2M responses

[straube]

2H

.....2S-spades, invitational

.....2N-forces 3C

..........3C-forced

...............3D-to play

...............3H-invitational, choice of games

...............3S-GF, 5

...............3N-GF, choice of games

.....3C-shape ask

..........3D-no shortness

..........3H-higher shortness

..........3S-middle shortness

..........3N-lower shortness

..........4m-6/5

.....3D-invitational, fit

.....3H-to play

.....3S-GF, 6

 

2S

.....2N-forces 3C

..........3C-forced

...............3D-to play

...............3H-to play

...............3S-invitational, choice of games

...............3N-GF, choice of games

.....3C-shape ask

..........3D-no shortness

..........3H-higher shortness

..........3S-middle shortness

..........3N-lower shortness

..........4L-6/5

.....3D-hearts, invitational+

..........3H-no fit, minimum

.....3H-invitational, fit

.....3S-to play

 

This accomplishes most of what Ogust does. It doesn't have a size ask like Ogust, but responder can invite and show how well he likes responder's suit. It allows responder to declare NT (like Ogust) when NT is likely to be right. It shows a fit quicker than Ogust which can be helpful in competition. The shape ask is primarily a slam tool and probably not very useful because it doesn't also ask size. When responder shows shortness he can be 6421 as well as 6331 so responder doesn't know if opener has a real fit for responder's suit. OTOH, 2M-3m(natural, f) auctions seem to be usually pretty awkward, too.

 

Comments?

[wclass___]

Look up The Revision Club System 4th edition by John Montgomery, i would say his tweak of 3♣/3♦ is clearly better and has greater potential as for judgment.

 

2H- 3C: This is a true transfer to 3D. It always shows something in diamonds,

although the diamonds do not have to be all that long if responder is going to

return to hearts.

 

It feels like this might be bid with invitational hands with fit that would improve much by some openers diamond holdings.

[straube]

Thanks for the Revision Club reference. Here it is...

 

2H responses

.....2S-spades, nf

.....2N-puppet to 3C

..........3C-forced

...............3D-shortness ask

...............3H-GT in hearts with club values

...............3S-spades and clubs

...............3N-choice of games

...............4C-slam try in clubs

...............4D-diamonds and longer clubs

...............4H-delayed spade splinter

.....3C-diamonds

.....3D-GI hearts

.....3H-to play

.....3S-GF natural

.....3N-to play

.....4m-splinters

[mgoetze]

Comments?

 

My first comment is that you might start by telling us what on earth you are talking about. It seems like this is supposed to be a response structure to a normal weak 2 opening but it's hard to tell.

 

Assuming you are talking about weak 2s, I don't like 2♥-3♠ as the cheapest way to force with spades, and I happen to think knowing which shortage partner has is great for evaluating not only slam but also game. Consequently, I like 2♥-2♠ and 2♠-2NT as shortage asks and 2♥-2NT as spades. You apparently have entirely different design goals.

[straube]

Look up The Revision Club System 4th edition by John Montgomery, i would say his tweak of 3♣/3♦ is clearly better and has greater potential as for judgment.

 

 

 

It feels like this might be bid with invitational hands with fit that would improve much by some openers diamond holdings.

 

 

Revision appears very similar. One criticism of it...it doesn't appear to have a way to invite game in the major while showing only tolerance for the major (like xx or stiff K). I think that's the whole point of OGUST's suit quality ask. My structure has 2H-2N, 3C-3H as a way to invite and show uncertainty as to fit.

[Free]

If you open 2M on a 4 card suit this may be useful, but if it's a classic weak two then why on earth would I want to be able to signoff in 3m?

[straube]

If you open 2M on a 4 card suit this may be useful, but if it's a classic weak two then why on earth would I want to be able to signoff in 3m?

 

I was thinking that sometimes I'm short in partner's major and we would do better in my minor.

[mgoetze]

BTW how exactly do you expect opener to choose when it goes 2M-2NT-3♣-3NT?

[straube]

BTW how exactly do you expect opener to choose when it goes 2M-2NT-3♣-3NT?

 

If he'd reply "good suit" to OGUST, he would correct to 4M. If he'd reply "bad suit", he would pass.

[wclass___]

Revision appears very similar. One criticism of it...it doesn't appear to have a way to invite game in the major while showing only tolerance for the major (like xx or stiff K). I think that's the whole point of OGUST's suit quality ask. My structure has 2H-2N, 3C-3H as a way to invite and show uncertainty as to fit.

 

Yes, it is very similar, however i would also say that it is clearly better.

 

He has more ways to invite to game with some heart support, that's way i said potentially more judgment is involved.

 

Reserving a bid that shows xx or K support? huh, soz, but it is terrible idea and waste of bid. That is very narrow range, because with 4432 hand type and up to 14 HCP you may as well pass (who said that 3rd level is safe?). And with a little bit more you would force to game.

 

What i tried to say is that with this type of hand i expect polarized results - if we hit nice spot cards we might make game, if we don't then we are likely to go down in 3.

[straube]

I think you're right that Revision is better. In particular, I like their ability to show 2-suited hands opposite a preempt. I also don't like my 3C asking bid because it tried to accomplish both slam tries with fits and non-fits; much better for responder to show his hand and elicit a response. I'm just uncertain that 2H-2N, 3C-3H is better as a GT with club values than a generic try with heart tolerance. Maybe I'll start a poll. Finally, I really do want to be able to sign off in 3D (or 3H in the case of 2S). As long as opener can't super-accept without a fit and maximum, I'm fine with that, but I don't like 2H-3C, 4H as a possible auction.

 

Btw, thanks a lot for your help wclass.