[Vampyr]

This is a pretty basic question and I’m sure everyone except me has already answered it for themselves.

Let’s say you are playing 5-card majors, weak NT if it matters.

The auction begins 1M - (1♥) — ? Should your non-spade bid (1♠ for us; does this matter?) show 0-3 ♠ or 0-4? If the latter, what continuations would maximise the chances of finding a 4-4 ♠ fit?

[mikeh]

Vampyr, on 2020-March-07, 22:38, said:

This is a pretty basic question and I’m sure everyone except me has already answered it for themselves.

Let’s say you are playing 5-card majors, weak NT if it matters.

The auction begins 1M - (1♥) — ? Should your non-spade bid (1♠ for us; does this matter?) show 0-3 ♠ or 0-4? If the latter, what continuations would maximise the chances of finding a 4-4 ♠ fit?

I’ve played several methods. My preference is:

Double shows 4+ spades. It denies 6+ with invitational or better values. Support doubles are on should advancer bid up to 2H.

1S shows 0-3 spades, denies primary support for opener’s suit, denies a heart stopper. A typical hand would be about an 8 count with 5 cards in the other minor.

2H shows the 6+ spades with invitational or better values (we stole this from an Italian pair)

2S shows a limit raise in opener’s minor

3H forces opener to bid 3N with a normal hand, over which responder may pass or take further action. It does not ask for a stopper.

[nullve]

If you want your system after (1m)-1♥ to be more than a few plies deep, which your system after 1m-(P) presumably is, then you could try to play "system on". For a typical T-Walsh pair, that could mean a scheme similar to the one mikeh gave.

[apollo1201]

Same as Mikeh. I’ve long ago ditched the « advantage » of distinguishing 4 and 5+ S hands. That meant passing hands with comfortable strength, eg w/o stopper and with less than 4S.
Playing 1S is S and X is no S or the reverse is a matter of work. The natural way is more simple but the reverse way often allows a better right siding of the contracts and sometimes lets you show 3-cd support only.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-March-07, 22:38, said:

The auction begins 1M - (1♥) — ? Should your non-spade bid (1♠ for us; does this matter?) show 0-3 ♠ or 0-4?

Our RA does not allow agreement about how understandings vary following an irregularity committed by the opponents

Assuming you meant 1m, it seems logical to me that the spades denial should be 0-3.

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2020-March-08, 02:01, said:

I’ve played several methods. My preference is:

Double shows 4+ spades. It denies 6+ with invitational or better values. Support doubles are on should advancer bid up to 2H.

1S shows 0-3 spades, denies primary support for opener’s suit, denies a heart stopper. A typical hand would be about an 8 count with 5 cards in the other minor.

2H shows the 6+ spades with invitational or better values (we stole this from an Italian pair)

2S shows a limit raise in opener’s minor

3H forces opener to bid 3N with a normal hand, over which responder may pass or take further action. It does not ask for a stopper.

Thanks. We have been playing double shows 4+ spades, but had not heard of that 2♥ bid. I like it. We don’t play support doubles with a weak NT, but perhaps in this auction they might make sense.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2020-March-07, 22:38, said:

(1♠ for us; does this matter?) show 0-3 ♠ or 0-4?

I think it does matter. If 1♠ shows spades then there is some evidence to suggest that 5+ has a tactical advantage. If X shows spades and 1♠ the unbid minor, then I strongly believe that X should show 4+ spades. Where I disagree with Mike slightly (perhaps as he does not mention 2om) is that if 1♠ is our only way of bidding the unbid minor, I do not think it should deny 4 spades, as I want to be able to bid naturally with a GF hand of 5+om and 4♠, so the structure of the 2 level responses is also important to the discussion.

I have to admit I have not seen Mike's 2♥ suggestion before. I have seen 2om suggested for 6+ spades (and various hand strengths) but it may well be that 2♥ offers a better version of that idea, particularly in the 1♦ opening case. It is tempting in this structure to use 1♦ - (1♥) - 2♣ as the limit+ raise rather than 1♦ - (1♥) - 2♠, including GF hands with 5+ diamonds and 4 spades here rather than forcing them to X. Of course, if you keep 2om natural then you do not have much choice and pretty much have to use for your limit raise 2♠ after a 1♣ opening and either 2♠ or 3♣ after a 1♦ opening when 2♥ is taken for another purpose and 2NT is natural.

Finally, to get around the Support X issue in a WNT context, one idea would be to use 2om to cover INV+ hands with precisely 5 spades, meaning that X was specifically 4 or 6+ spades unless weak. I suspect that removing these hands from X would probably be even more beneficial to you than removing the 6+♠ hands is in a SNT context. If you are willing to have 1♠ be your only way of bidding the other minor then you could potentially remove both making X auctions very easy (at a cost of the 1♠ auctions being more difficult). You have to decide for yourself how much artificiality is too much here.