1M-3C

[straube]

Our 1M shows 5 cds and is 10-15.

 

We recently made the change in our responses to...

 

1N-semi-forcing, can conceal a balanced limit raise

2N-limit raise-4cd or 3cd unbalanced

3C-weak jump shift

3D-mixed raise

 

We wanted 1M-1N, 2D-3C to be invitational. Hence 1M-3C is less than invitational.

 

I'm wondering now if it's better to separate the 4-cd limit raises from the 3-cd (unbalanced) limit raises.

 

We could use 1M-3C as a 3-cd limit raise that has shortness somewhere or is suit oriented. With a club WJS we could pass unless we have doubleton support for partner's major. After all, game is unlikely and we can always compete later in clubs unless the hand gets passed out.

 

How then should we use 3C?

[dustinst22]

Any downside to using it as 4 card support and 10-11? Jacoby 12+, now you have all your 4 card support raises with fairly tight ranges. 1M-3M 0-6 1M-3D 7-9 1M-3C 10-11 1M-2NT 12+ Then splinters with whatever specific range you use.

 

We are playing a similar system and this seems to work.

[straube]

Any downside to using it as 4 card support and 10-11? Jacoby 12+, now you have all your 4 card support raises with fairly tight ranges. 1M-3M 0-6 1M-3D 7-9 1M-3C 10-11 1M-2NT 12+ Then splinters with whatever specific range you use.

 

We are playing a similar system and this seems to work.

 

That looks good in combination with a forcing NT. Our 1N isn't forcing so we have also to deal with the limit raise hands with three trump. We have to have a way to deal with x Axx AQxxx xxx when partner opens 1H.

[Zelandakh]

How many bids above 1M do you have available for raises straube? My current version, used in conjunction with relays which I know you do too is...

 

(1M + 1 (1H - 1S) = relay, used for all INV+ 3 card raises)

2M (1H - 2H) = weak raise, usually 3 card support

2M + 1 (1H - 2S) = 4+ support, mini-splinter (INV) or in-between splinter (~16-19)

2M + 2 (1H - 2N) = 4+ support, GF, no shortage to splinter

2M + 3 (1H - 3C) = 4+ support, INV, no shortage to splinter

2M + 4 (1H - 3D) = mixed raise

3M (1H - 3H) = pre-emptive

3M + 1 (1H - 3S) = void splinter

3M + 2, 3, 4 (1H - 3N, 4m) = singleton splinter

 

Is this kind of structure useful to you?

[nigel_k]

You need a coherent set of agreements covering the bids between 2M and 3M, not just assign meanings to some of them and wonder what to do with the ones left over. In any case, I would do it on a step basis so 1♥-2♠ is the same as 1♠-2NT etc.

 

If you do go back to using 3♣ as natural I think it is better for the immediate 3♣ to be invitational and the delayed 3♣ to be weak. This is because you will want to accept the invitational on balanced hands that would not accept any other invite so would like to pass a semi-forcing 1NT.

[straube]

How many bids above 1M do you have available for raises straube? My current version, used in conjunction with relays which I know you do too is...

 

(1M + 1 (1H - 1S) = relay, used for all INV+ 3 card raises)

2M (1H - 2H) = weak raise, usually 3 card support

2M + 1 (1H - 2S) = 4+ support, mini-splinter (INV) or in-between splinter (~16-19)

2M + 2 (1H - 2N) = 4+ support, GF, no shortage to splinter

2M + 3 (1H - 3C) = 4+ support, INV, no shortage to splinter

2M + 4 (1H - 3D) = mixed raise

3M (1H - 3H) = pre-emptive

3M + 1 (1H - 3S) = void splinter

3M + 2, 3, 4 (1H - 3N, 4m) = singleton splinter

 

Is this kind of structure useful to you?

 

It's similar to ours. For 1H we use....

 

1N-semi-forcing, could have balanced limit raise with 3 trump

2C-GF relay

2D-constructive raise with usually 3 trump

2H-raise

2S-six spades, less than GI (we need this so that 1H-1S, 2L-2S is GF)

2N-LR+ hopefully 4 trump

3C-weak jump shift

3D-mixed raise

3H-weak raise

other-various splinters mostly

 

You can see the hole then. We don't have a bid for x AQx Axxxx xxxx unless we fit it into 2N. I think the distinction between 4 trump and 3 with shortness could matter.

[awm]

I'd recommend you just bid 2♦ (constructive raise) on the 3-card limit raise, then make another try if partner signs off. The try can be such that it shows your shortage (or side five-card suit, your choice). This saves you a call, seems quite unlikely to cost, and lets you show the shortage on the way to game (but only when partner doesn't have enough for game opposite a constructive raise, in which case you conceal that info from the opening lead).

[straube]

I'd recommend you just bid 2♦ (constructive raise) on the 3-card limit raise, then make another try if partner signs off. The try can be such that it shows your shortage (or side five-card suit, your choice). This saves you a call, seems quite unlikely to cost, and lets you show the shortage on the way to game (but only when partner doesn't have enough for game opposite a constructive raise, in which case you conceal that info from the opening lead).

 

I had once thought of using 2D as a 2-way bid...constructive or GF. I worry that we could get director calls if opener hitches before signing off in 2H if the ranges are contiguous.

 

I think your suggestion is best. I suppose opener needs to decide quickly (or before opening even) what to do opposite a 2D response.

 

It would be nice if we had a way of proving to the opponents whether responder intended to take a second bid opposite a sign off.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand anymore this fascination with having almost every possible response to a major opening show some specific type of fit. I like your original idea best, personally. 3♣ as clubs.

[Zelandakh]

If you are worried about contiguous ranges then just switch 2M to the constructive raise and have 2M - 1 as weak raise, or 3-card limit raise, or in-between splinter. In fact, there is even space to include a 4 card LR if you like which would allow you to use 2NT as a GF... eg

 

1H - 2D

2H - ...

 

P = weak

2S/3m = mini-splinter

2N = 3 card limit raise

3H = 4 card limit raise

3S = GF, any void, ~16-19 sp

3N = GF, sgl spade, ~16-19 sp

4m = GF, sgl m, ~16-19 sp

[bluecalm]

I don't see the need for all those different raises, especially in precision.

Bid 2NT with 4 card support and 1NT with 3 card. Assign different meaning to free bids at 3 level, for example natural invitational hands with good suit.

Game forcing hands could bid a game straight away and slam invite hands can bid 2♣.

[akhare]

Joining the choir here -- the only bids that are really needed are 1N / 2N...all other bids are frivolous in context of a limited system...

[straube]

I tallied 100 hands for responses to 1S (10-15 5cd)

 

16...Pass

23...1N semiforcing, may conceal a balanced limit raise

16...2C artificial GF, tends to deny four spades

6.....2D GI with 5+ hearts

10...2H constructive or unbalanced LR with usually 3 only spades

10...2S weaker raise with usually only 3 spades

5.....2N limit raise or better with 4+ spades

1.....3C weak jump shift

4.....3D mixed raise

6.....3S weak raise

3.....other...usually bid of game

 

I suppose for spades, we could use 3H as the mixed raise and 3D as a WJS. Personally, I really like how the 1-under bids work out.

[akhare]

I tallied 100 hands for responses to 1S (10-15 5cd)

 

16...Pass

23...1N semiforcing, may conceal a balanced limit raise

16...2C artificial GF, tends to deny four spades

6.....2D GI with 5+ hearts

10...2H constructive or unbalanced LR with usually 3 only spades

10...2S weaker raise with usually only 3 spades

5.....2N limit raise or better with 4+ spades

1.....3C weak jump shift

4.....3D mixed raise

6.....3S weak raise

3.....other...usually bid of game

 

I suppose for spades, we could use 3H as the mixed raise and 3D as a WJS. Personally, I really like how the 1-under bids work out.

 

Still has way too many ways of raising.

 

1N: Semi-forcing

2C: GF

2H: Constructive, including 3 card bal LR, mixed raise, etc. Responder can clarify hand type on next bid if needed. P shows exactly constructive raise / min bal LR

2S: Weak raise

2N: LR+ with 4 card support

3C / 3D / 3H: <blah>

3S: Weak raise

[Zelandakh]

Joining the choir here -- the only bids that are really needed are 1N / 2N...all other bids are frivolous in context of a limited system...

 

 

Still has way too many ways of raising.

3C / 3D / 3H: <blah>

 

This is rather to the point in my eyes. You are right that you can get by with only a small number of raises. The problem is that finding better uses for these jump bids is not so simple. SJS are not ideal, especially playing a GF relay system. WJS are an option for a few of the bids but questionable for the higher calls. Intermediate hands that are otherwise difficult to bid are a good option - see straube's 2S bid for an example. But showing support is valuable too and if you have not yet seen the value of splinters, even opposite a limited opener, then I suggest you have another look. Similarly LoTT raises are just as valuable opposite a limited hand as an unlimited one, arguably more so. So you are right...but also wrong.