[straube]

So we're playing a forcing club, 5-cd major system with semi-forcing NT.

Our response to 1S includes

2H-good raise with 3
2S-bad raise with 3

I'm thinking that we might define these raises differently based on vulnerability

NV

2H-three trump, constructive or LR (9-bad 13), LR bids again
2S-less than 8, could have four trump

V

P-three trump and less than 8
2H-three trump LR
2S-constructive raise

With a weak raise of the major vulnerable, I'm not sure that I want to remove us from our 5-3 major suit fit to 1N. Sure, the 1N tells partner we have something, but we don't have a lot and can choose to compete later to the 2-level.

Any advice?

[ArtK78]

Putting both the constructive raise and the limit raise into the 2♥ response to 1♠ will create problems in competition. You will have to define later actions to differentiate the two.

But the obvious question is what do you do with 5 hearts and invitational or forcing to game values in response to a 1♠ opening?

[straube]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-06, 09:39, said:

Putting both the constructive raise and the limit raise into the 2♥ response to 1♠ will create problems in competition. You will have to define later actions to differentiate the two.

But the obvious question is what do you do with 5 hearts and invitational or forcing to game values in response to a 1♠ opening?

We respond 2D with hearts (constructive with 6 or GI with 5+) or 2C (GF relay) with 5+ hearts.

Do you think we should define our 2H vs 2S raises differently based on vulnerability?

[ArtK78]

I don't recall seeing any structure that had different definitions of raises based on vulnerability.

I play a light opening structure when not vulnerable. Therefore, the ranges for various raises (and natural notrump calls) are 2 points heavier when not vulnerable as opposed to vulnerable. But they mean the same thing.

For example, a limit raise when vulnerable is roughly 10-11, while a limit raise when not vulnerable is roughly 12-13 as the lower limit on our opening bids is 12 when vulnerable but 10 when not vulnerable. But the meaning is still the same - pass if minimum, bid more if you have extras.

[awm]

If you use 2h=9-12 and 2s=5-8 you should be able to avoid having responder bid again and keep fitted hands out of 1nt. Both these ranges are comparable to the standard 6-9.

It seems that passing 1s with 5-7 and fit could miss a game sometimes, although I guess it depends how aggressively you upgrade shapely hands (like 6-5 13-count) into your strong opening.

[straube]

awm, on 2012-June-06, 12:30, said:

If you use 2h=9-12 and 2s=5-8 you should be able to avoid having responder bid again and keep fitted hands out of 1nt. Both these ranges are comparable to the standard 6-9.

It seems that passing 1s with 5-7 and fit could miss a game sometimes, although I guess it depends how aggressively you upgrade shapely hands (like 6-5 13-count) into your strong opening.

We don't really upgrade those 6-5s to 1C. Opener pretty much needs 9 QPs to avoid extreme distortion with our reverse relays (our base is actually 10 but we're alert for the occasional 9). So yeah, we might miss out on occasional games by passing 5-7s vul.

It seems like it ought to be a little bit analogous to 1m (1S) P ? where 1S is also a limited hand (8-15 or so?) and a raise is ? I'm thinking a raise is like a good 6-ct or so.

Currently we're using 2H for 9-13 and then bidding again with 12-13. Obviously with some of these we're just bidding game outright. I feel like we should make use of 3-level invites but that they should be infrequent.

[glen]

Consider it from the opponents:

1♠(limited)-P-2♠(bad)-?
1♠(limited)-P-2♠(bad)-P-P-?

In a strong field you will almost never play 2♠ when it is right for you

[straube]

glen, on 2012-June-06, 15:59, said:

Consider it from the opponents:

1♠(limited)-P-2♠(bad)-?
1♠(limited)-P-2♠(bad)-P-P-?

In a strong field you will almost never play 2♠ when it is right for you

I'm sure that's right. The point of it is that (aside from landing in the wrong suit sometimes) if they always compete over 2S they won't know when to play a part score and when to play game.

Meckwell used to play (in conjunction with a forcing NT which I think they don't play any more) that....

NV vs V raise was 2-10 if Qxx or better
all white was 4-10 if Qxx or better
V was 8-bad 11

Not sure what bearing this has on what we're doing except that vulnerability might matter.

[awm]

I've found that strong opponents let me play 2s a lot after 1s-pass-2s. Probably more than weak opponents. Competing to the three level is dangerous!