Response to partners major

[firmit]

Got this idea from a friend. Please comment

 

1m - 1♠

2♥*

 

1) reverse or,

2) 4♠ invitational support, and singel ♥ or unbid minor!

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 2♠

- 2NT 2-4-5-2

- 3♣! singel ♣, 3♠ support : 3-4-5-1

- 3♦ true reverse : 1-4-5-3

- 3♥ 6♦ + 5♥

- 3♠ 4♠ support, singel ♥ , NF : 4-1-4-4/4-1-5-3

 

added and edited!!

- 4♦ 4♥ + HHxxxx ♦ , 1462

 

1♦ - 1♠

4♦ is 4♠ + 6♦ HHxxxx

 

Does this have merit?

 

added:

this also allows for 1♦-1♠-3♥ to show a balanced 18-19hp 4c spades, given this bid is no longer used as GI splinter

[ArtK78]

Without going into a deep analysis of the structure, I can say that it has merit. You lose next to nothing and add a great deal.

 

I assume that 1♦-1♠-4♠ is a distributional game raise, since you are using 1♦-1♠-3♥ to show a balanced game raise based on HCP.

[mikeh]

I don't like it.

 

I think you are impairing the accuracy of your bidding over reverses (more on this below) in order to address a problem that is not much of a problem at all.

 

Consider: if the minor is clubs, we have 3♦ and 3♥ available to use as invitational or better splinters. Responder signs off with no interest, and opener bids again with gf values. Otherwise responder makes a forward move... bidding game with no slam interest opposite a gf splinter but enough to accept an invite and otherwise either cuing or bidding 3N (artificial... I can suggest developments but this is an easy area to deal with)

 

If the minor is diamonds, again we have no issue with jumping to 3♥ as invitational plus. In fact, in my preferred methods, 3♥ is an unspecified round suit splinter, with invitational or better values. Responder uses 3N to ask which splinter (again, the availability of the entire 4 level allows for tweaking of the responses.. if responder has values to accept an invitational bid and opener has gf, then there is usually adequate room to explore for slam.

 

And in the context of a strong notrump method, the sequence 1♦   1♠  3♠ strongly suggests no more than a doubleton club or a bad 18 count. So even if you don't load up the 3♥ splinter as including clubs, you are not losing a lot.

 

In the meantime, you are forced to use 2N as a waiting response to the reverse, because responder has little idea of opener's hand type: the two possibilities (reverse perhaps with no fit, or invitational hand with fit) are so disparate, that a natural bid by responder may leave opener unable to clarify adequately (if responder bids, say, 3♦, does 3♠ show a real reverse with 3=4=5=1 or an invitational hand with 4♠s? And so on.

 

And if you push a lot of hands into the 2N catchall, you lose the utility of that bid as a lebensohl-type (or Ingberman) signoff.

 

Finally, and a minor point that I suspect you just overlooked in your post: your scheme of responses ignores opener holding 4=6 in the reds.... you have the 3♦/2N as showing 1=4=5=3. How does opener rebid with 2=4=6=1, or 1=4=6=2?

[ArtK78]

Just a thought.

 

As with all multi-meaning bids, they are subject to preemption. Suppose the bidding goes 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♥. Normally, one would not expect the second-hand opponent to spring to life at this point in the auction. But if he does, it could cause you all sorts of problems.

[jdonn]

Just a thought.

 

As with all multi-meaning bids, they are subject to preemption. Suppose the bidding goes 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♥. Normally, one would not expect the second-hand opponent to spring to life at this point in the auction. But if he does, it could cause you all sorts of problems.

That really isn't the issue. It's that responder completely loses a round of bidding to describe his hand since he has to make a meaningless relay bid, and all for a gain that frankly to me seems rather negligible.

 

It does have merit, as does almost every convention ever invented. But it has relatively little merit compared to the great losses, IMO.

 

Also Mike is right. Whatever happened to 4-6?

[firmit]

Also Mike is right. Whatever happened to 4-6?

I'm afraid I mislead you on the original post - with the 4-6 hand - original post will be edited to:

1♦-1♠

2♥-2♠

4♦ is of course 4-6 in the reds

 

and

1♦-1♠

4♦ is 4♠ and 6♦ with HHxxxx

[mikeh]

Also Mike is right. Whatever happened to 4-6?

I'm afraid I mislead you on the original post - with the 4-6 hand - original post will be edited to:

1♦-1♠

2♥-2♠

4♦ is of course 4-6 in the reds

 

and

1♦-1♠

4♦ is 4♠ and 6♦ with HHxxxx

This is worse than I thought:

 

1♦  1♠

2♥  

 

Responder has to cater to 4 card support. Yet he also has to cater to a reverse.

 

Is he really supposed to rebid 2♠ on a 4 card suit? How on earth is he to describe his hand intelligently to partner if partner has a reverse? How can opener ever have a clue as to his spade length? Surely spades may still be the right denomination even when opener has only 2... or even, sometimes.. a stiff? Yet, if 2♠ is silent as to length, the subsequent clarification of spades as a trump suit is almost impossible when opener lacks a big fit.

 

And the idea of having to jump to 4♦ over 2♠, with no fit and a x=4=6=y hand makes me feel physically ill.

 

This whole thing strikes me as having begun as a 'bright' idea in response to one particular hand, with it being elaborated upon without regard to its costs and defects... which unfortunately is what happens to a lot of bright thoughts occasioned by a bad result.

 

Don't take it personally: in my younger days, I had a tendency towards this kind of invention myself B)

[jdonn]

Also Mike is right. Whatever happened to 4-6?

I'm afraid I mislead you on the original post - with the 4-6 hand - original post will be edited to:

1♦-1♠

2♥-2♠

4♦ is of course 4-6 in the reds

We can't play 3NT any more?? Or 3♦?? No thank you!

[firmit]

Well - I thought it was clear that responders showed 5c+ when he rebids spades. [2SP] is not a relay merely the strongest 5c+ bid responder can show.

1♦-1♠

2♥-

-- 2♠ 5+♠ RF ( it is this outline the post focuses on )

-- 2NT 4 ♠ RF

-- 3♣ minimum 5♠

-- 3♦ minimum 4♠ NF

-- 3♥ GF natural

-- 3♠ GF can play against a singelton

 

but - it is probably a waste of energy

[firmit]

Don't take it personally: in my younger days, I had a tendency towards this kind of invention myself :)

;)

 

like I said in the beginning - I got this from a friend, but I am getting tired of defending it. I just wanted some constructive feedback, which I have received - no doubt.

[SoTired]

wow - a random guy presents an interesting and complex treatment and has it analyzed for usefulness by several strong players.

 

I am impressed with this forum.

[benlessard]

For us its a bit different because our 1D is unbalanced but.

 

1D-----1S

???

 

1Nt= clubs

2C= 6D or reverse D+H

2D = D + H not reverse strenght.

2H = raise minimum or GF

2S = raise 15-17

 

And we are very satisfied.

 

To be able to invite and stop at 2S is so important imho.

To be able to raise and make another bid (splinter, void or strong primary suit) is great.

 

Its make sense to sacrify some of hte H reverse to get more raises.

 

in standard structure something like

 

1D----1S

 

1nt,2c,2d natural.

 

 

2H= S raise,minimum or GF. or 18-19 bal.

2S= S raise 15-17

2Nt= H reverse

 

surely make sense in my book.

 

 

 

one of the strong point is that since we dont need game try.

 

1D------1S

2H------- anything else then 2S become a slam try. except 4S or 3Nt

 

1D------1S

2S------anything else then pass is a slam try except 4S or 3Nt

[rbforster]

For us its a bit different because our 1D is unbalanced but.

 

1D-----1S

???

 

1Nt= clubs

2C= 6D or reverse D+H

2D = D + H not reverse strenght.

2H = raise minimum or GF

2S = raise 15-17

 

And we are very satisfied.

I like this setup, but I think the main reason it works is because your 1♦ opening is unbalanced. Otherwise, you give up a lot by not having a common and natural 1NT rebid after 1♦-1♠. Although it might still be right to offer 1NT with an appropriate unbalanced hand (1444, 14(53), 13(54)) with the understanding that partner knows you're unbalanced with short spades, I can certainly see the advantages of the transfer methods in terms of constructive bidding.