[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-November-03, 04:31, said:

Not exactly. GF hands with fit will almost always 2/1, but bidding a natural 5 card red suit whenever possible, otherwise 2♣.
The 2NT raise is nominally invitational in absence of interference, although it can be used by slightly stronger hands: opener can check back to discover length of fit and shortage if she so wishes.
Many Italians play a similar scheme but with 2NT always 4 card and some alternative for a 3 card invite. I tried it and was underwhelmed.

I don't find it a great loss that Opener with 5 cards may not know about 4 card fit. Responder knows and more often than not will be making the final decision because in possession of more information. Like all elements of uncertainty, it's also a problem for the opponents.

It's a good thing to keep the opponents in the dark—although at my level, it is perhaps a moot point.
I have yet to be convinced that it is good to keep partner in the dark.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 07:29, said:

It's a good thing to keep the opponents in the dark—although at my level, it is perhaps a moot point.
I have yet to be convinced that it is good to keep partner in the dark.

I think it is bad, as I commented initially. But also usually inconsequential (say it might damage 1% of the slam investigations when Responder has a fit for the 1M opening, the other 99% either Responder will be deciding or it made no real difference to Opener or he guessed right) and certainly not worth dedicating an artificial bid to resolve.

If I were to introduce another major raise in the system, it would be to obtain more detail about raises below invitational, which is an issue in tens of boards per week, not one board a month.

[jillybean]

I would be interested in trying it, and one partner would be willing. However, I am still trying to convince my other partners that 2♣/1M is a good approach. Getting them to give up Jacoby 2NT would be a miracle.

What more detail do you need after 1M 1NT 2m 2M?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 08:11, said:

Getting them to give up Jacoby 2NT would be a miracle.

Much like getting Italians to give up rebidding 1M after 1m 1Y when they are balanced
But both will happen over time.

 jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 08:11, said:

What more detail do you need after 1M 1NT 2m 2M?

The detail of being able to pass a 1NT response with a minimum 5332.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-November-03, 07:18, said:

Correct, although we respond 2/1 (clubs only if no red 5 card). There is no obvious need to show support immediately if we have game force values and the system does not offer this option (splinters and fast arrival aside). I suspect that will come to be considered standard if it is not already.

Not immediately supporting with support would certainly be radical change. Hiding your support would certainly be a different approach.

I had no idea hiding your support is considered standard....

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2026-November-03, 09:57, said:

Not immediately supporting with support would certainly be radical change. Hiding your support would certainly be a different approach.

I had no idea hiding your support is considered standard....

Not only is it not standard, but it’s imo a very, very bad idea. Ask yourself this question: do you think your hand evaluation improves or gets worse when partner announces a good fit for your opening suit?

I do t mean that one should never show a good side suit, while creating a force, with support. For example, I’d respond 2D to 1S with, say, Kxxx x AKJxxx Ax because later on I want partner to value the diamond Queen.