stronger than 3M

[hanp]

Some pairs here play that

 

1C - 1H

3D

 

and

 

1m - 1S

3H

 

are not splinters but stronger raises than 3M. Do you think this is a superior treatment?

[helene_t]

Yes I think so.

 

It is good to have a forcing raise. A number of hands can't splinter, and it's impractical to have to leap to game with all of them. I think using the cheapest available bid as the onmibus GF raise is in accordance with the useful space principle.

[gwnn]

it doesn't really cover this topic but why wouldn't I link to another thread

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36326

[ArtK78]

I play the jump reverse as an either-or splinter - either a mini splinter (invitational values) or a maxi-splinter - too strong for a game forcing splinter (which would be a jump to 4 of the short suit).

 

You could add the balanced strong raise to this structure quite easily. Over the jump reverse responder signs off on a hand where he would not bid game opposite the mini-splinter. Otherwise, responder bids the strain one above 3 of the major as a tell-me-more bid. With hearts as the trump suit, opener bids 3NT on the strong balanced raise over 3♠ and with spades as the trump suit, opener bids 4♣ over 3NT. With the maxi-splinter, opener bids something else.

 

Over the sign-off by opener, responder bids 3NT with the strong balanced raise and anything else with the maxi-splinter.

 

I have not used this method, as I had not considered it until I saw this thread. But it seems playable. Why give up the splinter meaning to the jump reverse if you don't have to?

[Fluffy]

If you fail to play 2NT GF rebid I guess it makes sense.

[gnasher]

Do you think this is a superior treatment?

Yes.

 

I think mini-splinters are counterproductive anyway. I played them for ages, and I can't remember ever bidding a good game or staying out of a bad game as a result. All they do is help the opening leader.

 

I sometimes play these bids as game-forcing splinters, which works quite well - the extra round of bidding can be helpful if you have a slam on. Other possibilities are:

- game-forcing one-suiter

- game-forcing 6-3

 

If you do give up the mini-splinters, you should probably play 1m-1M;3M-[3M+1] as a shortage ask.

[Finch]

Before I played transfer responses, I played 1C - 1M - 3D as 18-19 balanced with 4-card support which I found very useful.

[karlson]

I think it's probably good to have a separate way to show a shapely 3M bid and an 18-19 balanced 3M bid. I've never found myself wanting three raises below 3M though.

[karlson]

Before I played transfer responses, I played 1C - 1M - 3D as 18-19 balanced with 4-card support which I found very useful.

What do you do when you do play transfers? 2n showing a bunch of different raises?

[CSGibson]

Warning - threadjacking

 

One of my partners and I play the following (in the context of intermediate 2 bids, approximately 9-14):

 

1C-1H, 2D is either:

1). A bad raise to 2 hearts, something like Qxxx QJxx K KQxx or

2). A game forcing raise of hearts or

3). A natural reverse

 

direct raises to 2 hearts are good raises (something in the line of a strong NT, or distributional equivalent), and jumps to 3 hearts are 18-19 balanced hands, or the distributional equivalent

 

Responer deals with the multiple-meaning 2 diamond bid by assuming it's a weak raise with a hand that is not game forcing opposite a weak raise, and rebidding 2 hearts, or assuming that the reverse is a true reverse, bidding accordingly, with a game-forcing hand.

 

We play the same methodology over 1C/1D-1S, 2H, and also 1D-1H, 2D, with the caveat that the 2 diamond bid is either one of the heart raises, or playing strength equivalent of 15-18 with 6+ diamonds (a normal jump to 3 diamonds), with the jump to 3 diamonds being a natural game force, but without a solid diamond suit.

 

The advantages of the methodology is that we rarely get too high on invitational hands. Playing 2 of a major with a combined 23 HCP and without compensating shape is rarely bad for us, and we get to open a bit lighter because of our ability to sort through the gradations of a hand so thoroughly. Additionally, we always have a level to cue-bid; there are never jumps to 4 of a major.

 

I see less of an advantage in the methodology you described, though. You can always stop short of game, true enough, but what's the point of playing at the 3 level anyway? It's a small target at imps. A better use is to define your hands more accurately for slam bidding, which, though low frequency, are often the swingiest hands.

[PhantomSac]

Seems good

[jdonn]

I don't care for treatments like this, though there are sometimes close decisions of course I think deciding whether to go on after 1m 1M 4M or what to do after I go on are among the least of my problems.

[whereagles]

Yes I think so.

 

It is good to have a forcing raise. A number of hands can't splinter, and it's impractical to have to leap to game with all of them. I think using the cheapest available bid as the onmibus GF raise is in accordance with the useful space principle.

totally logical, though not very mnemonical, Doctress Helene :D

[Finch]

Before I played transfer responses, I played 1C - 1M - 3D as 18-19 balanced with 4-card support which I found very useful.

What do you do when you do play transfers? 2n showing a bunch of different raises?

Yes, 2NT is either game forcing in clubs or various raises.

[PhantomSac]

I don't care for treatments like this, though there are sometimes close decisions of course I think deciding whether to go on after 1m 1M 4M or what to do after I go on are among the least of my problems.

I think the goal of this would be to differentiate between an unbal 14 and a bal 18, presumably you usually bid 3M with both types.

 

To me it is similar to weak NTers saying they can bid accurately over 1m 1M 2M when it could be a bal 16 or an unbal 11, they are not equivalent imo and seperating them would be useful.

[jdonn]

Did I misunderstand? I thought the jump reverse showed a game force with support in this suggestion.

[PhantomSac]

Did I misunderstand? I thought the jump reverse showed a game force with support in this suggestion.

Maybe you're right, I was goin with karlson heh. I thought stronger implied strong balanced rather than weak unbal, with strong unbal still splintering.

[jdonn]

Did I misunderstand? I thought the jump reverse showed a game force with support in this suggestion.

Maybe you're right, I was goin with karlson heh. I thought stronger implied strong balanced rather than weak unbal, with strong unbal still splintering.

Even in that case it seems sort of a wash (and definitely worse after 1♣ 1♠). Like 1♦ 1♠ -

Mini splinters: 3♥ is unbal with short hearts, 3♠ is unbal with short clubs or bal.

Suggestion: 3♥ is bal, 3♠ is unbal with short hearts or with short clubs.

[PhantomSac]

Did I misunderstand? I thought the jump reverse showed a game force with support in this suggestion.

Maybe you're right, I was goin with karlson heh. I thought stronger implied strong balanced rather than weak unbal, with strong unbal still splintering.

Even in that case it seems sort of a wash (and definitely worse after 1♣ 1♠). Like 1♦ 1♠ -

Mini splinters: 3♥ is unbal with short hearts, 3♠ is unbal with short clubs or bal.

Suggestion: 3♥ is bal, 3♠ is unbal with short hearts or with short clubs.

Yeah I don't think that is a wash, I think knowing whether partner is balanced with an ace more in HCP is way more useful than knowing which shortness partner has half the time and being in the dark the other way.

[Double !]

A few years ago, Karen Walker wrote a set of articles for the ACBL Bulletin about using a jump-reverse to show a weak 5-6 hand (I guess to allow one to bid a 5-6 naturally without promising extra values in terms of hcps). I've never played this way with anyone. I am curious. Does anyone actually play this treatment? If yes, what is/ are your opinion(s) and experience(s) with the weak 5-6 method?

 

DHL

[whereagles]

I've seen some good pairs using jump-reverses as weak 6-5.

 

Works great... if you have a fit. Else = -1100. For starters.

[gnasher]

Yeah I don't think that is a wash, I think knowing whether partner is balanced with an ace more in HCP is way more useful than knowing which shortness partner has half the time and being in the dark the other way.

Are you saying that you want to know this in order to judge whether to bid game? If so, can you give an exmaple of a hand where you'd bid differently opposite 18-19 balanced than oposite an unbalanced invitation?