Major suit structure

[pclayton]

I think Harvey and I have settled on our major suit structure:

 

1♥ -

 

2♠ - Forcing Raise

2N = Natural, 13+

3♣ = Limit Raise with 4 trump

3♦ = Limit Raise with 3 trump (funny - he suggested it; I wrote about this about 2 years ago here. He mentioned that Garner / Weinstein play this too).

3♥ = Mixed with 4.

3N = preemptive with an outside trick.

 

My question is: what does responder do with a 4 card weak raise? xxx, Kxxx, x, xxxxx? A single raise? A 'tactical' 1♠ or SF 1N?

[mikeh]

I suggest that you need to go through 1N, not because that makes for a good sequence: it doesn't. It is a case, I think, of the lesser of two evils.

 

The sequence 1♥ 2♥ often finds opener with game try values opposite a normal response... not to mention the hands with game values opposite a normal response. If 2♥ can incorporate a garbage raise, then the partnership will be generating minus scores on hands on which your opponents, either at imps or your true opps at mps...those who hold this hand elsewhere... are going plus.

 

And if you counter that effect by holding back as opener, now you start missing games.

 

OTOH, the forcing 1N is a little easier to deal with on that angle, especially if you have a get out in 3♥ over a 2N rebid: which you should have... I suggest transfers by responder over 2N, thus 1♥ 1N 2N 3♦ 3♥ pass.

 

Opener tends to bid a little less aggressively over 1N, sicne he doesn't know of the fit as he does over the raise... so responder will often be able to preference over 2minor and play 2♥.

 

The major downside will be that 1N tends to allow the opps into the auction when the major suit raise, especially in ♠s, operates to preempt them.

 

I think it is close, but I have an aversion to adopting constructive methods that inherently generate a certain number of bad scores without the opponents doing anything, and I think the single raise approach does exactly that.

[Guest Jlall]

yeah thats your problem...not enough raises... lol.

 

In your structure 2H seems like the bid with the weak hand you gave.

[Guest Jlall]

I think it is close, but I have an aversion to adopting constructive methods that inherently generate a certain number of bad scores without the opponents doing anything, and I think the single raise approach does exactly that.

Well, perhaps the hand he posted is too strong because I would be happy to put down Kxxx and a stiff if I had gave a simple raise. With xxx Kxxx xxx xxx I would bid 1N though.

[MickyB]

I'd suggest stretching 3♣ a bit, with a 3♦ continuation as "min or max?". Ok, so it's not exactly scientific, but you don't have room for anything more. Now your suggested hand is a comfortable 3♥ bid IMO.

[Echognome]

I know this is going to be blasphemy to say, but I dislike playing 1M - 2N as 13+ balanced because it makes 1♥ and 1♠ asymmetric. You didn't put up your 1♠ scheme, so I'm not sure how you deal with this.

 

Furthermore, the 3♦ limit raise with 3 card support punishes partner for opening light (you will play 11 or 12 opposite 10 or 11 at the 3 level).

 

I much prefer a multi-way 2♣ bid showing one of (1) GF with 5+♣, (2) GF bal, or (3) a 3 card limit raise. Note, to comply with the acbl, you make all of the bids show 3+♣ and put your 3-card limit raise with 0-2♣ through your semi-forcing 1NT (which also makes that bid a touch more descriptive). And over 1♠ you will have to bid 2♦ with a 3=4=4=2 GF. Otherwise your 2/1s will be tightened up.

 

Anyway, that aside. Why do you separate out your GF raise with your limit raise? Can't you handle either with one bid?

 

Combining these two ideas frees up 3 bids (3♣, 3♦, and either 1♥-2N or 1♠-3♥) which you can use to show any of (1) a fit jump, (2) a mini splinter, (3) and invitational jump shift, or (4) a strong jump shift. I personally like either a mini-splinter taking pressure off your 3M raise or an IJS taking pressure off your semi-forcing NT.

[pclayton]

 

 

I know this is going to be blasphemy to say, but I dislike playing 1M - 2N as 13+ balanced because it makes 1♥ and 1♠ asymmetric.  You didn't put up your 1♠ scheme, so I'm not sure how you deal with this.

 

Its similar: 1♠ - 3♣ is FR, 1♠ - 3♦ is limit with 4; 1♠ - 3♥ is limit with 3.

 

Furthermore, the 3♦ limit raise with 3 card support punishes partner for opening light (you will play 11 or 12 opposite 10 or 11 at the 3 level).

 

We play a 12-14 NT, so this is mitigated a little. Many weak balanced with a 5 card major will open 1N. We looked at a 2 way 2♣ response, but this doesn't get the stamp of approval from the league, and it was giving partner heartburn.

 

Anyway, that aside.  Why do you separate out your GF raise with your limit raise?  Can't you handle either with one bid?

 

I agree, this is easy enough. However, pard likes the FR and LR split for simplicity sake.

 

Combining these two ideas frees up 3 bids (3♣, 3♦, and either 1♥-2N or 1♠-3♥) which you can use to show any of (1) a fit jump, (2) a mini splinter, (3) and invitational jump shift, or (4) a strong jump shift.  I personally like either a mini-splinter taking pressure off your 3M raise or an IJS taking pressure off your semi-forcing NT.

 

We dropped the IJS too, but we don't load it onto a semi-forcong NT (good god!). We are back to playing a soft 2/1. Not that much need to have fit jumps in an unobstructed sequence anyway.