[WellSpyder]

I'm thinking of a sequence like
1♦ - 1♥
1♠ - 1NT
2♥

I'm clear that at least for the variety of Acol that I mostly play (in England) this sequence shows extra values - a 4351 15-6 count might be typical. One consequence of this is that a 4351 12 count might simply raise 1♥ to 2♥ rather than bidding 1♠ first. Feel free to disagree that this is how Acol is normally, or should be, played. But I'm more interested in other systems. Specifically:

a) I get the impression that a significant number of Standard American players would not dream of raising a 1♥ response to 2♥ with only 3-card rather than 4-card support. Does that affect the sequence I am talking about, or would the delayed raise to 2♥ still promise extra values?

b) What about Precision? Does the already limited nature of the opening bid mean that it makes more sense just to bid out your shape on these sort of hands with a minimum opening, or would you still expect opener only to bid 3 suits like this with a better hand (presumably more like 14-5 in this case)?

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2011-November-08, 04:27, said:

I'm thinking of a sequence like
1♦ - 1♥
1♠ - 1NT
2♥

a) I get the impression that a significant number of Standard American players would not dream of raising a 1♥ response to 2♥ with only 3-card rather than 4-card support. Does that affect the sequence I am talking about, or would the delayed raise to 2♥ still promise extra values?

I believe you are correct about SA and 2/1 players, when they hold 4-3-5-1. They will rebid 1S, not 2H...then live with the 1NT rebid by responder, unless than have intermediate strength.

[AlexJonson]

WellSpyder, on 2011-November-08, 04:27, said:

I'm thinking of a sequence like
1♦ - 1♥
1♠ - 1NT
2♥

I suspect you are right about 2H showing extras typically, but not so sure that 1S denies a minimum with 3 hearts. I would bid 1S and pass 1NT.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2011-November-08, 04:27, said:

a) I get the impression that a significant number of Standard American players would not dream of raising a 1♥ response to 2♥ with only 3-card rather than 4-card support.

I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but I think there's a distinction between (a) raising with 3-card support and (b) raising with 3-card support whilst suppressing a spade suit. Many people would raise with 1354 but not with 4351.

Continuing the theme of talking of things about which I know very little, I understand that in Standard French it's a crime to raise responder on any hand with 3-card support.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2011-November-08, 06:59, said:

Continuing the theme of talking of things about which I know very little, I understand that in Standard French it's a crime to raise responder on any hand with 3-card support.

Very true, i know some decent French star players in BBO, it is as you said some sort of sin for them. However being able to watch USA nationals on BBO vugraph, some of them admitted (and started to play it actually) that it is not as inferior as they thought it was. Although they still hate to raise with 4432 hands with xx doubleton. To be honest, i am French when it comes to 4432 hands. I never liked it either.

[WellSpyder]

Having seen MrAce's comments in a different thread about people who abandon their own threads, perhaps I could be forgiven for reiterating one Q here:

My reading of the comments above is that there is a consensus that
a) it is normal to bid a 4-card ♠ suit after 1♦ - 1♥ rather than to raise to 2♥ with 3-card support
b) delayed support of ♥ on the 3rd round shows extra values

The corollary of this is that a 4351 minimum opener may well end up in 1N even though 2♥ might well be expected to play better, given the ♣ shortage in the hand with 3 trumps. Presumably this is a price worth paying for being able to have a more effective auction with a 4351 opener with some additional values.

Fair enough. But is there a consensus about whether the same sort of thing applies in something like a strong 1♣ system where the opening 1♦ bid is already limited, or would you be more tempted to bid out the shape with 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ even with, say, an 11-12 count?

[rbforster]

WellSpyder, on 2011-November-10, 09:16, said:

Having seen MrAce's comments in a different thread about people who abandon their own threads, perhaps I could be forgiven for reiterating one Q here:

My reading of the comments above is that there is a consensus that
a) it is normal to bid a 4-card ♠ suit after 1♦ - 1♥ rather than to raise to 2♥ with 3-card support
b) delayed support of ♥ on the 3rd round shows extra values

That's my view as well.

Quote

The corollary of this is that a 4351 minimum opener may well end up in 1N even though 2♥ might well be expected to play better, given the ♣ shortage in the hand with 3 trumps. Presumably this is a price worth paying for being able to have a more effective auction with a 4351 opener with some additional values.

Fair enough. But is there a consensus about whether the same sort of thing applies in something like a strong 1♣ system where the opening 1♦ bid is already limited, or would you be more tempted to bid out the shape with 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ even with, say, an 11-12 count?

In precision, after responder rebids 1N there's no chance for game and I would bid 2♥ with 3 whenever I thought it would play better than NT, especially with a weaker distributional hand.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2011-November-10, 09:16, said:

Fair enough. But is there a consensus about whether the same sort of thing applies in something like a strong 1♣ system where the opening 1♦ bid is already limited, or would you be more tempted to bid out the shape with 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ even with, say, an 11-12 count?

I think this approach is sensible in standard systems too. After 1♦1-♥;1♠-1NT, you can use 2♣ as FSF, covering non-minimum 4351s, 4-6s and 5-6s. This gives up a natural 2♣ bid, but in exchange you get the ability to bid sensibly when you have support for partner's major, with the bonus of exchanging more information on other hands. That seems a good bargain to me.

[kenberg]

I hope that it is not hijacking to offer a specific hand on this theme:

---

I opened a diamond, partner bid a heart. I should?

Friendly game, we have agreed 2/1 and std carding, that's about it.

What I did: I rebid 1♠, partner bid 1NT and I rebid 3♥. It would be nice if 2♥ showed extras, something around this, but I don't know that it does. Partner was not broke and had five hearts, all ended happily. Generally my bidding style is to do whatever seems best and hope it works out, but I am happy to hear about what I should have done.

As a factual matter, with a weaker hand and the same shape I would raise 1♥ to 2♥, at least if the the three card heart holding was strong, so maybe the slow 2♥ should show extras. But of course pard had no idea of my thinking on this.

[han]

If 2H shows extras, you should still bid 3H with this hand imo.

[MrAce]

han, on 2011-November-11, 04:03, said:

If 2H shows extras, you should still bid 3H with this hand imo.

I agree, this hand is way too good, all prime cards and very good spot texture

[Yu18772]

Why not 2♣ shows weaker hands with 3♥ (responder may still prefer to play in ♦), while 2♥ shows really good hands with 3♥?