There Aren't Enough Forcing Major Raises

[Winstonm]

Bidding agreements should be designed to differentiate hands so that the right contract can be reached.

This is done by using different bidding sequences.

Obviously the number of different hand types you can differentiate depends on the number of different sequences you have available.

In 2/1 game forcing the lowest contract after 2/1 is 3NT.

A little bidding theory can help here

The number of different sequences almost doubles with each additional step available.

So after 1M-2♣ there are almost twice as many hand types you can show than when the bidding starts 1M-2♦.

So why do we have problems differentiating club hands from balanced hands after 1M-2♣ (Only 2 hand types)?

 

The answer is simple: Standard bidding violates what Rubens has called the "useful space principle (USP) ".

For example after 1M - 2♣ bids being cheap should show frequent common hands and bids which use a lot of bidding space should be specific.

This maximizes the amount of information which can be exchanged. Relay system do this, but you need not play a relay system to accomplish this.

 

Standard bidding does not do this

For example after 1M-2♣ the cheapest bid is 2♦. But in standard this shows 4+ diamonds in openers hand. This requirement is quite specific and makes the bid rare, claiming that at least 50% of openers remaining cards are diamonds.

Nice when opener can rebid 2♦, but making the situation bad when he does not have 4+ diamonds.

More likely opener has a 5M332 distribution, with which most rebid either 2M or 2NT, which is less specific but uses more bidding space.

Simply inverting these 2 bids, say the meaning of 2NT and 2♦, after 1M-2♣ game forcing makes your system more efficient and gives responder room to show what he got.

 

So agreeing that 1M-2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and 1M-2♣ being unspecific with regard to clubs is the way to go, but you have to invest a little bit in your continuations. Standard bidding is not very efficient here.

I have dwelt on this in a bit more detail in a recent Bridgeworld article where I have made suggestions how to improve standard bidding in a 2/1 context.

It is not so important whether you like my suggestions, what is important is to realize that standard continuations are not optimal.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Your point is good. One problem I have had (which may be my bias) with relay systems is that by their nature they assign captaincy when I learned to bid as a cooperative exchange of information.

[nige1]

Duplicate deleted.

[Cthulhu D]

So question:

 

Is the assumption you need more forcing major raises rather than more major raises correct? The other way of looking at it is to make one highly descriptive bid.

 

This maximises pressure on the opponents and gives your partner sufficient information.

 

Rhm's useful space information point is very good though imho. The other advantage of devoting the more expensive bids to a plethora of ways to raise (forcing and not forcing) is it maximises the useful space principle - once you've agreed a fit you have substantially less need for information exchange as you only need to agree level not strain. And if you can squeeze in more level information with the raise, you may need to exchange very little information indeed.