1D-1H-2S

[andy_h]

1♦-1♥-2♠ (constructive bidding)

 

Has anyone played 2♠ as nat GF or 15+ 6+♦3♥ before?

If so, what were your continuations?

[Jlall]

IMO at least theoretically 1C p 1M p 2D, 1m p 1H p 2S, and ESPECIALLY 1H p 1N p 2S should CLEARLY be used in some artificial manner. In fact if I had a bridge blog this was one of my posts that I had on my "to write" list.

 

If I were to change "standard" this would be one of the things I'd definitely do, and obviously there are already schemes that do this.

 

I think your suggested use seems fine and better than standard, and many other schemes would be fine. GL sorting it all out.

[straube]

It's easier if you make 1D-1H, 1S forcing. Then you have no need to jump to show spades. It gives a lot of clarity to other auctions, but you might not feel it's worth it.

 

1D-1H,

.....2S-2N

..........3C-minors, GF

..........3D-diamonds, GF

................3H-six diamonds

..........3H-diamonds, three hearts, GF

.....3C-six diamonds, three hearts, GI

.....3D-six diamonds, less than three hearts, GI

 

this leaves out invitational minors which simply rebid 2C and hope to rebid 3C.

 

You can also be tricky and use the 3C bid to show six diamonds and GI+ but you risk ethical problems when partner hesitates before "signing off" in 3D and you have the GF hand.

 

The problem with this structures of this sort is that you can add so much complexity to every jump shift and reverse that you realize that you might as well play a strong club system.