[foobar]

In context of a limited opening system with 5-card majors, has anyone tried played 2M-1 as LR or GF? Basically, the idea when playing 1N NF, it can be used to replace the 3-card LR that's shown by 1M - 1N (forcing) - <blah> - 3M.

So for example:

1♠ - 2♥ (GF or LR) - 2♠ -> would reject a 3-card LR (now 3♠ shows a 4-card LR, and anything else is GF)
1♠ - 2♥ - (GF or LR) - <blah> - GF

Thoughts?

[awm]

Sam and I looked at this for a bit and decided we’d rather put the GF in our relays and have 2M-1 as just limit.

1. If it’s just limit, opener can blast 4M a lot, which reduces information on hands that should just play game.
2. Relays give us better GF sequences, and opponents don’t seem to interfere often.
3. It’s nice to have a forcing pass sometimes when opponents do come in, and for us a relay response establishes that and a limit raise does not.

[mw64ahw]

I play this in my transfer approach as 3-card support constructive or better or GI with 5+♥. Opener bids 2NT upwards if they would raise a limit raise to game. The various bids show shape focusing on the number of ♥. I prefer 2M+1 to show the 4-card LR or better
If you re-value you hand with 4-card support then I'm not sure much is gained from moving to the 3-level

[foobar]

mw64ahw, on 2023-September-30, 17:00, said:

I play this in my transfer approach as 3-card support constructive or better or GI with 5+♥. Opener bids 2NT upwards if they would raise a limit raise to game. The various bids show shape focusing on the number of ♥. I prefer 2M+1 to show the 4-card LR or better
If you re-value you hand with 4-card support then I'm not sure much is gained from moving to the 3-level

Can you elaborate on the structure? Seems like the 5+♥ GI is relevant after a 1♠ opening.

[DavidKok]

I think structures like this are a trap. You lose the the ability to have a good dialogue facing a game force or slam try. In a limited opening context especially where the option to just blast 4M exists the limit raise is a really narrow target. Also the structure is vulnerable to interference - what are your continuations over 1♠-(P)-2♥-(3♦)?

Making opener assume the limit raise is constraining when opener has extra shape. You are also building the rebid structure to cater primarily to the less frequent option. And all that to fix the limit raise, which can often go low (1NT) or high (4M) or just play something like Maas or 3-card Bergen if you really must.

Using 1♠-2♥ as NF constructive can be nice, though quite rare (keep in mind that opener had a rebid over 1NT with an unbal hand, so you really only gain when opener had 5♠332 and 1NT is bad but also responder could not force to game facing that). I think most of the structures with multi-meaning 2/1 bids are trying to get a free lunch, and their main appeal is that they are sufficiently complicated (e.g. in competition, or facing non-fit shape hands) that their downsides are not obvious when drawing them up.

[DavidKok]

I forgot to add that you can also lose by accepting the limit raise with extra shape/ playing strength in spades, only to find that partner had the GF hearts option and you've just preempted yourself on a misfit auction. Getting those COG decisions right is difficult.

[mw64ahw]

foobar, on 2023-September-30, 17:29, said:

Can you elaborate on the structure? Seems like the 5+♥ GI is relevant after a 1♠ opening.

This is what I concocted after a previous discussion on this website about transfer approaches. This leaves 1♠-2♠ free to be pre-emptive or otherwise

After 1♠-2♥

• 2♠ not strong enough to play in 3♠ opposite a constructive raise. i.e. less than 13hcp & 6.5 modified losers
• 2NT Other
• 3♣ 5224,5242
• 3♦ 3+♥
• 3♥ 6+♠ w. 2♥
• 3♠ 6+♠ w. ♥splinter

After 1♠-2♥-2♠

• 2NT GI 5♥
• 3♣ GF 5+♥
• 3♦Just shy of GF LR
• 3♥ Good LR
• 3♠ LR

[foobar]

mw64ahw, on 2023-September-30, 22:28, said:

This is what I concocted after a previous discussion on this website about transfer approaches. This leaves 1♠-2♠ free to be pre-emptive or otherwise

After 1♠-2♥

• 2♠ not strong enough to play in 3♠ opposite a constructive raise. i.e. less than 13hcp & 6.5 modified losers
• 2NT Other
• 3♣ 5224,5242
• 3♦ 3+♥
• 3♥ 6+♠ w. 2♥
• 3♠ 6+♠ w. ♥splinter

After 1♠-2♥-2♠

• 2NT GI 5♥
• 3♣ GF 5+♥
• 3♦Just shy of GF LR
• 3♥ Good LR
• 3♠ LR

Seems like one potential weakness is that the 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ can be on 5+♠. Since 2N shows 5+♥, it might take us out a making 2♠ contract, and the 3-level or 2N might not play as well.

[mw64ahw]

foobar, on 2023-September-30, 23:30, said:

Seems like one potential weakness is that the 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ can be on 5+♠. Since 2N shows 5+♥, it might take us out a making 2♠ contract, and the 3-level or 2N might not play as well.

True, but then you may get a better part score playing 2NT. You can also make 2NT GF, but then you have the challenge of finding the ♥ fit at a lower level and then inviting. Also 2NT only shows 5♥ as I put the 6 card invitational ♥ hands through 2♦. You also get the same downside playing 2/1 GF, where 2NT invites when 2♠ may play better

Versus the 3-level though you have the same issue if partner shows a limit raise via the more traditional 1NT. You can tighten to 13hcp and 6 modified losers (usually 6♠ or 55) which should make the 3-level safe.

[PrecisionL]

I have been experimenting with 1M - 2♣ as LR or better without 4-cd M support. Interesting possibilities.

Like Drury by unpassed hand. Interferes when responder has long clubs.

[giorgis_di]

foobar, on 2023-September-30, 15:21, said:

In context of a limited opening system with 5-card majors, has anyone tried played 2M-1 as LR or GF? Basically, the idea when playing 1N NF, it can be used to replace the 3-card LR that's shown by 1M - 1N (forcing) - <blah> - 3M.

So for example:

1♠ - 2♥ (GF or LR) - 2♠ -> would reject a 3-card LR (now 3♠ shows a 4-card LR, and anything else is GF)
1♠ - 2♥ - (GF or LR) - <blah> - GF

Thoughts?

Probably someone has already mentioning, but any how

I think that I saw these responses in an international competition, I believe from Kuklowsci

Responses to 1♥/♠:

a. 2♥ = 6-9 hcp and exactly 3-cards fit in the opening major
b. 2♠ = 10-11 hop and exactly 3-cards fit in the opening major
c. 1NT and rebid 2♥ = 10+ with 5 or more ♥

For a 4-card or longer fit, both bergen and Jacob conventions are used

[Gilithin]

foobar, on 2023-September-30, 15:21, said:

In context of a limited opening system with 5-card majors, has anyone tried played 2M-1 as LR or GF? Basically, the idea when playing 1N NF, it can be used to replace the 3-card LR that's shown by 1M - 1N (forcing) - <blah> - 3M.

So for example:

1♠ - 2♥ (GF or LR) - 2♠ -> would reject a 3-card LR (now 3♠ shows a 4-card LR, and anything else is GF)
1♠ - 2♥ - (GF or LR) - <blah> - GF

Thoughts?

I know this convention from McGann-Hanlon, a very successful Irish pair. Over a limited (max 16) 1♠ opening they play 2♦ as 9+hcp 6+♥ or 10+ hcp and 5+♥ and 2♥ as 3 card support with invite+ strength. With 4 card support they respond 3♦ mixed; 3♣ limit; 2NT GF; 3NT 14+hcp any void; or 4 or a new suit as normal splinters. You can find their continuations on Notes 8-10 of their older CC. Some minor details appear to have been edited out of the current CC.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play in a natural 5 card major system with weak NT, 2M-1 as GF or trash raise or inv. bal. or super strong bal.

It works.

The trick is, to have the various options as different as possible.

With kind regards
Marlowe