straube said:
Mea culpa -- bad presumption on my part that it was an IMP adaptation.
straube said:
Bidding frameworks have both subjective and objective elements. My personal evaluation of the IMP ♦ structure probably stems from the fact that Adam's preferences in the former align more closely with mine.
That said, let's start off my comparing some specific responses:
1♦ - 1♥ (showing 2+ vs. showing 4+):
You seem to think that this is a very playable method, and while you may be right,it's very unpalatable to me. Also, there are some objective concerns that can be raised about the soundness of this method in competition. For example, consider an auction like 1♦ - 1♥ - (3♦) and give opener a balanced hand with say 2=4=3=2 and responder a GF hand with say 5-5 in rounded suits and a diamond stopper. If responder guesses to bids 3N, we have lost our 9 card heart fit.
Granted, it's possible to invent all sort of agreements to alleviate the problem, but the point is that I would rather play the more natural method unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.
1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (showing 3+ vs. showing 4+):
Once again, there are concerns about what happens in case of interference and frankly, in the absence of an actual frequency analysis, it's really difficult for me to accept a method that adds more complexity.
straube said:
Off the top of my head, it seems that
1D-1S, 2D-2S*
.....2N-0445
..........3C-invite
..........3D-QP ask
.....3C-0454 min
..........p/3D-invites
..........3H-QP ask
.....3D-1453 max
..........3H-QP ask
.....3H-0454 max, 6
So it's not the main thing, but complexity is a consideration.
Once again, this is a very relay centric world view. In the first place, we have a hand limited to 15 HCPs facing an invitational hand. Why is important to resolve complete shape instead of just bidding game or signing off?
To me, trying to fit relays into every bidding sequence adds an enormous amount of complexity.
straube said:
Sure, it was good to get the clarification, but note that this was partly the reason for preferring the reverse Flannery responses over 1D. Yes, hands that respond 1N with a stiff spade may occasionally run into a problem, but in the absence of specific information about the frequency of such problems, I don't see any need to propose a solution that might result in a worse problem.
straube said:
No argument there; it fits my subjective criteria for parsimony and more importantly, it's battle worn. Personally, I would rather start off with a known quantity and tweak it based on actual results.