on 4. This makes life easier, but sometimes you will wish it showed five.

I am not going to say which is best, I don't have a strong opinion on that. Even if you agree that 1M-2♦ can be on 4 you can still have an issue if you are 3=4=3=3 and partner opens 1♠.. You can cut down on the frequency by agreeing that 1♠-3NT shows a minimum hand, as game forces go, with exactly 3=4=3=3 distribution. I have never played that, but I can see the point.

Bidding agreements should be designed to differentiate hands so that the right contract can be reached.
This is done by using different bidding sequences.
Obviously the number of different hand types you can differentiate depends on the number of different sequences you have available.
In 2/1 game forcing the lowest contract after 2/1 is 3NT.
A little bidding theory can help here
The number of different sequences almost doubles with each additional step available.
So after 1M-2♣ there are almost twice as many hand types you can show than when the bidding starts 1M-2♦.
So why do we have problems differentiating club hands from balanced hands after 1M-2♣ (Only 2 hand types)?

The answer is simple: Standard bidding violates what Rubens has called the "useful space principle (USP) ".
For example after 1M - 2♣ bids being cheap should show frequent common hands and bids which use a lot of bidding space should be specific.
This maximizes the amount of information which can be exchanged. Relay system do this, but you need not play a relay system to accomplish this.

Standard bidding does not do this
For example after 1M-2♣ the cheapest bid is 2♦. But in standard this shows 4+ diamonds in openers hand. This requirement is quite specific and makes the bid rare, claiming that at least 50% of openers remaining cards are diamonds.
Nice when opener can rebid 2♦, but making the situation bad when he does not have 4+ diamonds.
More likely opener has a 5M332 distribution, with which most rebid either 2M or 2NT, which is less specific but uses more bidding space.
Simply inverting these 2 bids, say the meaning of 2NT and 2♦, after 1M-2♣ game forcing makes your system more efficient and gives responder room to show what he got.

So agreeing that 1M-2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and 1M-2♣ being unspecific with regard to clubs is the way to go, but you have to invest a little bit in your continuations. Standard bidding is not very efficient here.
I have dwelt on this in a bit more detail in a recent Bridgeworld article where I have made suggestions how to improve standard bidding in a 2/1 context.
It is not so important whether you like my suggestions, what is important is to realize that standard continuations are not optimal.

Rainer Herrmann

[Winstonm]

rhm, on 2017-September-27, 07:00, said:

Bidding agreements should be designed to differentiate hands so that the right contract can be reached.
This is done by using different bidding sequences.
Obviously the number of different hand types you can differentiate depends on the number of different sequences you have available.
In 2/1 game forcing the lowest contract after 2/1 is 3NT.
A little bidding theory can help here
The number of different sequences almost doubles with each additional step available.
So after 1M-2♣ there are almost twice as many hand types you can show than when the bidding starts 1M-2♦.
So why do we have problems differentiating club hands from balanced hands after 1M-2♣ (Only 2 hand types)?

The answer is simple: Standard bidding violates what Rubens has called the "useful space principle (USP) ".
For example after 1M - 2♣ bids being cheap should show frequent common hands and bids which use a lot of bidding space should be specific.
This maximizes the amount of information which can be exchanged. Relay system do this, but you need not play a relay system to accomplish this.

Standard bidding does not do this
For example after 1M-2♣ the cheapest bid is 2♦. But in standard this shows 4+ diamonds in openers hand. This requirement is quite specific and makes the bid rare, claiming that at least 50% of openers remaining cards are diamonds.
Nice when opener can rebid 2♦, but making the situation bad when he does not have 4+ diamonds.
More likely opener has a 5M332 distribution, with which most rebid either 2M or 2NT, which is less specific but uses more bidding space.
Simply inverting these 2 bids, say the meaning of 2NT and 2♦, after 1M-2♣ game forcing makes your system more efficient and gives responder room to show what he got.

So agreeing that 1M-2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and 1M-2♣ being unspecific with regard to clubs is the way to go, but you have to invest a little bit in your continuations. Standard bidding is not very efficient here.
I have dwelt on this in a bit more detail in a recent Bridgeworld article where I have made suggestions how to improve standard bidding in a 2/1 context.
It is not so important whether you like my suggestions, what is important is to realize that standard continuations are not optimal.

Rainer Herrmann

Your point is good. One problem I have had (which may be my bias) with relay systems is that by their nature they assign captaincy when I learned to bid as a cooperative exchange of information.

[nige1]

Duplicate deleted.

[Cthulhu D]

So question:

Is the assumption you need more forcing major raises rather than more major raises correct? The other way of looking at it is to make one highly descriptive bid.

This maximises pressure on the opponents and gives your partner sufficient information.

Rhm's useful space information point is very good though imho. The other advantage of devoting the more expensive bids to a plethora of ways to raise (forcing and not forcing) is it maximises the useful space principle - once you've agreed a fit you have substantially less need for information exchange as you only need to agree level not strain. And if you can squeeze in more level information with the raise, you may need to exchange very little information indeed.