[bluecalm]

Recent thread about weak twos was very interesting to me so here is another thing I need help with.

Common sequence is:
1m - 1M
2M

I play precision so 1m is 1♦ and it doesn't promise diamonds. Same situation is very common in polish club where 1♣ is 12-14unbal. I guess the system after better minor 1♣ isn't that much different.

So what do you play here which allows to comfortable slam exploration as well as inviting/choosing games ?

Take into account that we almost never raise with 3M here (the only exception is exactly 3♠-4♥-5♦-1♣ shape after 1♠ response)

[gwnn]

Honestly I think all systems suck here, I never found even one that remotely appealed to me. 2NT relay with 3min/3max/4min/4max sucks but nothing is really better. For your case this structure is especially bad because you will rarely have 3. I would just try natural bidding with responder promising 5 cards if he bids 3x (i.e. 5/4)?

[awm]

Well, I raise on three-card support a lot so my methods are slanted towards that. I play:

2NT = game try with only 4M; not forcing
---> 3M = minimum, four-card support
---> 4M = maximum, four-card support
---> Pass = minimum, three-card support
---> Other bid = maximum, three-card support, as natural as possible

3M = game try with 5(+)M; not forcing

Suit other than the major, non-jump = natural and game forcing
---> 3M = confirms four-card support
---> 3NT = three-card support with shortness/weakness in responder's second suit
---> Else = three-card support, as natural as possible

Jump in suit other than the major = splinter, slam interest opposite the right hand

3NT = choice of games, promises controls in the unbid suits (else bid 3-new suit)

[Apollo81]

(Slightly off topic) the following was suggested recently for standard bidding in this auction, and it seems like a good idea and is one I haven't heard before:

1m-1M-2M-step asks about the raise

with a minimum 3-card raise, opener makes an as-natural-as-possible non-reverse bid. this bid can be passed or corrected to another contract below 3 of the major
e.g.
1♦-1♠
2♠-2NT
3♣ (something like 3154 or 3244 and a minimum, responder could pass or bid 3♦ or 3♠ to play)

1♦-1♥
2♥-2♠
2NT (something like 2344 and a minimum)

1♣-1♠
2♠-2NT
3♣ (the only bid to show a minimum 3-card raise in this sequence)

with a maximum 3-card raise, opener makes an as-natural-as-possible reverse bid

1♦-1♠
2♠-2NT
3♥ (the only bid to show a maximum 3-card raise)

1♣-1♠
2♠-2NT
3♦ (something like 3145 and a maximum)

with a minimum 4-card raise, opener bids 3 of the trump suit

with a maximum 4-card raise, opener bids 3NT (responder can cuebid over this with a slam try)

[shevek]

Like Adam, I like all natural so 2NT non-forcing.
In particular
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠ could be checking out the 4-4 fit, avoiding the 4-3

As opener, (if I open a Precison 1♦) I raise to 2♥ with
♠Axxx  ♥Kxx  ♦xx  ♣Axxx

[dake50]

Do I have a catchall force (new minor, or like) to use with middling+ hands?
Leaving just minimums in the 2M raise.
Or is 2M raise continued it by guess by golly?

[hanp]

I now play that 2NT is a general invite, and all other bids are slam tries.

After 2NT, responder bids naturally below 3M with 3-card support, 3M with a minimum and 4-card support, and higher with 4-card support and more than a minimum.

[Phil]

I don't know why 2♠ / 2N as an asking bid gets dissed the way it does. You get a lot of useful information for game or slam bidding although you can't stop in 2N or 3 minor, which doesn't feel like a big loss to me.

I know the CGC likes to play this as a natural invite, but its pretty useful to keep 3x as an invite / slam try but promising eight trump.

[awm]

Phil, on Jun 8 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

I don't know why 2♠ / 2N as an asking bid gets dissed the way it does. You get a lot of useful information for game or slam bidding although you can't stop in 2N or 3 minor, which doesn't feel like a big loss to me.

My main issue with this method isn't actually the need to stop in 2N. The problem is that it's extremely important to be able to explore for the right game contract. The typical responses to this inquiry tell you whether partner raised on three or four, but they don't tell you why partner raised on three. For example, suppose that responder has a game-going 4333 hand with KQT of clubs and xxx of hearts. He hears 1♦-1♠-2♠, bids 2NT to find out whether partner has four trumps, and hears that partner has only three. If partner has a singleton or small doubleton heart, then 4♠ is likely best. If partner has singleton or small doubleton club, then we want to play 3NT. How do we tell after 1♦-1♠-2♠-2N(asking)-3♦(max three-card support)? In my methods it is easy to bid 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♣(good clubs GF) and partner bids 3NT with short/weak clubs and something else (like 3♦ or 4♣) with short/weak hearts. Of course, if I have five spades and just want to know about the degree of partner's support for slam purposes, I can always bid my strongest side suit and hear 3♠ from partner (four-card support) or something else (three-card support, plus other useful info) and I might even find a better strain for slam this way (say I have a 5134 and hear 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♣-4♣: now I know that partner has little wasted in hearts and four-card clubs, probably some 3244 with two little hearts, and I can look for 6♣ rather than a spade slam). Even on invitational hands (assuming opener is accepting the invite) I get this kind of useful information out of partner. Stopping in 2NT is just a bonus.

[eyhung]

I would just like to say that I've been playing awm's style of responses here for over a year now in the context of frequent raises on 3 and I love it. It's easy to remember, natural, and allows both partners to use their judgement in choice of games. However, it may not be a good fit for the OP who almost never raises on 3. If you adopt a strict 1m 1M 2M raise style that practically guarantees 4, adopting your 1M 2M game try structure in 1m 1M 2M auctions may be the best mix of simplicity and effectiveness.

[Siegmund]

Quote

If you adopt a strict 1m 1M 2M raise style that practically guarantees 4, adopting your 1M 2M game try structure in 1m 1M 2M auctions may be the best mix of simplicity and effectiveness.

This is what I do.

In fact, the problem of finding good followups when the raise to 2M doesn't unequivocally set trump is one of the reasons I stick to a raising style that virtually promises 4-card support.

[eyhung]

The problem of "finding good followups" was solved for me by awm's structure. Having played both styles, I think it's far better to be able to raise on 3 coupled with a structure like awm's than to require a raise on 4 with standard game try structures. My partnerships now get a lot more partial and game strain decisions right. Note that there needs to be good judgement applied on when to raise on 3 and in choosing the best strain later -- if you have lousy judgement, better stick with a strict 4-card requirement to raise.

[Free]

I play the following after 1m-1♠-2♠-2NT:
3♣ = min, 3♠, bal
3♦ = 4♠, bal (now 3♠ is NF)
3♥ = 3♠, 0-1♥
3♠ = 3♠, 0-1Om
3NT = max, 3♠, bal
4m = max, 5422
4Om = 4♠, 0-1Om
4♥ = 4♠, 0-1♥
4♠ = min, 5422

Something similar after 1m-1♥-2♥-2♠:
2NT = 4♥, bal (now 3♥ is NF)
3♣ = min, 3♥, bal
3♦ = 3♥, 0-1Om
3♥ = 3♥, 0-1♠
3♠ = max, 3♥, bal
3NT = 4♥, 0-1♠
4m = max, 5422
4Om = 4♥, 0-1Om
4♥ = min, 5422

I'm quite happy with it. Basically we can show pretty much everything: 3M or 4M, min or max, shortness or balanced or 5422. I can play 3m if opener is min bal with 3M, it rightsides 3NT, and we have lots of information in other cases. 3M with shortness can't show the difference between min and max, but that's acceptable.

Biggest disadvantage is when responder has an invitational hand with 4M and no fit for opener's minor. Another one is that we can't ask why partner raised in case he's balanced with a 3 card M (he has a weak doubleton, but we can't find out where). To solve this you can give up the ability to play 3m when opener is min bal with 3M, but then you'll be scared when you hold an invite...

[Crunch3nt]

awm, on Jun 7 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

Well, I raise on three-card support a lot so my methods are slanted towards that. I play:

2NT = game try with only 4M; not forcing
---> 3M = minimum, four-card support
---> 4M = maximum, four-card support
---> Pass = minimum, three-card support
---> Other bid = maximum, three-card support, as natural as possible

3M = game try with 5(+)M; not forcing

Suit other than the major, non-jump = natural and game forcing
---> 3M = confirms four-card support
---> 3NT = three-card support with shortness/weakness in responder's second suit
---> Else = three-card support, as natural as possible

Jump in suit other than the major = splinter, slam interest opposite the right hand

3NT = choice of games, promises controls in the unbid suits (else bid 3-new suit)

It is important to allow a 1m-1H; 2H-3H non-invitational raise. It doesn't matter so much in spades as the opponents have to balance to the 3-level but is mandatory in hearts. This method does not seem to allow this.