Convention partner wants to play

[dcohio]

Any thoughts on the following convention? (I'm not even sure if it has a name)

 

1m - 1M

2M - 2NT! asking

 

3♣= 11+-13, 3 card support

3♦= 14, 3 card support

3♥= 11+-13, 4 card support

3♠= 14, 4 card support

[gwnn]

it's good, as long as you don't take 11-13 and 14 too literally.

[mtvesuvius]

Definitely a good tool to have, however using HCP to evaluate is wrong. A simple "min" and "max" will work much better. With shortness and a 12 count, I want to be able to treat it as a maximum, or at least have some way to show a non-minimum. Bids above 3♠ should be splinters, and with a true Maximum and shortness, you can splinter as well.

[hrothgar]

If you frequently raise on three pieces, having some kind of checkback system is extremely helpful.

 

There are a lot of different schemes. The one that you show is reasonable and and has the virtue of simplicity.

 

I would recommend that after

 

1m - 1♥

2♥

 

that you use 2♠ as your checkback.

[Free]

Definitely better than nothing, but HCP are worthless. Look at it more in terms of "minimum" and "maximum", it's much more flexible.

[dcohio]

ok, so min and max it is, but why use this when NMF is available? Is it better for when a 1NT rebid isn't perfect such as (13)(54) hands?

[Free]

ok, so min and max it is, but why use this when NMF is available? Is it better for when a 1NT rebid isn't perfect such as (13)(54) hands?

It's useful for lots of cases, and it works badly on others. In the long run I think you gain by raising on some hands with 3 card support. The way I agreed with partner is to only raise with 3 card support when

- we have a tophonour

- we have ruffing values

- the alternative rebids look worse

Generally we raise when we have a small doubleton or a singleton side suit, or when our 6-card is really poor (like Qxxxxx we prefer to raise).

 

There are several advantages:

- most of the time 1M is a 5 card suit, so you have found your fit much faster

- if responder has only a 4 card, then 2M will have good play because of your ruffing values

- you rightside NT contracts more often (lead through the small doubleton instead of towards it)

- if partner has a poor 5 card suit, there's less reason for him to bid NMF

 

Biggest problems hands in my experience is balanced minimum with 3M opposite an invite with 4M (without fit m), because you'll play at 3-level with only 7 trumps and can't signoff in 3m.

[dcohio]

It's useful for lots of cases, and it works badly on others. In the long run I think you gain by raising on some hands with 3 card support. The way I agreed with partner is to only raise with 3 card support when

- we have a tophonour

- we have ruffing values

- the alternative rebids look worse

Generally we raise when we have a small doubleton or a singleton side suit, or when our 6-card is really poor (like Qxxxxx we prefer to raise).

 

There are several advantages:

- most of the time 1M is a 5 card suit, so you have found your fit much faster

- if responder has only a 4 card, then 2M will have good play because of your ruffing values

- you rightside NT contracts more often (lead through the small doubleton instead of towards it)

- if partner has a poor 5 card suit, there's less reason for him to bid NMF

 

Biggest problems hands in my experience is balanced minimum with 3M opposite an invite with 4M (without fit m), because you'll play at 3-level with only 7 trumps and can't signoff in 3m.

 

Thanks Free, exactly the info I was looking for

[Siegmund]

ok, so min and max it is, but why use this when NMF is available? Is it better for when a 1NT rebid isn't perfect such as (13)(54) hands?

 

It depends a lot on your style -- how often do you raise on 3-card support? You can get by nicely without this kind of convention, if your raise is almost always on 4. If your style is to raise on 3 only when you have shortness, you might consider a treatment like

1D-1S-2S-2NT-

-3C singleton club, may be 3 spades

-3D natural 5-4, minimum

-3H singleton hearts, may be 3 spades

etc. rather than the simple min/max, 3/4 approach.

If you raise on 3 cards all the time... well... you need something like "3344" (thats the singularly bland name they call this by, where I am from)... but IMO there are a lot of issues with the followups, enough to keep me from adopting that style without a lot of careful work on the followups first.

[TylerE]

Dislike, but just because I don't think your should be raising on a 3 bagger nearly enough to make it worthwhile.

[mcphee]

The plan you have is not bad although point ranges can be better expressed and responses more exact. Minor openings that make a simple raise of a major response can be 3/4 cards and limited to about 15 hcp at most. Responder can now begin to:

1.make a game try in a long suit 3-4 cards, splinter. etc

2 make an inquiry via the next OPEN step 2NT over S and 2S over H raise. This asks to TELL about the raise. The responses (steps)1: I have a 4 card raise and a short suit, 2: I have a 3 card minimum raise (short is possible), 3: I have a 3 card maximum range (now game forcing with 3NT a possible option)also possible to have a short suit. 4: I have a 4 card minimum. 5: I have a 4 card maximum,game forcing and 3NT is not an option.

 

The asking hand can also inquire where a short suit is once that is revealed should they choose. This is made on the next suit where are you short, in these cases when 2S is raised, 2N 3C 4card raise and short, 3D where short, 3H short lower etc. When the hand making the inquiry gets the information you are a bit better placed. It is a tad complicated at first but works great.

 

One area I found was the 4 card raise when holding a short suit have gotten rather weak. When you respond to a minor opening (possibly 3 cards)you can often have from 4 or so HCP+ which makes a 3 level raise a little this even when 14 along with your short suit is what you have. All the responder needs to bear in mind once they start an inquiry is the following, ALL hands that respond to the inquiry that are maximum become game forcing/no exceptions.

 

Another method is to skip the shortness step and splinter instead as you are into a GF. This does rule out 3N but more memory friendly.

[gnasher]

I think it's much more useful to show shape rather than strength. I'd prefer to know about a specific singleton than about an extra queen. Knowing about strength helps with decisions about level; knowing about shortage helps with decisions about both level and strain.

 

With the scheme you descibe, there isn't always room to find out about the singleton below 3NT.

 

If I were going to play something simple and easy to remember, I'd play:

- New suit = natural, 3-card support in a 5431-type

- Opener's minor = natural, 3-6

- 3NT = balanced, 3-card support (though I don't think this should happen much)

- 3M = 4-card support, minimum

- 4 new = 4-card support, splinter

- 4M = 4-card support, maximum

[Zelandakh]

How about

1m - 1S - 2S - 2NT

 

3C = min, 3 card support (3D asks for a shortage)

3D = max, 3 card support, shortage (3H asks shortage)

3H = min, 4 card support, shortage (3S asks shortage)

3S = max, 3 card support, no shortage

3N = max, 4 card support, no shortage

4m = max, 4 card support, good suit

4om, 4H = max, 4 card support, shortage in suit

4S = min, 4 card support, no shortage

 

It seems to me that another option would be to keep 2NT as natural and use 3C as the GF enquiry where the major is spades although I do not know of any pairs using such a method.

[awm]

I'm not a fan of this convention, even though I raise on three-card support extremely often. The main problems are that (as gnasher suggests) you don't always get to find out about the nature of partner's hand when he raised on three (i.e. where is the singleton or small doubleton) and that (as free suggests) you can't play in 2NT when it's right.

 

What I play is quite simple, natural, and solves these problems. The only downside is that you lose your "game try" bids, but I don't think this is a big deal since honestly you know a lot more about partner's hand in the auction 1m-1M-2M than you do in the auction 1M-2M (i.e. the point range is narrower, you know opener's longer minor, etc). What I play is below:

 

2NT = non-forcing game try with only 4M

---> Opener passes with a minimum and 3-card support

---> Opener bids 3M or 4M with 4-card support depending on strength

---> Opener bids as naturally as possible (i.e. bids the side suit that's not the singleton or small doubleton, or rebids a 6m) with max and 3-card support

3M = non-forcing game try with 5(+)M

---> Opener passes or bids 4M depending on strength, tend to upgrade pretty aggressively for 4-card support

Other non-jump suit bid (includes 3m) = natural and game force, still 4+M, occasionally second suit is three strong

---> Opener bids 3M with 4-card support; cuebidding can follow

---> Opener bids 3NT with 3-card support and short or weak in responder's second suit

---> Opener raises the 2nd suit with 4-card support there, only 3M, and short/weak in the fourth suit

---> Over 3m, opener bids 3OM with strength/length there and short/weak in the fourth suit

---> After 1♦-1M-2M-3♦, opener bids 3NT with strength/length in clubs and weak in the other major (i.e. don't bypass 3NT with 3-card support)

---> Opener rebids minor with 6-card suit, strong holding in opener's 2nd suit, short/weak in the fourth suit

3NT = choice of games, guarantees controls in both side suits, usually only 4M

---> Opener passes with 3-card support or usually with 4333 pattern; else correct to 4M

[losercover]

We only raise on four card support. If the major bidder has 5 and 10+ points, we use check back (2C) over 1NT, the other minor over 2m, and 4SF (which is a whole can of worms). We use to go crazy with game tries, but now 2M shows more than 6 losers or minimum opener, and 3M shows 6 losers or a better than minimum opener. Responder only bids on (most of the time) with 7 or fewer losers over a 2M bid.

[Phil]

There are some more sophisticated methods here, but what you suggest is fine.

 

Keep on raising with 3 in this auction!

[luke warm]

i have a probably silly question here... after 1m - 1M - 2M why ask rather than tell? simply to make sure there's not a 4/3 M fit?

[helene_t]

i have a probably silly question here... after 1m - 1M - 2M why ask rather than tell? simply to make sure there's not a 4/3 M fit?

I think the idea is that at this stage opener's hand is much more narrowly defined than responder's hand, so it is more efficient to make responder captain and let opener clarify.

 

But responder can still chose to tell instead of describing. Other bids than the relay could be agreed to descriptive, making opener captain.

[hrothgar]

i have a probably silly question here... after 1m - 1M - 2M why ask rather than tell? simply to make sure there's not a 4/3 M fit?

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive:

 

After

 

1m - 1M - 2M,

 

2M+1 asks (most useful in a style where you have frequent raises on 3 card support)

2M+2+ shows shape and makes a game try of some kind

 

In styles where the raise to 2M explictly promises 4+ card support (for example, Polish Club) you still often see 2M+1 used as an asking bid.

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♠ - 2N = asks what short suit game try you'd be willing to except

[han]

Besides opener's hand being better defined, responder is also likely to be declarer so you usually don't want her to tell too much.

 

After 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♠ we play that 2NT and 3S are the only ways to invite, while 3C, 3D and 3H are all slam tries.

[luke warm]

ok, thanks all... it seemed at first glance to save space if responder told rather than asked, but that's not the most important thing here