Why does 1m:2m deny a 4 card major?

[jillybean]

The style around here is that you respond 1M holding a 4M,5m gf hand after partner opens 1m. Noone has been able to tell me the advantage of responding 1M rather than a gf 2m.

 

You never miss a major fit as opener can bid her 4cM after 2m but starting 1m:1M 1n seems to be awkward and obviously needs some form of check back.

 

What is the advantage of 1m:2m denying a 4cM?

[straube]

1m-2m is very cramped for conducting a good auction even without looking for a major suit fit.

[jillybean]

You create a gf and identify a fit at the 2 level, I don't understand why that is cramped.

 

1♣:2♣ 2♥:3♥ we have a double fit

 

1♣:1♥ 2♥:3♣?

[helene_t]

Most play the forcing minor suit raise as invitational+, not as GF.

 

Anyway, I agree that it is better to allow a 4-card major. But then you need to know which major suit bids show stoppers and which ones promise a 4-card suit.

[gordontd]

The style around here is that you respond 1M holding a 4M,5m gf hand after partner opens 1m. Noone has been able to tell me the advantage of responding 1M rather than a gf 2m.

 

You never miss a major fit as opener can bid her 4cM after 2m but starting 1m:1M 1n seems to be awkward and obviously needs some form of check back.

 

What is the advantage of 1m:2m denying a 4cM?

How do you show your invitational hands that don't have a four-card major?

[jillybean]

How do you show your invitational hands that don't have a four-card major?

1♣:2♦

1♦:3♣

[Cthulhu D]

So what do you do over 1D with 6+ clubs an an invitational hand?

 

Part of it to is that after 1C:2C I think people are focused on finding 3NT, so they want the suit bids for stopper asks and the like.

[MickyB]

IMO it is somewhat bizarre that the standard is to bid 2C over 1D with 5C4M GF, but to start with the major with 4M5D. Surely showing the minor is more important when you have a fit than when you don't?

[phil_20686]

The style around here is that you respond 1M holding a 4M,5m gf hand after partner opens 1m. Noone has been able to tell me the advantage of responding 1M rather than a gf 2m.

 

You never miss a major fit as opener can bid her 4cM after 2m but starting 1m:1M 1n seems to be awkward and obviously needs some form of check back.

 

What is the advantage of 1m:2m denying a 4cM?

 

I am reasonable sure its better, if you play 2m as GF, to include hands with 4M and longer minor. As always there are work arounds, but bidding 1M with GF and 4M and a longer minor just puts so much pressure on the system. Especially if partner raises your 4cM with three card support and you need a bunch of artificial continuations to set up a forcing auction in the minor normally. Especially if partner just has some 3442 wk nt after 1d-1s-2s, its veryhard to persuade him that you are actually making a slam try in diamonds.

 

I think the answer is mostly that its just history. A lot of people play this way, very sophisticated checkback structures exist to deal with it. Sure you can improve them by taking out these hands, but its a marginal gain. The biggest gain is when there is interference, 1d p 2d 4S leaves responder much better placed than 1d p 1h 4s when he has five card diamond support and a GF.

[mikeh]

jb: the real answer to your question is to be found in the structure that you play after 1m 2m, assuming inverted raises.

 

While it is possible to play that 2M shows a 4 card major, this is definitely not standard. of course, that is ducking the issue, since standard assumes that 2m denies a major!

 

In my view, having played a number of structures over inverted minors, using 2M to show a major is a waste of valuable bidding space.

 

Assume for simplicity that 2m is gf.

 

If 2m may include a major, the partnership is now engaged in determining whether a major fit exists (and opener may be 4=4 in the majors), as well as whether, should there be no such fit, the partnership belongs in 3N or 5minor, or any slam.

 

We have already consumed a level of bidding space. If we use 2M as natural, how do we explore for stoppers, reveal shortness (which could be xx, so we can't just say 'splinter') and so on? I think you will find that designing a coherent method will prove impossible given the constraints.

 

And if 2m is only invitational, then the problems are compounded by the additional need to differentiate invitational hands from the rest.

 

Meanwhile, this inclusion of a major into the 2m response strikes me as a solution to a non-existent problem. When one has a gf hand, it is quite easy to first show the major, then force to game, and then, should it appear necessary, reveal the fit.

 

As just one example, if you play 2 way new minor, then imagine: 1m 1M 1N. You use 2♦ and then bid 3m (opener's minor) to show 4=4+ in the major and opener's minor

 

With 5-5 or better, bid 2N over 1N, as a puppet to 3♣, to play or, should you make any other call, to show 5-5 in the major and opener's minor (full system notes available).

 

But one needn't play esoteric agreements: 4SF and 2 way new minor, with maybe xyz as well, handle most hands very easily, so you simply don't need to clutter up your inverted minor auctions trying to find major suit fits.

 

Btw, my advice is to look into a complex inverted structure if you have a serious partnership.

 

You will gain a lot from having 2♥/♠ available as artificial calls than as stopper showing or natural. I might be able to find my notes on an excellent, tho complex, method.

 

My main point is valid, I think, regardless of that issue....you can bid 4M 5m gf hands adequately (or better) by responding 1M, and by including them in your inverted structure, you are crippling and cluttering your ability to have truly good, effective inverted agreements. You are simply jamming too many hand types into a structure that begins by using up an entire layer of bidding.

[jmcw]

You create a gf and identify a fit at the 2 level, I don't understand why that is cramped.

 

1♣:2♣ 2♥:3♥ we have a double fit

 

1♣:1♥ 2♥:3♣?

 

 

Would you be quite as confident in finding the 4/4 ♥ fit if the opponents bid:

1♣ P 2♣ 2or3♠

?

[phil_20686]

So what do you do over 1D with 6+ clubs an an invitational hand?

 

Easy if you play a 555(4)2(1) structure:

 

If I like my clubs, I bid 3c, inv NF.

If I don't like my clubs I bid 1N, semi-forcing.

 

Worst that can happen is that you miss a thin 3N when partner has a 4441 14 count, and passes, but he knows you have long clubs and he has a stiff, so wtp?

[jmcw]

 

<<<snip.....>>>

 

Btw, my advice is to look into a complex inverted structure if you have a serious partnership.

 

You will gain a lot from having 2♥/♠ available as artificial calls than as stopper showing or natural. I might be able to find my notes on an excellent, tho complex, method.

 

My main point is valid, I think, regardless of that issue....you can bid 4M 5m gf hands adequately (or better) by responding 1M, and by including them in your inverted structure, you are crippling and cluttering your ability to have truly good, effective inverted agreements. You are simply jamming too many hand types into a structure that begins by using up an entire layer of bidding.

 

 

I for 1 would very much like to see it.

[phil_20686]

My main point is valid, I think, regardless of that issue....you can bid 4M 5m gf hands adequately (or better) by responding 1M, and by including them in your inverted structure, you are crippling and cluttering your ability to have truly good, effective inverted agreements. You are simply jamming too many hand types into a structure that begins by using up an entire layer of bidding.

 

I dont think this is a good way to look at the problem. Its pretty obvious that your system is most efficient if you spread the load between different bids. If I take 4M5m out of the auction 1d-1H-1N, that is pretty much exactly equal to the loss of including it in 1d-2d, given that I have roughly the same number of sequences available in both. Already in teh first auction I need to worry about (just in the GF range) 55 54 and 44, adding 45 means I have to take away. What most people lose is the ability to specify a 5431 exactly. If you take 4M5m out of the picture you can use your extra bids to get extra definition.

 

Your argument would equally well apply to responding 1M to 1D with 4M and five clubs and a GF, which almost no one does even though "I can describe them adequately". Sure, but adequately is a pretty low bar. It does not seem rational that you can think responding with longer clubs to 1d with 2c is clearly better, but responding 1M is clearly better when you have diamonds and spades.

 

If you play 2m as invitational plus its a bit different. I would generally not include 4M hands with an invitational strength, as then it is much more complicated.

 

I'm pretty sure the real reason is that "people have always done it that way" and so bidding systems have adapted to deal with it.

[Cthulhu D]

Don't you have many more sequences playing a short club with it's friends transfer responses and XYZ (or transfer XYZ)? It seems responder will always be OK with the GF 5m-4M hands because he can bid your invitational or GF XYZ sequence.

 

1D is different, but you have freed up the 1NT response rebid there for something else, so you have more space.

[awm]

Typically when you bid and raise a suit, you are no longer searching for a fit in some other suit. Putting hands with four-card majors in 1m-2m would seem to violate this principle.

 

With that said, it might well be better to bid your longer suit first on all game-force hands. Certainly this is what people do when holding the other minor. It's true that "majors first" works well enough if opponents are passing, since you have zillions of auctions available to you (as mikeh's post summarizes)... but things can get a lot more awkward in competition. To give a simple example, suppose you have 4♥/5+♣ and a game force. If you start 1♣-Pass-1♥-2♠ Pass-Pass (or replace 1♥ with 1♦ transfer to hearts, it doesn't much matter) then presumably 3♣ would just be competing. You can double, but partner is not going to take you for five clubs: he may bid 3♥ on three-card support, or pass with five clubs and four spades, either of which is probably poor. Basically the only way to force with clubs seems to be bidding 4♣, which bypasses a possibly-best 3NT and even then partner may think you have a 5/5 type. In comparison, if you start with 2♣ you get 1♣-Pass-2♣-2♠ and you can easily bid 3♥ to complete your pattern when this comes back to you. You've also created a forcing auction (really nice, especially if opponents bid further) and partner will never take you for five hearts even if you introduce them at the four-level. This seems a lot better start!

 

You do need to work on your continuations to 1m-2m a bit more, since you would have to distinguish between natural major bids vs. control-showing bids in these auctions, and you might also want to have some artificial shape-showing bids available for opener. But it seems like you could work something out; you have enough space.

[aguahombre]

OP's original question is coming from a different style, where she uses jumps in the other minor for invitational hands with the minor suit fit. IMO, 2D/1C slammish with just diamonds, or both minors, is a better use of that...and 3C/1D has a better use as an invite with just clubs. (But, that is not what OP plays)

 

Adding the possibility of a four card major to the game forcing 2m raise, however, is still unneccesary. After 1M, and no support, responder can still launch NMF or 4SF to get to the minor suit game or slam.

 

Conclusion: "Why does 1m 2m deny a 4 card major?" Because you agreed that is does. If you didn't agree that it denies a major, the question is moot.

[S2000magic]

You create a gf and identify a fit at the 2 level, I don't understand why that is cramped.

 

1♣:2♣ 2♥:3♥ we have a double fit

Does opener's 2♥ rebid show 4 hearts, or a heart stopper for notrump? If the former, you have a double fit; if the latter, maybe not so much.

[mikeh]

 

Your argument would equally well apply to responding 1M to 1D with 4M and five clubs and a GF, which almost no one does even though "I can describe them adequately". Sure, but adequately is a pretty low bar. It does not seem rational that you can think responding with longer clubs to 1d with 2c is clearly better, but responding 1M is clearly better when you have diamonds and spades.

 

I'm pretty sure the real reason is that "people have always done it that way" and so bidding systems have adapted to deal with it.

I disagree. I don't see the situations as analogous for several reasons.

 

One is the complexity of seeking a fit over 1m 2m. We are going to have to have some method of finding that 4-4 fit, and I don't see how that is going to be possible below 3M, at which stage opener has probably defined neither shape nor strength. Is opener a weak notrump with 4333 or 4432, or a good hand with 5422 or 5431 etc? Whereas if we have a fit, and bid 1M, opener can bid 2M (or more) and we have all kinds of ways to have opener define shape.

 

And if we are looking for a major suit fit, we lose the ability to use the major-showing calls for other, possibly equally or more important information. As is so often the case, those who advocate for certain methods focus exclusively on the benefits of such methods, and not on the cost. Putting a 4 card major into inverted minors automatically cripples the response structure that is otherwise playable.

 

Of course, Adam's point about competition is valid, and the question is whether that issue is enough to warrant an enormous overload of inverted minors. The vast majority of players seem to say no, and contrary to phil's belief, some of us actually think about our methods...quite seriously, at that. When I played inverted in a serious partnership, we spent many hours on the structure, which evolved and changed over the 6 years the partnership lasted.

 

We found uses for 2M (and 2N) that made our game and slam bidding pretty accurate, and we would have lost those gadgets had we had to incorporate 4 card majors.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but accusing others of irrational thinking or of simply not thinking, when you know nothing about their methods is insulting and arrogant. I don't deny that it is entirely possible to incorporate 4 card majors into an inverted method...my contention is that doing so is wasteful...your opinion may differ.

[jillybean]

Conclusion: "Why does 1m 2m deny a 4 card major?" Because you agreed that is does. If you didn't agree that it denies a major, the question is moot.

I have not agreed this at all, it is simply "always played this way" and I am questioning why because I think 1m:2m gf could be a better start.

 

 

Does opener's 2♥ rebid show 4 hearts, or a heart stopper for notrump? If the former, you have a double fit; if the latter, maybe not so much.

I think ostensibly it is a suit likely 3-4, assume a stopper. If partner raises the major and opener has only 3, partner probes or bids nt and opener does not have a stopper then opener can retreat to 4m. (I'm sure that there are lots of holes in this idea)

[mikeh]

You create a gf and identify a fit at the 2 level, I don't understand why that is cramped.

 

1♣:2♣ 2♥:3♥ we have a double fit

 

1♣:1♥ 2♥:3♣?

in the first one, how much does responder know about opener's shape and range? Hint: not much

 

Compare 1♣ 1♥ 2♥

 

He knows a little more, but (more importantly) he has an entire level of bidding space to find out. My long-held belief is that most players underestimate the value of bidding space in uncontested auctions.

 

In your second one, if responder is interested in slam, he has a better hand than opener and can assume captaincy. most serious partnerships have a way to force and ask for opener to describe his hand...you can use 2♠ over 2♥, or 2N over 2M as obvious examples.

 

I have no idea why so many posters see an analogy between 1♦ 2♣ with 4 card major, 5+ clubs and the inverted auctions. More accurately, I think I see what they are saying, and it seems, with respect, mistaken.

 

When we bid 2♣ over 1♦, we intend to embark upon showing our hand. When we bid 2m over 1m, as inverted, we intend to embark upon finding out about opener's hand. While captaincy will not always be fixed, the tendency is that no captaincy is established early on in the 1♦ 2♣ sequence, while (generally speaking) the inverted responder has at least temporarily estalished captaincy.

[CSGibson]

I play that 1m-2m denies a 4 card major (though in context of 1m-2m being invitational+). This is because A) I feel like I have a very good xyz structure, so that I can easily handle hands with 4M-5m, and B) because it gives opener more room to define their hand type. If opener rebids 1N, for instance, I have a very good definition of her hand and I'm still at the 1 level - and if opener does anything else, then she is unbalanced, and I can use that information also (this is also by agreement, and while it is not an uncommon agreement, it is also far from standard).

 

While I feel all that is valid, I certainly don't feel like establishing a fit and a game force cheaply at the 2 level is bad; It's probably just as good, but I'm unfamiliar with the method and unfamiliar with the follow-ups it would require, so I'd lose out in the short run for something that I don't have any reason to believe is substantially superior, which is just not a good use of my time. I suspect that you, Katherine, have the same thing going with your treatment, just in reverse.

[straube]

I realize that we're talking about standard methods here, but I thought I'd give examples of why MAFIA (majors always first in answering) has more potential. We play 1D is artificial 10-15 and we relay.

 

1D-1H, (artificial, natural or bal)

1N-2C, (11-13, forces 2D)

2D-2N, (forced, forces 3C)

3C-3S, (forced, GF 3-4-1-5 or similar shapes)

 

1D-1H, (artificial, natural or bal)

1S-2D, (natural, artificial GF)

2N-3C, (5 clubs, asking)

3D-3H, (4135, asking)

 

There is far far more room after 1D-1H than 1D-2D.

[1eyedjack]

Much is said about how 2m raise cramps bidding space compared with 1M. In isolation, it does. But the true measure of how much bidding space is consumed by a method is not the space consumed by the first bid to start describing your hand, but rather by the last bid that you make on completing the description of your hand. To take a simple analogy, we are taught to open 1S rather than 1H with normal opening values and 5-5 in the majors. 1H is actually a cheaper opener than 1S. But by the time you have shown both suits, you end up cheaper by having opened 1S and rebid 2H than by having opened 1H and rebid 2S.

 

Furthermore, if you have already found, and in particular expressed, a forcing raise at the level of 2m, you can afford to have consumed more bidding space than where one partner is unaware of a fit and has to bid on the assumption that a fit has yet to be located.

 

Both methods are playable, but in my experience responding 1M adds dramatically to the complexity of the follow-up sequences on which you need to agree in order for responder subsequently to describe his hand accurately (contrasted with the raise), not least because you have to cater for several possible rebids that opener might make, including (for example) raising your major on 3 cards, or various reverses. Even simply rebidding his minor can create problems in the "catchup". They are not insurmountable problems, but purely natural followups will leave a number of grey areas that become more black-and-white via a direct minor raise.

 

I think it unusual that the "standard" method should be the one that promotes complex followup continuations, but perhaps in standard methods you are content with grey followups.

[Zelandakh]

Any reason why we could not use the first step for all balanced hands (or unbalanced if you prefer) with the 2 level for fit-showing and the 3 level for stopper-asking? It seems that this way we would get the advantages both sides are talking about (mostly good shape information from both hands) without giving up very much. Over 1♦ - 2♦, if 2♥ shows any balanced hand then we need (i.a.) an inversion with 2NT showing hearts and an unbalanced hand. I daresay most pairs could remember this sort of thing though.