1S-2D showing hearts

[the hog]

Auken and von Arnim play this. However for them it is not gf, and shows 5+H. Playing it as 6+H looks too limiting to me.

Should also point out that they play it in context of a strong C, 4 card M canape system.

[straube]

Auken and von Arnim play this. However for them it is not gf, and shows 5+H. Playing it as 6+H looks too limiting to me.

Should also point out that they play it in context of a strong C, 4 card M canape system.

 

Thanks. I read that they did this, but I forgot that they canape. It would be nice to find the continuations that they use.

[the hog]

If you ask Gerben he may be able to help with this.

[Gerben42]

Auken - von Arnim play:

 

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

 

2♥: Minimum, does not show any fit

2♠: 5+♠, no fit, nonforcing

2NT: ♥ support maximum

3♣♦: not minimum, possibly canapé, no fit

3♥: Minimum with good support

3♠: good 6+♠, maximum

4♣♦: splinter

[straube]

Auken - von Arnim play:

 

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

 

2♥: Minimum, does not show any fit

2♠: 5+♠, no fit, nonforcing

2NT: ♥ support maximum

3♣♦: not minimum, possibly canapé, no fit

3♥: Minimum with good support

3♠: good 6+♠, maximum

4♣♦: splinter

 

 

I kind of like their use of 2N as maximum with heart fit. The trouble with that is having to jump with non-minimums with six spades. It may preempt us out of our best fit. Remembering that we open 5-cd majors, I've wondered about...

 

1S-2D,

.....2H-no fit, minimum, possibly six spades

..........2S-artificial GF

..........2N-spade agreement

.....2S-GF, six spades

.....2N-max, heart fit

.....3m-GF, 5m

.....3H-min, heart fit

.....3S-min, strong spades

 

This means that we'd possibly play a 6-0 heart fit when there's a 6-2 spade fit available.

[Crunch3nt]

Hi Straube,

 

Quote: "Our 1S-2C is a GF relay and we can pretty much relay for every single shape. A basic question to ask is when ought we show hearts (GI+ or GF) as opposed to relaying? I would think that 1S-2D ought to be a hand that has minimal interest in slam."

 

That is a very good question. Why do you overlap the GF Heart hand?

 

Most people put it into their GI or GF relay and play 2D (or 2H) as NF values. That is the reason why von-arnim - Zenkel's structure is not best for you. (interestingly their structure is exactly the same as mine btw. We play 4 card major canape too with 2D showing hearts but less than GI opposite a minimum opening, but our major openings are 11-20, not limited)

 

Philosophically over transfer responses, you pretty much have a straight choice between a) the acceptance of the transfer promising a fit (2+) and all the other bids say they hate the transfer or B) the acceptance of the transfer says I hate the transfer, and all other bids say they like the transfer suit, differentiating 2, 3 or 4 card support, strength, side suits etc.

 

For most transfer methods B) doesn't work as there isn't sufficient values to sort it all out, but in your method there probably is.

 

Playing a) 2H should definitely be forcing.

[straube]

Hi Straube,

 

Quote: "Our 1S-2C is a GF relay and we can pretty much relay for every single shape. A basic question to ask is when ought we show hearts (GI+ or GF) as opposed to relaying? I would think that 1S-2D ought to be a hand that has minimal interest in slam."

 

That is a very good question. Why do you overlap the GF Heart hand?

 

Most people put it into their GI or GF relay and play 2D (or 2H) as NF values. That is the reason why von-arnim - Zenkel's structure is not best for you. (interestingly their structure is exactly the same as mine btw. We play 4 card major canape too with 2D showing hearts but less than GI opposite a minimum opening, but our major openings are 11-20, not limited)

 

Philosophically over transfer responses, you pretty much have a straight choice between a) the acceptance of the transfer promising a fit (2+) and all the other bids say they hate the transfer or B) the acceptance of the transfer says I hate the transfer, and all other bids say they like the transfer suit, differentiating 2, 3 or 4 card support, strength, side suits etc.

 

For most transfer methods B) doesn't work as there isn't sufficient values to sort it all out, but in your method there probably is.

 

Playing a) 2H should definitely be forcing.

 

 

We don't know much about the method. Never saw a write-up of the continuations. I'd like to see whatever you have. I thought 2D could handle hands with minimal GF values so as to speed the auction along and cope with interference better. Relays leave opener out of the picture. So far we've agreed acceptance of the transfer dislikes hearts (2 or fewer). Perhaps it should be 0 or 1?

[olien]

I have a set of notes from Auken - Von Arnim, and their continuations after 1♠-2♦ are not quite what Gerben posted.

 

They are:

 

1♠-2♦:

2♥ = min, does not promise any support

.......2♠ = INV (now 4♣/♦ = COG in ♥/♠)

.......2NT = INV

.......3m = Natural forcing

.......3♥ = 6+♥ forcing (I guess they pass if INV)

 

2♠ = 5+♠ no ♥ support, NF (again, in context of 4cM canapé)

.......2NT = forcing

 

2NT = Natural, not MIN, may have 3/4♥ BAL

 

3m = Natural, no good ♥ support, GF, may be canapé

 

3♥ = 1 suiter in ♠

 

3♠ = any splinter, min or max, 3♥

.......3NT = ask short but only if MAX

................4m=shortness

................4♥ = min

......4♣ = ask short regardless of strength

 

3NT = 4♥ MIN, any splinter

 

4m = splinter, 4+♥, max

 

4♥ = 5♠ 4♥ min

 

 

These are all thats written in their notes about this section, including the continuations. Hope it helps

[straube]

Thanks for the notes. Haven't digested them yet but it seems like we would have to tweak it for a 5-cd major system. Apparently they don't relay (2C) all of their GF heart hands.