4cM poll :)

[gwnn]

Does your favourite 4cM system involve:

 

-weak NT?

-natural NF single raises of minors?

-opening the major from 4M4m?

(restrictions: not strong/polish club, not canapé, not possibly mini NT)

 

Please choose the corresponding bits from the poll.

 

010 would mean that your favourite 4cM system involves strong NT std minor raises and you open a minor from 4-4

 

If you feel compelled to convince me that 5- (or 3-) card majors are superior, please use hidden text or PM, don't hijack this thread.

[JLOGIC]

JAMES BOND

[NickRW]

Er, if weak NT, inverted minors and open the major by preference is 101, then I voted for what I intended.

 

Think it is fine for MP - not so in love with it for IMPs these days however.

 

Nick

[wyman]

JAMES BOND

I thought you meant 007, which would be 111 in binary, but then i looked and saw you meant choice 001 and I :lol: 'd

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

Played a lot of Blue Team many years ago. 13-17NT, but system rules resulted in the bid normally showing 15-17.

 

Not as much time playing Acol, however, we had lots of fun bidding 'what you think that you can make.'

 

Played a little bit of Forcing Pass Canape using 4 card majors. 10-12NT

 

Regards,

Robert

[wank]

i can't see the point of agreeing to play a 4 card major system if you don't open them as much as possible which suggests a strong NT and majors over minors. this has the added advantage that you don't get the problem 1M - 2M sequence where opener's got a flat 16 count with 4M and doesn't know whether to make a try or not.

[Siegmund]

I protest the conditions. If I play a 4CM system it is almost surely going to involve a polish style club and some amount of canape :lol:

 

I did attempt to cast a vote under the intended conditions, but they arent conditions I've ever actually played under.

[awm]

While playing 4-card majors gives you a slight advantage on minor suit openings by making them a bit more defined, this doesn't seem particularly significant since you're usually looking for a major suit fit anyway. If you're going to play 4-card majors, it seems like you should be expecting to gain on the 1M opening bids.

 

Obviously when you actually have a five-card major, playing five-card majors is better (usually it helps in competitive sequences, and in slam auctions where there are fewer hand types to sort). Opening a very occasional 4-card major will probably cost you (in that partner can no longer assume five) more than it helps. So for 4-card majors to really make sense, I think you have to try to open 4-card majors a lot. You figure to win by preempting the opponents more, having less informative auctions, and getting to play good 4-3 major fits at the two-level. It's certainly believable that this compensates you for the disadvantages on five-card major hands.

 

This suggests playing strong notrump and opening 1M whenever you have four decent ones (i.e. usually but not always 1M on 4M-4m hands). Since 1m now promises at least a four-card suit (and if only four, will not have a decent 4cM so usually a good four-card suit) it also suggests raising to 2m often and avoiding inverted raises. This looks like 011 to me on the chart.

[JLOGIC]

Since 1m now promises at least a four-card suit (and if only four, will not have a decent 4cM so usually a good four-card suit) it also suggests raising to 2m often and avoiding inverted raises.

You lost me here, liked the rest!

[Free]

I only play 4 card Majors in a strong ♣ context (and possible canapé), so I have to abstain :(

[gwnn]

At the moment we have

 

14-11 in favour of strong NT

14-11 in favour of forcing minor raises

15-10 in favour of opening the major from 44 with a minor

 

not very convincing either way. the most likely scenario is that people voted randomly. :(

 

I was thinking of including "raise a major almost whenever you have 3+" as a fourth bit, but then I thought it's pretty much universal?

[MickyB]

I make it 14-11 in favour of weak NT, and 17-8 in favour of opening the major. I haven't bothered counting the INV minors bit 'cos I don't really care.

 

The 11 strong NT voters are 9-2 in favour of opening the major.

[gwnn]

right. my maths are not very good.

[Pict]

I wouldn't make a case for a simple Acol as a system of choice for serious players.

 

However, the supposed problem of opening a major is not as great as it seems with a weak NT since the hand will be a 5M or 15+ points.

 

I'm not personally convinced about major before minor in the simple weak NT system, just from my experience of playing both.

 

Anyway I think people who play like this tend to do it for simplicity in club games.

[hrothgar]

Your conditions of contest have ruled out an enormous number of 4cM systems.

(Everything from Blue Club to EHAA)

 

The only thing left that I have any real experience with is Acol...

[JLOGIC]

I was thinking of including "raise a major almost whenever you have 3+" as a fourth bit, but then I thought it's pretty much universal?

I would vote no to this, but I guess it depends by how strict your definition of almost always is.

[peachy]

I was thinking of including "raise a major almost whenever you have 3+" as a fourth bit, but then I thought it's pretty much universal?

I would have thought the exact opposite.

I mean, when playing 4-card majors, then all raises promise 4-card support except very rarely when all other bids are clearly worse.

[hrothgar]

I would have thought the exact opposite.

I mean, when playing 4-card majors, then all raises promise 4-card support except very rarely when all other bids are clearly worse.

Interesting theory...

 

Completely ungrounded in fact, but an interesting theory none-the-less.

 

As an extreme counter example, let's look at a typical response structure over a MOSCITO 1♥ opening which systemically promises

 

4+ Spades, might have a longer minor and ~ 9-14 HCP

 

3♠ = 4 card raise

3♥ = 3 Spades and 6+ Hearts, non-forcing

3♦ = 3 Spades and 6+ Diamonds, non-forcing

3♣ = 3 Spades and 6+ Clubs, non-forcing

2N = Limit raise +, 4+ card Spade support

2♠ = 3 card raise

2♥ = 5+ Hearts, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non forcing

2♦ = 5+ Diamonds, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non foricng

2♣ = 5+ Clubs, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non forcing

1N = Balanced, non forcing, (essentially) denies 3+ Spades

1♠ = relay

[junyi_zhu]

Does your favourite 4cM system involve:

 

-weak NT?

-natural NF single raises of minors?

-opening the major from 4M4m?

(restrictions: not strong/polish club, not canapé, not possibly mini NT)

 

Please choose the corresponding bits from the poll.

 

010 would mean that your favourite 4cM system involves strong NT std minor raises and you open a minor from 4-4

 

If you feel compelled to convince me that 5- (or 3-) card majors are superior, please use hidden text or PM, don't hijack this thread.

The key to a successful 4 card major system with strong NT is probably a 2C response as a two way bid to show either true clubs or 3 card invitational hand.

 

Also, suit quality might not be that important IMO, as long as the players focus on games and slams bidding more.

 

Also, a 2/1 system based on the above assumptions is very playable IMO.

 

weak NT isn't a wise choice IMO if you want to take full advantage of 4card majors, because it would seriously lower the chance to open 1M. Also, constructive bidding is

more difficult playing weak NT.

 

Inverted minor raises are just better than standard treatment and should be played no matter one plays 4CM or 5CM IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

There is a slight disconnect here. If you play a strong no trump and 4 card majors, I think it's clearly right to open the major rather than the minor with 4M/4m.

 

If you play a weak no trump, you can open either, and I do different things with different partners.

 

Alongside a weak no trump, if you open the minor with 4M/4m then a 1M opener is either 5+ cards or 15+ points, so you know you're facing some playing strength if you raise.

 

I agree inverted minors are just better.

 

I voted weak/inverted/minor so 100 on the system given.

[Cascade]

010 would mean that your favourite 4cM system involves strong NT std minor raises and you open a minor from 4-4

How do i answer if the No Trump range is variable?

 

1st/2nd we play

 

1 weak NT (although mini/weak 10-13 NV)

0 Forcing minor raise (although reasonably light)

0 lowest of two four-card suits

 

3rd/4th we play

 

0 Strong NT

1 The same minor raise structure but partner can pass since we are limited

1 The major from a Mm hand.

[NickRW]

Playing 4cM and looking at a weakish responding hand where my only options are a non forcing 1NT or raise on 3, I tend to think that the raise is often better provided that it isn't a 4333 shape. Also, where the opening is 1♠ and we have 4♥s, the raise might shut out our 4/4 fit when opener is 5/4 majors.

 

IMO this is probably one of the main reasons why Acol plays its 2/1s as weak as it does, so that you have other options a lot of the time.

 

The raise on 3 or not dilemma is much more common over 1♠ - which is why quite a few folk convert to at least 5 card spade openers even if they don't do the full 5cM thing.

 

Nick

[Free]

I would have thought the exact opposite.

I mean, when playing 4-card majors, then all raises promise 4-card support except very rarely when all other bids are clearly worse.

Interesting theory...

 

Completely ungrounded in fact, but an interesting theory none-the-less.

 

As an extreme counter example, let's look at a typical response structure over a MOSCITO 1♥ opening which systemically promises

 

4+ Spades, might have a longer minor and ~ 9-14 HCP

 

3♠ = 4 card raise

3♥ = 3 Spades and 6+ Hearts, non-forcing

3♦ = 3 Spades and 6+ Diamonds, non-forcing

3♣ = 3 Spades and 6+ Clubs, non-forcing

2N = Limit raise +, 4+ card Spade support

2♠ = 3 card raise

2♥ = 5+ Hearts, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non forcing

2♦ = 5+ Diamonds, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non foricng

2♣ = 5+ Clubs, 0-2 Spades, constructive but non forcing

1N = Balanced, non forcing, (essentially) denies 3+ Spades

1♠ = relay

That's old school, these days you even have 2 raises at 2-level because we also have transfer responses :) :

2♥ = 9-11 with 3♠

2♠ = 6-8 with 3♠

 

I think raising on a 3 card support puts enormous pressure to opps, who don't know if you have a 7 or 8 card fit at the moment they're balancing. Definitely worth it, and it trains you in playing 4-3 fits :D

[gnasher]

I routinely raise 4-card major openings with 3-card support. I'd only bid 1NT with 3-card support if I were 4333.

 

I'd rather play some deals in a 4-3 fit than play some 5-3 major-suit fits in 1NT.

 

Also, the raise is more preemptive and, as Free says, it's hard for them to judge whether to compete when they don't know whether we have a fit. Against that, it also makes it harder for us to judge what do do if they do compete (especially if you're an adherent of the "Law" of Total Tricks).

[Free]

I routinely raise 4-card major openings with 3-card support. I'd only bid 1NT with 3-card support if I were 4333.

 

I'd rather play some deals in a 4-3 fit than play some 5-3 major-suit fits in 1NT.

 

Also, the raise is more preemptive and, as Free says, it's hard for them to judge whether to compete when they don't know whether we have a fit. Against that, it also makes it harder for us to judge what do do if they do compete (especially if you're an adherent of the "Law" of Total Tricks).

Your last statement is incorrect, well, partly. If you raise to 2-level with exactly a 3 card support, then your side knows what to do. If it can be 3-4 card support, then you're right. That's why MOSCITO raises to 3M on a 4 card suit (since opener is unbalanced this is pretty safe).