idle curiosity

[Codo]

I do not agree that the merits of inv. minor can include a 4 card major do outscore the downsides.

 

As an extension to Han`s example:

1 ♦ 2 ♦ 2♥ 3 ♥.

 

Now you are on the third level, responder does not know whether they have a real heart fit and how strong partner is. Opener does not know how strong partner is either. Responder is still unlimited.

[Cascade]

I do not agree that the merits of inv. minor can include a 4 card major do outscore the downsides.

 

As an extension to Han`s example:

1 ♦ 2 ♦ 2♥ 3 ♥.

 

Now you are on the third level, responder does not know whether they have a real heart fit and how strong partner is. Opener does not know how strong partner is either. Responder is still unlimited.

Isn't this conclusion very much dependent on what 2♥ means. If it shows four then we have a fit. And if responder's raise is limited (or opener's 2♥) then we know the range.

[Codo]

Isn't this conclusion very much dependent on what 2♥ means. If it shows four then we have a fit. And if responder's raise is limited (or opener's 2♥) then we know the range.

And you think it is an improvement to play that 2 M shows exactly four?

Then of course you can never show something like stoppers.

 

And you think 2 ♥ should be limited? Fair enough. Obviously then 3 ♥ must show another possible range and cannot be used for other purposes like controls or splinters.

 

Maybe it is possible to overcome all problems, but....

 

 

And about the raise: OF course, IF 2 ♥ shows four, then the raise is limited. But in Han`sexample 2 ♥ did not show four at all.....

[gwnn]

In some partnerships it might also depend what system I'm playing.

?! in some partnerships it does not depend on what system you're playing?

[gnasher]

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

 

  1m-2m

  <2M on a 3-card suit>

 

and this was necessary to get to the right contract? That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

 

  1m-2m

  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

[JLOGIC]

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

 

  1m-2m

  <2M on a 3-card suit>

 

and this was necessary to get to the right contract? That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

 

  1m-2m

  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

BUT YOU MUST SHOW THE STOPPERZ!!!111

[nige1]

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

  1m-2m

  <2M on a 3-card suit>

and this was necessary to get to the right contract?  That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

  1m-2m

  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

[hv=d=w&w=sxxhqjxdakxxckxxx&e=sxxxhaktxdqjxxcqj]266|100|

1♦ - 2♦ -

2♥!? - 4♥

This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.[/hv]

[gnasher]

This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.

I was really hoping for a response from someone who thinks that 1♦-2♦ should deny a four-card major, since these are also, I believe, the people who want to be able to use 1♦-2♦;2M to show stoppers.

[Codo]

Okay I bite:

 

Axx KQx

xx xx

AKxx Qxxxx

Qxxx Akx

 

1 ♦ 2 ♦

2 ♠ 3♣

3 ♦ 5 ♦

 

You play 3 NT, don't you?

 

But btw, can someone show me a hand where it was madatory to show the fit first and the major later? From real life would be nicest, but I take constructed hands too....

[Free]

Can anyone show me a real hand where the auction started

  1m-2m

  <2M on a 3-card suit>

and this was necessary to get to the right contract?  That is, you couldn't have got to the same contract by starting

  1m-2m

  <something that shows 12-14 balanced without a major>

[hv=w=sxxhqjxdakxxckxxx&e=sxxxhaktxdqjxxcqj]266|100|

1♦ - 2♦ -

2♥!? - 4♥

This may not really answer Gnasher's question (and I rarely rebid 2♥ on a three-card suit) but I suppose you can construct deals where the Moysian fit provides the best practical chance of game.[/hv]

If you raise on 3 card suits with a good reason (small doubleton ♠ here) you don't have any problem with finding the moysian game.

 

Basically, IF the moysian is better than 3NT, you'll have a reason to support 1M on a 3 card suit. So there's no need to bid 2♦ with a 4 card M to find the moysian later on imo.

[gnasher]

Okay I bite:

 

Axx KQx

xx xx

AKxx Qxxxx

Qxxx Akx

 

1 ♦ 2 ♦

2 ♠ 3♣

3 ♦ 5 ♦

 

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

 

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♦-3♠

4♦-5♦

 

or

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♠-5♦

[bluecalm]

2♦ in poilsh club (where 1♦ is 5+ unless 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors).

2♣ in my preferred system (precision).

 

I don't much care about stops. If two balanced hands meet I am happy to bash 3NT and hope.

[jdonn]

Maybe that's good but I think it requires some discussion. Say I open 1D, partner raises to 2D. Now I have 2-3-4-4 shape with 2 small spades and a 14-count, so I bid 2H. Partner raises to 3H, showing 4. Partner is aware that I don't have to have 4 hearts, but what do I bid? If I bid 3S, does that show a stopper, ask for a stopper, is a cuebid? What if this happens with spades, am I supposed to bid 3NT since I already denied spade values and make sure I wrongside diamonds, spades and notrumps?

 

If they opponents bid 3S next, are we really better of having shown 4 diamonds than having shown 4 hearts? If we are 4-4, I would rather show my major. If we have an unbalanced hadn with 5+ diamonds, ok it could be good then.

Obviously if you allow 4 card majors, then opener's 2♥/2♠ bids over the raise are natural (unless you want to play something artificial ie 2♥ min balanced etc) and balanced hands are balanced hands are balanced hands.

 

But my argument for this method isn't because I anticipate bidding on my left and want to show diamonds. It's because I can describe my hand well, and make the suit lengths less ambiguous when it goes 1m, 1M, blah, gf, blah, 3m since that shows 5+ in the major (sorry I mis-thought in my earlier post when I said the raise should be 4-5+, it should be 4-4+).

[Cascade]

Okay I bite:

 

Axx     KQx

xx       xx

AKxx  Qxxxx

Qxxx  Akx

 

1 ♦ 2 ♦

2 ♠ 3♣

3 ♦ 5 ♦

 

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

 

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♦-3♠

4♦-5♦

 

or

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♠-5♦

So more interesting would be a hand where 3NT makes from responder's hand but not declarer's. Which can be constructed by adding the ♥K to responder's hand and putting the ace over the king.

 

In practice it is rare where

 

1. We have 11 tricks in 5m

2. We have fewer than 9 tricks in 3NT

3. Both hands are balanced (no singletons)

 

and even rarer if we have flexibility about right siding the no trumps.

 

And there is also the additional possibility on a less informative auction that the opponents will not find the killing lead against 3NT.

[Codo]

Okay I bite:

 

Axx    KQx

xx      xx

AKxx  Qxxxx

Qxxx  Akx

 

1 ♦ 2 ♦

2 ♠ 3♣

3 ♦ 5 ♦

 

You play 3 NT, don't you?

That's a real-life hand, is it?

 

If the partnership wanted to investigate stops before bidding 3NT, it could bid

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♦-3♠

4♦-5♦

 

or

 

1♦-2♦

2NT-3♣

3♠-5♦

Fair enough, unluckily they do not have the space to ask if they have Qx oppsite Jxx :(

 

Maybe I asked the wrong question: On which hands do you win with your approach. Where do you think it is better to find the diamond fit before you find the major fit?

[gnasher]

Maybe I asked the wrong question: On which hands do you win with your approach.  Where do you think it is better to find the diamond fit before you find the major fit?

I wasn't particularly arguing for allowing a major in 1♦-2♦. Mainly I was disagreeing with the assumption that it's important to be able to show stops over 2♦.

[nige1]

Maybe I asked the wrong question: On which hands do you win with your approach.  Where do you think it is better to find the diamond fit before you find the major fit?

I wasn't particularly arguing for allowing a major in 1♦-2♦.  Mainly I was disagreeing with the assumption that it's important to be able to show stops over 2♦.

IMO Gnasher hints at the main argument for allowing an inverted minor raise to include a 4 card major.

• 1m - 1M sequences cover a variety of hands that need exploration whereas
  
• 1m - 2m sequences have spare capacity that you may as well exploit. Furthermore
  
• Support with support is a maxim worth considering.
  

[jdonn]

Maybe I asked the wrong question: On which hands do you win with your approach.  Where do you think it is better to find the diamond fit before you find the major fit?

Suppose it goes, with you (and most people including me most of the time, unfortunately) as responder,

 

1♦ 1♠

2♣ 2♥

2♠ 3♦

 

You have shown a game force with 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds, I have shown a game force with 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds. I think that makes things quite a bit easier although I'm not going to bother constructing an entire hand. There are many such auctions like this, another being

 

1♣ 1♥

1NT 2♦ (game force)

2♥ 3♣

 

I don't think most of the gain comes from showing a minor suit fit before a major suit fit, I think it comes from clarifying that if responder has a game force with support for the minor on all auctions like this, he promises 5+ of his major.

 

I also think something seems very natural about it. When you have 4 spades and 5 clubs and a game force and partner opens 1♦, you show clubs then spades. Why should it be less important to show clubs first when partner actually opens in clubs! It actually seems silly that most people are more interested in showing the minor partner didn't open first than they are in showing the minor he did open.

[gordontd]

I played that inverted minor raises could contain a four-card major with one partner. This was in the context of a weak-NT system, so a 2NT rebid was forcing.

 

Following from this was:

 

1m-2m-2M showed an unbalanced hand

 

1m-2m-2NT showed a balanced 15+ and could contain a 4cM

 

1m-2m-2NT-3m asked for 4cM

 

After 1m-1M any invitational+ preference to the minor showed a 5cM with four-card minor support.