how high? (nz teams)

[pescetom]

We lack a little sth for a splinter. So it will be a heavy raise to 4S. LHO, your turn.

Cyberyeti wouldn't have to work too hard to invent a hand that makes slam, but reluctantly I agree.

[mikeh]

K10xxx Axx x xxxx

 

Way to good for 4S

 

Catch Axxxx x Axxx AKx and how can he move over 4S?

 

Absent 3N (which I have as too good for 4S, not good enough to splinter), I make a limit raise, hopefully in a way that promises 4+ support.

 

I play different structures with different partners. With one I bid 3C, limit with shape, and with the other I bid 3H, 4 card limit. But playing Bergen, I’d bid 3D.

 

Only if I couldn’t show the 4th spade with my limit would I blast 4S (assuming I don’t have my 3N treatment available)

[Cyberyeti]

K10xxx Axx x xxxx

 

Way to good for 4S

 

Catch Axxxx x Axxx AKx and how can he move over 4S?

 

Absent 3N (which I have as too good for 4S, not good enough to splinter), I make a limit raise, hopefully in a way that promises 4+ support.

 

I play different structures with different partners. With one I bid 3C, limit with shape, and with the other I bid 3H, 4 card limit. But playing Bergen, I’d bid 3D.

 

Only if I couldn’t show the 4th spade with my limit would I blast 4S (assuming I don’t have my 3N treatment available)

 

Would you bid 4♠ opposite a potentially 4 card spade ?

[DavidKok]

I was assuming the 2/1 style discussed here before - 3m natural INV NF, 1NT SF. If 3♠ is weak and 2NT GF then there is no way to show a limit raise with a fourth trump - the closest would be 1♠-1NT; 2x-3♠ showing the limit raise. The 3NT convention shines again, but missing that I prefer 4♠ to this limit raise auction.

[apollo1201]

K10xxx Axx x xxxx

 

Way to good for 4S

 

Catch Axxxx x Axxx AKx and how can he move over 4S?

 

Absent 3N (which I have as too good for 4S, not good enough to splinter), I make a limit raise, hopefully in a way that promises 4+ support.

 

I play different structures with different partners. With one I bid 3C, limit with shape, and with the other I bid 3H, 4 card limit. But playing Bergen, I’d bid 3D.

 

Only if I couldn’t show the 4th spade with my limit would I blast 4S (assuming I don’t have my 3N treatment available)

Ok you guys all have a 4-cd limit raise conventional bids and I don’t. Because I don’t wanna be left in 3S. I could bid 2NT 3 cd limit (or very flat GF that wants to propose 3NT despite the 5-3 fit if partner refuses the invite) but it would be a bid distortion. And partner could imagine more defense and more S cashing against 5D by opps.

 

My partner doesn’t like bids that can trigger a cheap overcall below 3M or a lead directing X. So 3S is the only limit with 4-cds.

 

Is that fear overrated? Or too old school?

[mikeh]

Would you bid 4♠ opposite a potentially 4 card spade ?

I would not voluntarily play a 4 card major system. I did, many years ago, in the context of a big club method. Not bad at matchpoints, but terrible for imps, imo. There’s just so much more one can build into ones methods in 2/1, for game and slam bidding.

 

So I can’t really answer the question, if I’m basing my answer on experience.

[mikeh]

Ok you guys all have a 4-cd limit raise conventional bids and I don’t. Because I don’t wanna be left in 3S. I could bid 2NT 3 cd limit (or very flat GF that wants to propose 3NT despite the 5-3 fit if partner refuses the invite) but it would be a bid distortion. And partner could imagine more defense and more S cashing against 5D by opps.

 

My partner doesn’t like bids that can trigger a cheap overcall below 3M or a lead directing X. So 3S is the only limit with 4-cds.

 

Is that fear overrated? Or too old school?

Both

[Winstonm]

I would not voluntarily play a 4 card major system. I did, many years ago, in the context of a big club method. Not bad at matchpoints, but terrible for imps, imo. There’s just so much more one can build into ones methods in 2/1, for game and slam bidding.

 

So I can’t really answer the question, if I’m basing my answer on experience.

Are you including Canapé systems? I never played the early Italian systems, while the Blue Team stars did not abandon that style until Wei hired them to promote Precision, at least from how I remember it. Of course their success especially early on may have been due to playing a forcing club rather than anything to do with Canapé.

[mikeh]

Are you including Canapé systems? I never played the early Italian systems, while the Blue Team stars did not abandon that style until Wei hired them to promote Precision, at least from how I remember it. Of course their success especially early on may have been due to playing a forcing club rather than anything to do with Canapé.

I played a canapé style, mostly as a joke,for a few sessions. Fixed Barry Crane one time. He wasn’t happy

 

But never put in the work to make it even close to ok. I think it’s heavily flawed. Canapé worked best, imo, when the opps stay out of the auction, which was fairly normal 50-60 years ago, and when preempting wasn’t remotely the way it is now.

 

One used to (usually) have time and space to show the main suit. These days, not so much:)

[Cascade]

Would you bid 4♠ opposite a potentially 4 card spade ?

 

I would not voluntarily play a 4 card major system. I did, many years ago, in the context of a big club method. Not bad at matchpoints, but terrible for imps, imo. There’s just so much more one can build into ones methods in 2/1, for game and slam bidding.

 

I played four card majors reasonably successfully for many years. I think it depends on precisely what style of four card majors you open. For example, with a 4=2=3=4 shape do you open 1♠ or 1♣? You could do both in a four card major system and each has advantages and disadvantages. The style I played 1Ma was five cards most of the time, 1♥ less often than 1♠. I think that is right as you want the higher bid to be slightly better defined.

 

As for the original hand in this thread, I play an invitational splinter at 3♦. This hand looks perfect for that. We should get to 4♥ most of the time but be able to stay low opposite misfitting minimums. It is also a springboard to slam if partner has a good hand. Occasionally it might leak information if they outbid us in spades but again there is a flip side and the singleton diamond might roadmark the defence.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&e=skt532hat8d4c9642&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1sp3cp3sp]133|200[/hv]

 

We have 3♣ (10-11) 3♦(6-9) available to show a 4 card raise here.

I'm still uncomfortable showing a limit raise and then bidding game over partners sign off, I don't think the hand is strong enough, or perhaps my thinking or the rest of our system is off whack.

 

I was assuming the 2/1 style discussed here before - 3m natural INV NF, 1NT SF. If 3♠ is weak and 2NT GF then there is no way to show a limit raise with a fourth trump - the closest would be 1♠-1NT; 2x-3♠ showing the limit raise. The 3NT convention shines again, but missing that I prefer 4♠ to this limit raise auction.

I've been playing with, and posting hands from a few different partnerships recently. My fault for not including the approaches here sorry.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87hkj63dk985cak7&w=saq964h752daj6cj5&n=sjhq94dqt732cqt83&e=skt532hat8d4c9642&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1sp4sdp5dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This was our auction, of course as soon as my LHO doubled I wondered if I had made a mistake not showing a limit raise.

[DavidKok]

I'm still uncomfortable showing a limit raise and then bidding game over partners sign off, I don't think the hand is strong enough, or perhaps my thinking or the rest of our system is off whack.

I agree that that approach has flaws. Of course if you have a fifth spade on the auction 1♠-3♦* (Bergen); 3♠-? you are law protected to raise. Also now that partner knows your strength they are well placed to make a decision over possible interference on the 5-level. However, the argument is somewhat flawed. If the opponents were going to enter the bidding they might well have done so already, so it is unlikely partner will have to deal with this. Furthermore, I know several partnerships that play some kind of doubt-showing bids over 1M-3m (Bergen), where the bids between the Bergen raise and 3M are reserved to say 'Partner, I don't want to push to game but I have some extras. What do you think?'. With that agreement the 3M rebid shows a total bust (except for 1♥-3♦*, where you do not have such luxuries), and you should pass and pray to make it.¹

 

In short, I think you have a real problem. The artificial limit raise at least keeps partner in the loop, but with an extra trump you have more playing strength than the bid suggests. Jumping to 4 can work out well (as it did here, but it would not occur to me to double on the West hand) but partner will often take the wrong action over 5-level interference.

 

¹Of course as soon as you adopt this line of reasoning 4M will be on every single time thanks to your extra shape.

[jillybean]

Furthermore, I know several partnerships that play some kind of doubt-showing bids over 1M-3m (Bergen), where the bids between the Bergen raise and 3M are reserved to say 'Partner, I don't want to push to game but I have some extras. What do you think?'. With that agreement the 3M rebid shows a total bust (except for 1♥-3♦*, where you do not have such luxuries), and you should pass and pray to make it.¹

Another reason to swap the traditional response so that 1♥ - 3♦ shows the weaker Bergen raise.